Your response to the comment with the school grades analogy is basically what Picard himself says in First Contact, "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives, we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." It always amazes me how some people can't conceive of a world where people are motivated by anything other than monetary gain. I agree with you, I think most people aren't like that. Or at least they wouldn't be if the economic system allowed it.
I forget what UA-camr did an essay about it, but it is starkly apparent that even well meaning smart people cannot imagine a post capitalist world. Beyond being purposeful propaganda, this was even reflected in the media of the cold war where Soviets are shown as slaves to the state, in the military, or laying about doing absolutely nothing to improve themselves.
I think the question itself was faulty. People aren't "getting an A" just for existing and doing nothing. That is "getting a D", the absolute bare minimum of existence, the smallest point of "passing". If you want anything more than a D then you show up and do the work of study, exercise, character building, etc.
It reminds me a lot of the people who can't conceive of being ethical, moral beings rather than going on murder and rape sprees without the threat of eternal punishment by some omnipotent being. The fact that those people are often one and the same isn't lost on me!
@@Broockle capitalism is inherently exploitive. There are many other models of organized work and society that produces goods but benefits everyone involved rather than funneling profit and resources upward. Look at co-ops in Spain and even ones in America like ACE hardware and Land o Lakes. They are examples to show other things are possible, even if they are forced to engage in market forces influenced by profit as the ultimate priority.
If I didn't have to go to work every day to pay bills I would be growing my own food, writing books, and taking masterclasses , great courses, and curiosity stream! what I great dream sigh ... sniff... well off to work ... " Hi did you find everything you looking for?" Thanks for shopping with us " Hi did you find everything you looking for...
As Steve indicates, the way to think about it is to consider what you'd do if you were rich. Practically everybody has a mental image of the life they would lead if they won the lottery. They imagine doing things like engaging in work that they'd enjoy but which often don't pay well, like being an artist or actor or something. Or they say they'd travel, or go back to school to learn stuff, or take time to read all the great novels, etc. Very few people imagine that after winning the lottery they'd sit in a corner and quietly waste away because they didn't have to struggle to get by. Also worth noting that the are cultural differences here. In modern western culture you're raised constantly exposed to the idea that you work for a living. "The value of a dollar", "a real man supports his family", etc, are all cultural notions we're impressed with all our lives. We tend to think of these things as universal constants of human psychology, but they're really not. It's entirely reasonable that in the Federation people are raised with different ideas, like "you're only a success if you're working to improve yourself" or "bad people do nothing, good people contribute". So pointing out that the Federation society might not work well for us, here today in our cultural context, could be correct - but doesn't prove that it doesn't work for them, in their time and their cultural context.
"why does a painter paint? Why does a boxer BOX? Do you know what Michaelangello used to say? The sculptures he made were already there, before he started, hidden in the marble. All he needed to do was *fsht* remove the unneeded bits. Wasn't quite that easy with you Data, but the NEED to do it, MY need to do it was no different than Michaelangello's need" Remove the need to do menial jobs just to pay bills, and guess what? The Artists can now focus on ART. The writers can now focus on WRITING. The builders can now focus on BUILDING. The dreamers can now focus on dreaming and bringing those dreams to reality. Imagine if John Aaron had remained on the ranch because he had to, instead of getting the opportunity to come to NASA and become one of the most capable flight controllers the organization ever had? (SCE to Aux anybody?). Speaking of NASA, did the great Test Pilots of history seek that job because it was somehow financially lucrative? (except for maybe "Slick" from The Right Stuff) There was no financial benefit to it, in fact they were generally working for peanuts and nobody would sell them life insurance. They did it because they LOVED it. There would be SO MUCH more fulfilment out of life if you were able to do the things you love, instead of forced to do what you hate just to make ends meet.
Man, that would be nice. I'd be doing leather work and general crafty stuff. I also probably wouldn't suffer from depression quite so badly (it might still be there, but not exacerbated by work/lack of time with my family)
@@grahamhaspassedaway4580 note that not all people need to have what is considered "refine" culture. You can read Garfield comics all day and be a expert in the subject. This world do not require to do anything productive, only be yourself. The productive stuff comes as default, no matter if you intended.
Actually, I had a janitor that worked at my elementary school. One day I learned that he had won the lottery some years ago, and was set for life. Turned out that he just liked being a janitor and it gave him something to do during the day.
That's a fascinating story, I've heard similar ones about other lottery winners. I think it's been proven that other than reducing stress about material needs (if you have the ability to maintain your wealth at least, something that sadly many lottery winners struggle with), the happiness you get from having more money is temporary, you need more in your life. Also, I'd like to think that that's the backstory of the janitor in Scrubs 😄
I always found the argument that "If you take away the need to work, life would no longer have any meaning" to be incredibly self-defeating. Like, I'm sorry but I really don't see that as a plot-hole, or some kind of counter argument to Star Trek's ideal future. I see that as real people, here and now, depressingly admitting that they have absolutely nothing to live for. That if it wasn't for their obligation to their job (Which many of them probably don't even enjoy anyway), that they would just lay down and die. I'm with Steve on this. I'm the one who gives my life meaning. There are so many things in my life that I love doing, that I look forward to. Family, friends, hobbies, personal projects... Don't get me wrong, I feel depressed when I have nothing to do. But I don't see work as a solution to that. I always have and always will see work as an obstacle between me and all of the other things I love to do with my time. A necessary evil that I would happily do without, quite frankly. Forgive me if I come off as a little preachy, it's not intended. I'm only trying to say that the argument "If you never had to work, your life would have no meaning" sounds more like you personally are in a bad place, and if so I'm sorry to hear that. But like I said, I've always seen work as an obstacle between me and the rest of my life, not a constructive part of it.
"why does a painter paint? Why does a boxer BOX? Do you know what Michaelangello used to say? The sculptures he made were already there, before he started, hidden in the marble. All he needed to do was fsht remove the unneeded bits. Wasn't quite that easy with you Data, but the NEED to do it, MY need to do it was no different than Michaelangello's need"
My uncle once worked on a long-term contract in a remote region where the employer provided worker habitation and common services. There was this well-stocked grocery store you could go to where you could take anything you wanted and go home. No cash register or anything. No scan-it-yourself or no invoice etc. He couldn't believe his luck. He knew this new job had perks, but this was novel! The first time he went there, he grabbed everything he could and then some, brought it home and... very soon realized he had taken WAY too much and some of the fresh produce would undoubtedly spoil before he got a chance to eat it. On his next visits, he only took what he really needed. When he spoke to his colleagues about this, nearly all of them had had a similar initial experience of it, with everyone making the same mistake of. They all took too much at first and later realized the store wasn't going anywhere. Greed comes from scarcity. It's not an inherent characteristic of human life, but is born out of our material context. The Federation is built upon that concept. When everyone's Pyramid of Needs is fulfilled, and there is no indication of that condition changing tomorrow, then people settle into contentment needing much less luxury than in a world with constant, nagging scarcity. Why hoard anything when it doesn't have monetary worth?
I am not arguing with any of the post scarcity economy. What happens when the 2275 Picard Merlot is especially good and only 75 bottles are left. If there is no money what assigns who gets those bottles. About gold pressed latunum, perhaps ingots, bars, strips when they are created they have a specific individual crystalline structure each is different so if you replicated it - it might be found out as a duplicate.
I think it’s not that money gives their life meaning but more that the fact that things are not free means that people value property and goods and services and will therefore work to earn the stuff that gives them access to those goods and services and property. That stuff happens to be money.
Money is just the means to do the things you need and want peaceably. Family, fast cars helping the downtrodden in short, the things that give your life meaning often require it.
It doesn't give life meaning but it makes life easier when emergencies arise. Back in the day when I was starting my career, I would always stress over strange sounds the car was making, or the fridge was making. I was always one appliance failure away from a bad month. I would obsess over my speed when driving, cuz even two points on my license meant a 100 dollar increase for car insurance. Twenty-five years later, and my life is less stressful. It is the love of money that is bad for you.
Danielle Black I just wanted to add that those who assume that people become inert if they do not (or cannot) work completely ignore the lives and experiences of the disabled. When I was forced to stop working, I found that it was imperative to find ways to develop my mind and contribute. While my disability is not fun, I feel incredibly lucky to have the time and head space to study any and all topics that interest me. I have had the chance to study languages, world and American history, and advanced scientific concepts. I have had the time to fact check the media and to place events in historic context. I do citizen science work, free math and science tutoring, and I love developing my skill set. The truth is that humans can’t live long doing nothing. You would become depressed very quickly. My drive to be the best that I can be did not disappear when I became disabled. Thank you for the great videos!
Also, ferengi pirates, those who have had their license revoked, aren't considered ferengi, and thus their actions do not reflect on the values of ferengi society.
As he pointed out in the video this is Quark's view of Ferengi history and to him making slaves of other species is ok as long as you don't do it to your own kind.
Jose McDuff Quark ain’t alone. Most people I meet have blind-spots when it comes to their own gender politics. Quark takes for granite, I mean granted, the role of men and women in the society that raised him. Just a bundle of unexamined assumptions.
As someone who was mainly in independent studies in HS, I went to classes to hear the teacher teach and still did extra work because I wanted to learn as much as possible and enjoyed it. Even went to classes I wasn't in just because I found them fascinating. So I didn't receive a grade for my drop-in classes.
It's a common thing we Marxists have to explain to people. Right-wingers often try to make it sound like the state would show up and take away your toothbrush.
Regarding the comparison to school and guaranteed "A"s, I think Steve is right on about the mischaracterization of receiving the basic necessities as Acing the class. However, beyond that, it assumes that the only reason to even take a class is to receive a grade. Sure, some kids don't like school at all, but that is likely because of outside influences or the inability of the teacher or subject content to engage the child. Children are innately curious; they want to learn. Our school system doesn't always effectively fulfill that need. Imagine instead a school where the students were empowered to achieve their potential in the subjects that truly engage their desire to learn. It's probably a Federation school.
schools that dont give grades consistently produce smarter, higher performing, happier kids. extrinsic rewards are crippling to a persons motivation, regardless their age whether it be grades or money.
Regarding the Federation economy and people saying "nobody would do anything" -- if I didn't have to spend half my waking hours making someone else profit so I can just tread water, I'd be using that time making video games or other media projects as an entertainer. In other words. Undertaking work that's actually of value *TO ME.*
On your comment about the American education system, I recall a group of American exchange students who came to the UK. They were taught (and were proud) that, in regards to WWII - and I quote - 'America was the first to stand up to the injustice in Europe'. We had to gently remind them (and their egos) that America was in fact one of the last. While America watched from the side-lines, the Nazi regime was aiming to overrun Europe. America came in late into the war following the attack on Pearl Harbour, and guaranteeing the defeat of Hitler. A lot of Europeans to this day still view that late entry as 'sweeping up and taking the glory', while Europe sacrificed a hell of a lot more from Day 1. It's from that experience for me that I knew - and I'm continually shown - that the American education system, at least regarding history and the telling of it's own, is rather poor.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was guaranteed to pass every class I took, I'd take classes that interested me. Of course if my advisor or professor told me I needed something else as a prerequisite too, I'd go do that. And you know what? I'd put in the same amount of work and end up with the same exact degree on my wall.
I think it depends. I went back to school and put in 110% because I enjoyed the classes and the subject matter and felt like it was important to learn what I was being taught because I'd need to know it for my future intended career. But if I were going in for a Math degree and was given a prerequisite of an Underwater Basket Weaving course, yeah, I probably would sign up and then never show and milk my free A, because there's really no value to it - it isn't something I want to do, there's no niche market for underwater basket weavers, and it's not going to help me succeed. And I think that's just fine. I could use that time to focus on the stuff I do want to do. I might pop in to see what it's about, give the minimum of effort, because you never know, maybe underwater basket weaving would become a surprise passion. If I could guarantee a comfortable existence for myself for the rest of my life, I absolutely would quit my job tomorrow. I'd take off into the world and explore, or maybe just go back to school and learn.
Was this in grade school or in University. University tends to be self guided perhaps with counselors but schooling up through high school are probably what's being referenced as it was designed to provide workers for the industrial revolution. Still, in high school, I was often excused from class for already knowing the material. I would typically spend two hours in school over a two day period though I would often have to return to be excused from the next class so I couldn't wander far. Fortunately two shopping centers were accessible by LRT within a few minutes and the trains were at five minute intervals.
@@basiliskxviii - Which is basically what retirees do, isn't it? Most of the middle/upper-middle class folks who retire with enough savings (+ SSI, Medicare, pensions, etc.) to live a comfortable existence for the final 20 or so years of their lives do exactly that......take off into the world, explore, go back to school and learn, etc. New retirees tend to relax and travel for a little while, but shortly thereafter most folks tend to seek out something else societally productive to do with their time. My parents now, and my grandparents before them, have taken classes, volunteered in the community, helped out with family, etc. They even take part-time employment, whether doing something they specifically enjoy or just to have something that will at least keep them active. Retirees don't NEED to work for income any more, and yet the overwhelming majority of them continue to do many positive productive things for society, whether that work comes with any financial compensation or not.
"Family" is one of my favorite episodes because of the end of it. Picards nephew, Robere's son, is outside looking at the stars when in the house his Mother says to her husband "He's still out there, dreaming of space and Starships." Robere replies with a grunt. Marie adds "Its getting late." Robere grunts again and this man , who is dead set against all that 'Federation stuff,' adds "But let him DREAM" (emphasis mine) Then, a subtle version of the classic theme sneaks up on us, and I get goosebumps everytime.
I would love a society where you were defined by what gave you fulfillment, instead of how much you earned (or inherited at birth). If you wanted to focus on linguistics you didn't have to worry about how you were gonna pay the bills, or on the other end if you wanted to own a business (like a wine vineyard) you'd do it because you actually loved the work and "being rich" wasn't the goal in an era where the only limit was Star Trek's advanced technology and your imagination.
If you are an outstanding linguist you will be defined by this achievement. Taking on linguistics is usually a shortcut for many people who dont want to sacrafice anything to be a great linguist and make up many excuses ignoring the fact that reality rewards the best and punishes the mediocre. Taking on just an area is not enough and the free market is a great tool to evaluate if this market is anything worth. You need to do the right thing and do this thing right... Most peoply do just one of theese out of two
Given how much you enjoy the running gag about how little work the comment response video require, perhaps you should call them "Not Even Not Actually Trek, Actually."
He already used that title for his Orville videos, so that wouldn't really fit. Although I am hoping for a Not Even Not Actually Trek, Actually about Galaxy Quest (the true even-numbered Trek movie between Insurrection and Nemesis).
Looking at Star Trek Economy I would always try to find answers based on what Captain Picard said about how “Humanity has move passed the need of hoarding personal possessions”. For example, why doesn’t everyone have a big fancy house? Perhaps because not everyone wants to, perhaps people enjoy a more cozy residence. People live where they want, and they do the job they love to do without the fear of Bankruptcy or social stigma.
It's the bankruptcy part that I think will be difficult to address. The concept of a Universal Basic Income could address poverty, and human nature will still motivate us to do more if we can but some people will still leverage their risks higher for better housing and lifestyle and circumstances may occur where they could no longer earn the additional income for the housing and lifestyle, certainly not on basic income alone. Therefore it would be necessary to include a premium on all expenditures that leverages individual risk and provisions provided to transition people back to a life they can afford on basic income alone. Basically a state and or insurance funded bankruptcy.
Funny, I thought Wesley eventually went back to Starfleet to help guide particular graduates towards their inevitable destiny. He remained anonymous as the wise old grounds keeper Boothby. Also he's been there since 2321, which means Wesley / Boothby lived in his own timeline. You wanna' write a screenplay? 🎬
The question about what would we do if we didn't have to struggle to survive made me laugh, and I loved your response. The sick part is, I always hear that question from people that ARE wealthy enough (or nearly so) to sit around and do nothing, and they don't seem to get the irony in it (or hope we don't)
As an extra point, it did always strike me as amazing that Joseoh Sisko would spend decades cosplaying as an ancient chef. Not just putting on the hat and handing out the food, not just cooking in the kitchen when he felt like it, but scrubbing clams, washing dishes, managing staff. For...70 years? 100? In a world of infinite resources where you can do anything, the people of Earth are pretty conservative with their life choices, at least the ones we see. Of course, with the kind of tech and social organisation in the Federation, it wouldn't matter if the mass of humanity devoted themselves to mindless hedonism, or drifting from failure to failure like Bashir's father. In such a world, a tiny elite - maybe little more than Starfleet and a few civilian engineers and administrators - could provide everything needed to maintain humanity and technical progress. Maybe that's why everyone is so obsessed with their jobs - Joseoh Sisko the chef, Keiko the botanist, Jake Sisko the writer - in the absence of material need, mankind has developed a relentless ethic of self improvement through labour as a scaffold for maintaining a meaningful life over 14 or 15 decades. I often wondered why in a world of limitless abundance and variety, culture, food, sex, holodecks, a world in which presumably there is almost no authority, restriction or coercion, people would join Starfleet. Who would willingly choose obedience to orders, stress and physical danger? Well - because we really are finally confronting the meaning of our lives. Surrounded by ecstatic sybarites and people working a 20th century job in a 23rd century world, whi wouldn't want to get far away and experience real peril and adventure with real consequences, a chance to prove yourself in the grandest possible arena. And no profit motive in sight.
I always figured the civilian workers on exploration ships in TNG (e.g. Mot the barber and Guinan) were artists and poets who traded their services (in menial roles to improve crew morale) in exchange for a berth on the final frontier. They didn't necessarily have the most satisfying or fulfilling day job, but they had an opportunity to broaden their horizons, to witness strange new worlds and to experience some of the greatest inspiration available for their generation (but the whole "apprenticeship to a god-like being" angle could also work)
*I'm sorry for mentioning Voyager in this post:* I would argue that every realm has a *preferred* currency. Prison inmates have their cigarettes. The crew of the U.S.S. Voyager had their replicator rations. Lt. Paris even ran a lottery using rations from participating crewmates. While the odds were that nobody would win the draw, Lt. Paris always got a cut of the proceeds. That is, until Chakotay shut it down. Ethical, yes. Buzzkill, also yes.
But it would make sense,that the replacator use on Voyager was limited,as they had to be careful to use not to much energy/matter.(On whatever those things need to function)
@@slothfulcobra Poker is a fair game where each player had an equal chance to win. Paris's lottery was set up so that the prize would grow with each draw, meaning that if nobody won the draw, the size of the prize would grow. However, Paris retained 10% of what was added to the prize pool for each drawing, meaning he always came out a winner. That was the unethical component of his lottery, he would always win.
damn, what a piece of work NittyBlahBlah is, just ... wow. I will say this in his favor, he knows how to string words together in a totally non-lazy way to make an ill-informed comment.
@@wellingtonsmith4998 The hilarious situation where someone's in such a rush to prove how much smarter they are, they end up proving how incredibly dumb they are instead.
Steve - your economics video was very informative. In then end, it is hard for us to imagine a post-capitalist world because our thoughts and actions are so often determined by capitalism. An example is misunderstanding the difference between personal and private property. Of course, the owners of production benefit from this misunderstanding - "those darn socialists want to take away your tooth brushes!"
It's a common misconception that socialism removes the concept of property ownership and capitalism. This is mostly due to the authoritarian communist countries that promised to provide socialist services through a command economy such as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela and China. These countries have few socialist programs if any, they simply promised socialism. We complain about unfair competition from China due to low wages and a lack of employee rights, basically we're complaining about the lack of socialism in China. Indeed, the country that spends the most per capita on socialist programs though ineffectively is the US. You do not need to change property rights to proceed closer to a socialist utopia but you may have to change the concept of money as it is trading goods and services for some unchanging tokens that allowed the artificial accumulation of resources in the first place. After all, goods often decrease in value over time, produce always rots if not used and labour is of most value when needed and of no value once done while currencies are what economists call fungible, that is it's main strength and main weakness in society. This problem is currently handled by inflation but we've had negative economic effects from inflation in the past so the interest rates are now regulated rather than left to the free market. Conditions can be placed on money with digital currencies and it's interesting to note that early American bank issued currencies(stamps) often had expiration dates. We really need someone like Ben Franklin to debate and influence digital currencies. I see Universal Basic Income and digital currency capable of conditions needed to achieve a Star Trek level of Utopia not changing property rights. However, current blockchain currencies have notable flaws such as the energy cost involved as millions of servers compete to produce an acceptable checksum to entrench a block into the block chain. I think that authorized public notary servers either from government or banks are needed to entrench the blocks into the chain without the wasted computation.
In reference to ContraZombie4. Have you ever had to struggle for basic living requirements? To do so is not living, it is existing from paycheck to paycheck. It is living in this OR that survival. Having to decide between buying food OR paying the electric bill OR getting your vehicle serviced so you can continue to work to not have enough money to meet basic needs. When basic needs are met, living can begin. Living an optimal life that is so much more fulfilling than living in a constant state of need. So bugger off.
The thing about working when the basic living requirements are met is that then the work must not be a means to an end but purpose in itself, for the one doing it. Cleaning someone else's bathrooms, diving in sewage or screwing together identical mass produced screwdrivers is not a purpose in it self to anyone. People would ever only do such a thing on a regular basis when they are forced to. Not guaranteeing the citizens in a society the basic living requirements, is a means to getting the most desperate people to do those jobs which must be done and no one would do them otherwise. In the Star Trek epoch we can assume that such jobs have all ben automatized away, public bathrooms clean themselves, and well we have replicators to replicate screwdrivers and other mass produced items. Now even in our current world which needs those jobs to be done by people, if those jobs would be exceptionally well payed people would still dot hem, because who wants to sattle for basic living requirements anyone wants more than that.
It's always been a dream of mine to just study, study, and study. If money and basic needs weren't such a problem, I'd probably spent most of my adult life in education and learning new things. The pursuit of knowledge. A lot of that could be put to practical use on the side, or taught to others. The world would be my oyster and my anxiety and depression would pretty much be gone.
Nothing can stop you from going to a library and indulging your need to learn, to your heart's desire, for _free._ Libraries have branched out and quite a few offer many more resources than just books and music. Toys, cooking equipment (saw photos of cake pans for loan even), games, study spaces, online classes, homework help for kids, story time for kids, downloading books through Amazon to your Kindle/Kindle app for free on loan (and no late fees; it removes itself at the end of the loan period), DVD's, Blu-Ray, downloading videos on a loan basis... Just a ton more stuff. It might not get you a degree, but nothing stops you from learning to your heart's content.
600 vs trillions? Picard summed that up in Justice: DATA: Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir? PICARD: I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that.
kind of mute point if you have a secret base that is cloaked on the planet, and can transport people to the base to enjoy the effects while they secretly study the fascinating culture of the baku.
Keep in mind that they wanted to rapidly harvest the life extending radiogenic particles and it was the rapid extraction that would make the planet uninhabitable. Slower sustainable extractions was possible but not seen as possible as some of their population would die before enough was harvested. Also, their population were children who had left the planet in the first place so their situation was due to a decision they had made. In my opinion, had they been forthright and asked the 600 living on the planet for the insurance albeit at the inconvenience of rendering the planet uninhabitable for several Millenia then such destruction would be more acceptable, it was the intent to covertly take what they wanted which was wrong.
If Data asked me that question I would have answered differently... DATA: Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir? Me : For what? [DATA opens his mouth to reply] Me : I would rather be in a monogamous relationship than be in that same kind of relationship with a thousand others. That's just too much work. DATA : Perhaps I should clarify sir, I meant saving one life over saving one thousand lives. Me : Why not both? DATA : And if such a thing were not possible? Me : I don't believe in no win scenarios Data. Yes. I would respond to Data with memes.
When it comes to the energy credits a hint to that interesting idea was Sisko saying he used up all his Transporter credits when he was in the academy. Also people do things cause they like many would work to better themself for what ever reason they have chosen. It's the belief system of the Federation and humanity. Though some would go bare minimum and just live off their benefits. But I feel most will do something extra with themselves.
kamenwaticlients In fairness, “transporter credits” could also be referring to some kind of hall pass or home leave at the Academy. You know, some kind of rule like academy student are only allocated half a dozen uses of the long range transporter per semester to ensure the cadets are kept within the local area and aren’t beaming off to the other side of the planet whenever they’re not in class.
The only part of "Ferengi's never had slavery." that makes sense is the purchasing power of slaves. Slaves can't buy anything. I could see Ferengi's not allowing slavery because of that, but allow company scrip pseudo-slavery.
Actually, if the Ferengi are actually free market capitalists who value a strong economy as the means to acquire wealth, then they would foster a strong middle class, as their demand and purchasing power are what power an economy. You can't run a business without a steady and robust volume of paying customers. Slaves don't make or have money. Paying less than a living wage does not create a strong middle class. Therefore, there may be something to Quarks egalitarian view of Ferengi history.
I fully agree about men’s rights activists, and it’s also a good opportunity to bring up something else: menslib, which is basically what the men’s rights movement should have been. The critical difference is that it’s not an anti-feminist movement, it fully supports feminist causes while also seeking to recognize the societal difficulties men face. A good example since it’s actually one of the primary concerns brought up by menslib is societal expectations of men to be stoic and not express emotion or have moments of vulnerability, and how toxic that is especially to young men or those suffering from clinical depression. I recommend you check it out. Also, by the way, love the videos as well as ensigns log, keep doing what you do.
Man... with every video you do, I like you more and more. Thank you, Steve, for eloquently articulating pretty much everything I've been saying about all of this stuff -- Trek economics, Voyager, Last Jedi, politics, Trek in general -- for as long as I can remember.
It's crazy to me that some ppl can't fathom what would motivate ppl to work if their basic necessities were guaranteed. Ppl have higher level wants and desires beyond basic survival, and once a person's physiological needs are met, those higher level desires take over. Pick any human desire beyond survival, and that would motivate ppl. And you don't have to be a "raging liberal" to recognize this and support a system that guarantees basic needs. I'm a libertarian, and I support a guaranteed minimum income system. Decoupling basic survival from work is the ultimate provision of freedom, and would actually serve to enhance free markets by creating a universal BATNA (that's a negotiating term) for any circumstance.
Mark Pompeo nice comment. In my mind I think I’m a libertarian too (at least by my understanding of the definition) but then I see others that claim that moniker that I totally disagree with. I think those that can’t fathom the motivation are similar to those that can’t fathom the idea of having morals despite no god
@@nbuckley282 Yeah, a lot of libertarians suck. The ideological purists who treat physical violence as the only form of aggression, ignoring all sorts of abusive, predatory behaviors that are economic or psychological in nature. And the smug pricks who trot out quotes like, "Any man who would sacrifice an ounce of liberty for a pound of safety deserves neither," ignoring the hypocrisy of claiming to champion individual freedom then turning around and telling people who disagree with them that they don't deserve freedom. I argue with those types a lot. They're the worst.
@@crazypomp927 I agree with all of this. I was a right-leaning Libertarian in my early 20's, and then I grew up. I do agree with a lot of Libertarian philosophy, but a lot of what self-identified "mainstream" Libertarians claim to want is actually self-contradicting and simply impossible in a modern society. Also, many of the most important Libertarian ideals are not feasible without everyone having a basic minimum standard of living.
The "can't be replicated" discussion around 07:00 I think what's most likely is that gold-pressed latinum is likely fractaly designed and possibly registered as diamonds are today. We know that transporter patterns don't hold over time, the pattern degrades. We even know from transporter duplicates that destabilization doesn't happen instantly, the patterns are effectively checked against the original on rematerialization before dematerializing the original. This solves the scarcity problem (registered fractal patterns with intricacies of blemishes from the "pressing" of the latinum serving as the registration number). The fractal blemishing would be the effective analog of our highly precise patterning on bill corners, preventing scanning and printing by inexpensive printers.
When we were kids in school we all had dreams of what we wanted to do when we grew up. None of them included working at a menial job in order to just survive!
That comment about "everybody getting an A"... grades are meant to be a reflection of your grasp of a topic, not a reward. The elites used to think it was useless to teach peasants to read, too.
On Replicator vs Transporter: Afaik both use a pattern then use local material stores to re-assemble that pattern. Replicators have a resolution on the atom scale. Transporters have a resolution on the quantum scale. Hence any pattern that relies on quantum accuracy can only be transported, but not replicated. Technically one could create a quantum scale replicator. Technically one could also materialize a transporter pattern multiple times too. My assumption is that both of those are simply illegal for a huge host of reasons. Materializing the same person multiple times is even more morally questionable than cloning a person would be since it includes their memories and personalities. I'm assuming that quantum resolution replicators would similarly allow the replication of many items or substances that are questionable or dangerous. Dilithium, for example, is a necessity for matter/antimatter reactors. I'd be fairly certain that the federation would want to restrict access to that... Just my thoughts ^.^
Hi. As a Star Trek fan all the way from Cape Town South African I’ve exclusively watched TrekCulture. But now that Ive stubbles onto your videos I’m hooked! Your great sense of humour, mixed with such deep thought out views of the trek universes is refreshing and gave me a far deeper appreciation and insight into this world
I think I forgot to mention this in the Geordi video, but the whole his future self being married to Leah Brahams might not be as creepy as it would look at first glance, as while the novels are only B-canon, in a trilogy of novels called The Genesis Wave, Leah's husband is actually killed by the titular wave, which causes Leah to team up with Maltz from Star Trek III to hunt down the source of the wave and kill the people responsible. If you work in the dead husband part of that into the A-canon, and have Leah actually be the one who approaches Geordi instead of having him try to put the moves on a widow, it could totally work. This doesn't have anything to do with the comments, I just remembered that I'd meant to write something like this earlier and forgot. Probably would've been better if I'd gotten to it at the time, but oh well.
What if it used more power to make the gold-pressed latinum than the worth of the gold-pressed latinum? Luxuries have to be able to buy. Bashir's enhancements were bought. We will Want to learn in the future. Drive to be more can be met when basic survival is not an issue. Philosophy is never a waste of time! Why does life have to be a struggle? Why can't it be a pursuit? I don't think that everybody is motivated for their green pieces of paper. I think that a lot of people actually enjoy what they do. However, these are people that are well compensated. Having all your needs met does not mean living in luxury. It means having everything you're entitled to as a Terran. We become a society of artists, scientists, and philosophers people who follow their soul, rather than their wallet. Humanity would never be more free. However, you are welcome to work. Join Starfleet! Run for office. Join security/fire. Go practice Frontier medicine on Bajor. You can do, or be Anything you want. They will educate you free! The cure for cancer could have been pissed away because we didn't accept the right child into college. That won't happen anymore. Plus, it isn't ours. Humans covet. Needs of the many...
Converting energy to matter is a ridiculous concept. The amount of energy for even a small amount of matter is incredible, that's why they use antimatter. I would presume the replicators simply fabricate products from plasma sources. There's extensive use of plasmas in Star Trek, at least in post TOS Star Trek, they have warp plasma and plasma conduits for power. They likely have a number of plasmas such as hydrocarbons for organic items like food, metal plasmas for objects and hence they can't fabricate dilithium as they would need dilithium plasma, Latium would need Latium in the plasma to produce gold pressed lattium and they would only have enough plasmas for common products. Basically, I see replicators having the equivalent of inkjet cartridges rather than convert energy into matter. If the replicators produced objects from energy, they would be more powerful than the antimatter the warp drive runs on.
In your take on how transporters are different from replicators : I think TNG would disagree with you. In the ep where Picard was kinda possessed by some energy life form or something and sent out into space but needed to come back, Picard's physical pattern was stored in the transporter system (cause that's how he left), Data then had to attempt to recombine his energy pattern with what was left in the pattern buffers. Due to this "new body" Picard has little to no recollection of what happened to him in space. - My thoughts were bc his neural pathways were the same as when he left, bc he had no neurons, thus no neural pathways, in his energy form. There's also something similar in Voyager when they had to hide the telepaths in the pattern buffers. They had no memory of being "incorporeal" then either. Then there's also the "double Riker" bit - again in TNG...need I go on? EDIT : Okay for an industrial replicator : I think size would be the factor here. Like you could use one to replicate smaller ones (like for personal use) or use one to make the parts of another industrial one then put it all together. And wishing for more wishes [from the same jinn] is against the _new_ rules but wishing for more jinn isn't bc they would all be different jinn, not carbon copies - there are many ways to make yourself get more jinn, even by just attracting more jinn to you, obtaining them for "free" having the disappear from where they are and reappear where you, the wisher, are... EDIT 2 : I thought it _was_ explained on cam as "no monetary currency", but there was "reputation as currency", especially since energy would be pretty much free anyways, at least on Earth.
well I do agree with all the social justice and equality thing with tolerance for other genders races and makes things and other things like that right but the economic model is post scarcity and Star trek so I guess I'm considered a conservative Star trek fan Steve shives because I don't believe in being paid and I don't believe in economic corruption or the value of money at all in anything does that make me up a pious religious person that Jean-Luc Picard would hate in one of the Star trek next generation episodes that is so divorced from the world of materialism belt and everything to do with money that Star trek absolutely got passed except for trading with a ferengi? Am I that much of a conservative now to these new age socialists in this world meaning our world the real world that demands money and the censorship of big tech debates online with science and advances that is very progressive and artificial intelligence and in killing off big oil that even the progressive movement on The Young Turks and the social justice warriors on Fox news that hate Islam now want communism and censorship like in China and tiananmen square in 1989 hating atheists and academia types like Carl Sagan? Has Hollywood lost his ever-loving mind have we lost our minds or we all so desperate for the good life in this world the real world that we are just losing our imaginations our ability to think and our ability to talk and debate ideas and science without being intimidated harassed bullied into that Mafia like mentality that was ultimately in another Star trek episode in the holiday of all things where it was all about protectionism the mob money all that stuff money kills science debates online man sorry just my diatribe on why I think people think of me as a conservative now in this new age communist socialist sjw far right libertarian b******* movement that's really killed my interest in making a buck and having a lot of empathy for other people being almost like a modern-day version of an Android or robot that doesn't understand anything about human nature anymore or an alien like a Vulcan seeing human race as just plain stupid and uninvolved.
@@john-paulhunt9835 I agree with this last reply to your crazy person rant. I also feel obligated to ask, _have you never heard of a comma, or punctuation marks of any kind? Holy shit! Hahahaha
Miguel's criticism was exactly my own, in the original video comments. As I expanded on it, a lot of things like Sisko's would be things which under a *capitalist* economy would be considered to fall under public or private property, whereas when you have replicator technology, and the like - it's a personal property thing, where you carry out your hobby. Glad to see you acknowledging it!
Also to that person who went off on the print media joke, not everyone can read and learn in the same way. I have dyslexia which make reading difficult and I have lots to do in my life that listening to a podcast or audio book or youtube video makes me more informed.
After basic needs are met, How would people earn extra credits if they wanted to? I can see two possibilities. One would be to produce something that people would want to voluntarily buy. An artist could produce and sell paintings. The most common way, however, would be to join a service organization of some sort. For example, you might join a guild that builds and maintains infrastructure. Another way of course would be to join Starfleet.
The term "Starving Artist" would no longer be a thing. There is only one downside I see to that, Vincent Van Gogh. "He transformed the pain of his tormented life into ecstatic beauty" so you would be removing much of that pain, so a very select few artists would have lost some of what made their art so memorable. But certainly a far, FAR lower percentage of those who would never see their art get made because they instead had to focus on menial BS jobs just to put food on the table.
@@k1productions87 That's an interesting analogy, because Vincent Van Gogh suffered from health problems, including his mental health. Which, personally, I think is a part of what people consider his "pain". He may have done better in the world of Star Trek -the future we see that is- depending on the treatments available, but if that would hinder his artistic ability is questionable. Many artists with mental health problems have actually been able to create more, and more quality works when those problems were properly treated. Perhaps not all but the "tormented genius" whose genius comes from that torment is a bit too popular a trope; though they may have been able to offer unique and even less so but relabel insights. And even if it were true, there are many difficulties one could face in life regardless, as I mentioned above health issues for instance. As you said though, in general all artists would be able to focus on their art and not survival.
Universal Basic Income does not remove jobs, there would still be jobs, people would just not be reliant on jobs for the essentials. There would still be corporations and organizations other than Star Fleet and these organizations need not pay their employees as much as all the earnings would be in addition to the necessities of life hence there would be no need for minimum wage which removes opportunities to enter the job market. Yes, automation and replicators would reduce the need for factories and the distribution infrastructure hence reduce the number of available jobs but that's just more reason to have basic income as such reduction of jobs is inevitable. Both automation and personal fabricators such as replicators would increase the GDP so enough wealth to support the UBI would exist, it's just that the increased wealth generation would be distributed evenly rather than to the shareholders and hence only to the top 15% in wealth.
If a transporter could convert matter into energy and back into matter with minimal losses then why would they need antimatter... I would imagine the transporter changes matter into something that could be manipulated like energy such as a plasma. Starting with TNG, there are a lot of plasmas in use, warp plasma plasma conduits for energy etc.
I totally agree with you on Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi. His character reflected everything seen in the canon stories featuring Luke. I never liked Luke in the old EU as he felt fake. TLJ Luke felt real to me given the events that happened before the sequel trilogy.
People just want to bitch for the sake of bitching. Its hilarious (in a sad way) to see people claim TLJ is not only the worst Star Wars movie ever made, but the worst MOVIE ever made,... and yet in the same breath will still admit the new movies are better than the prequels. My gods... even typing that makes my brain fizzle in my head
RM_Prime I had no problem with Luke , my issue with TLJ is some continuity errors with TLJ companion books...that are marketed as canon. Just a super nerd issue
In the DS9 episode Explores they talk about transporter credits: SISKO: I remember, Jake, I wasn't much older than you when I left for San Francisco to go to Starfleet Academy. For the first few days, I was so homesick that I'd go back to my house in New Orleans every night for dinner. I'd materialise in my living room at six thirty every night and take my seat at the table just like I had come down the stairs. JAKE: You must have used up a month's worth of transporter credits. But maybe that's just a cadet thing.
Your explanation of replicating gold-pressed latinum is exactly how I would explain it too. Additionally, I always assume replicators 'cheat' by having small patterns for components that they combine instead of patterns for the whole thing. A potato can just be replicated from the same micron size block of potato pattern, repeated. That doesn't work for living things, those need a full size pattern to come out alive again. Same thing with other non-replicatable substances like latinum. The pattern needs to be too big to store to make it have the same properties.
I'm pretty sure that in canon replicators and transporters aren't remotely similar technologies specifically because they're trying to avoid the transporter murder question. The fact that the writers can't keep it straight does make it tricky though. TNG contradicts itself on this several times in the first season alone.
@@gagrin1565 i'd need to go through the episodes again to see if they ever indicated that it's completely different technology. The way I see it, the murder question isn't really applicable anyway because you get deconstructed and reconstructed from a quantum mechanical energy pattern. Imagine it like freezing you, passing your entire body through a fine mesh sieve, mailing all the little cubes to somewhere else, and stacking them again, then reactivating all your processes. Did you get murdered by the machine? Not really, they deconstructed and reconstructed you. It's not a case of scanning you and recreating you.
It would be nice to have an ideal society where people aren't working for starvation wages but to improve upon the world and have meaning to their existence.
About the replicator vs transporter discussion, I agree with the idea there may be some things not creatable by replicators - such as dilithium, which is one of the more obvious items since they have to mine it for energy production. However, the bigger example why people aren't commonly cloned after stepping through a transporter. This may be technical, but it may also be a policy restriction placed on the use transporters so they can't be used in this way, mainly for ethical reasons. The impression I get from the show is of the former, the transporter can move most things but the replicator is somewhat more restricted in what it can produce.
I think that the common concept of transporters hence replicators converting matter to energy and back to matter is flawed, unfortunately it's canon because of dialog saying so even in TOS but this can be retconned as the characters simply trying to explain a complex process to people with less technology. Einstein's equations simply means the amount of energy required would be astronomic and why would they even need antimatter if they could directly convert matter into energy and vice versa. I would envision replicators manipulating various plasmas to coalesce into the objects and hence could only make objects of materials that it has in various plasma storage containers like the colour inkjet cartridges of our printers hence it would only have the materials for the most common consumer objects, mostly for food. I would envision transporters as partially destabilizing an object into a plasma which could be manipulated like energy before it coalesces back into an object. Early proposed special effects for TOS involved the characters traveling down a beam of light to the planet, they thought such special effects would be too expensive, the apparent scale of the characters and the beam to the ship would be wrong and it just wouldn't look right but it would be more consistent with moving objects as a plasma that re-coalesce. Ever since TNG, Star Trek has expressed an abundant use of plasmas from warp plasma to explosive plasma energy conduits running everywhere. It's conceivable that much of their technology is from a better understanding and use of plasmas.
The "what would the motivation be" thing always bothered me. As someone who worked min wage jobs most of my adult life and only in the last 7 years got a factory job that pays the bills i can tell you its nothing but cruel and inhumane to force people to work or die. I work a factory job 7 days a week. Bills are covered and my roommate is jobless right now. Shes using her extra time to do collage and is going to be somekinda legal thing. Something to do with paperwork for a law office. Whatever its called. If she had a full time job, she would have to give that up. She has all her needs met and yet shes doing homework right now. She don't HAVE too, she just is.
I got the joke about the death of print media the first time. That's part of the pleasure of watching Star Trek, when future jokes become presently funny.
If you consider when Star Trek IV was made, the comment is surprisingly prescient. Even almost a decade later with Seaquest 2032's episode "Playtime", writers and futurists were still expecting printed news media transitioning to inexpensive flexible electronic displays physically similar to newsprint rather than the entire market niche disappearing. What the futurists and writers of the eighties, when Star Trek IV was produced, failed to realize is the explosion of alleged news sources that the internet gave voice to and how that ruined the business model of printed news media.
Thumb Up #01, apparently! 👍 You're welcome! Thanks again for another thoughtful, digital video recording! 🎬🖖✌️🙏🤠😎🤓 Notes: "Atheist"? Hmm. Okay, relatively recently, I saw an interview in a television talk show, and please, pardon me for forgetting which one and who the two men were. One guy, a male homosexual, was telling the other one, a male heterosexual, about the distinctions that they have. A, "Platinum" level one, is one born by, C-section, so his phallus was never inside his mother's birth canal. A "Gold" level one, is one whose phallus hasn't been inside a birth canal since it passed through his mother's. That all made sense to me. It fits in with so much other stuff. Like, I forget how long it was since I read it, when I discovered that there aren't just many types of, Theists, but also, Agnostics & Atheists, as well. But I don't recall the categories. So, okay, there's a, Fantasy Genre, movie made by one of the guys from, "Monty Python's Flying Circus". In it, there's a group of, Adventurers, and one of them just happens to be a, Christian, according to his claims. While the others are having problems with, monsters, he is not, because he doesn't believe in them. He's wondering what all of the fuss is about, as the others carry on so. One of the girls in our movie viewing party said that the other characters should convert quickly! But my problem with the movie was, that I couldn't tell if that guy was experiencing a mere storm at sea, rather than the actions of a, sea monster, or was he experiencing calm seas and weather. So would your category be, "I believe in mine, not yours"?, as it was with those characters? 🤔 Hmm. I think that what, Kirk, said to, Apollo, might place him in that category. 🤔 But then you used the term, "God", as if it were a name, not a title, as so many do, especially in a, monotheistic society. So then, is it that you don't believe in the existence of, omnipotent beings, or that even if they do exist, they aren't worth worshipping? 🤔
7:40 it might be more about energy costs then actual inability to replicate things, if the material is just so costly to replicate (energy wise) that it would be cheaper to find, mine, process and transport it from place to place (even though the material is pretty rare) then you could say it's impossible to replicate, and in case of things like dilitium cristals it could be that you would spend way more energy to replicate one then it could ever produce after refining, turning it into a pointless exercise. the thing about star trek society is more about setting a base line of well being for EVERYONE and freeing them to pursuit what they actually want to do, just think about it if you could free 99% of our workforce one day, give them a star trek standard style of life and ask them to do what they actually dream of, the amount of culture, science, philosophy and innovation that would be available would be amazing.
The energy equivalence of matter to energy means a small amount of matter is an astronomic amount of energy so this whole replicating out of energy or even the transporting matter as energy is pure fiction and always will be. The closest we will come to replicators will be custom fabricators and they will always be limited by materials not by energy. What I would imagine a Star Trek level replicator to be would be something that can manipulate materials such as plasma into various forms and have the plasma collapse into solid matter. Numerous plasmas would be used, hydrocarbon plasmas for organic material and a number of common metals much as our color inkjet printers have multiple colored ink. This would explain the Star Trek limitations to their replicators such as not being able to produce dilithium and structures that are replicated not being as strong though in theory they could be incredibly strong through meta and nano materials. As per the cost of items that are replicated, on Voyager they often talk about replicator rations and energy but this could just be a limit of time and the operational costs of the equipment hence just a limit on the number of replicators onboard. A planetary economy would not have that limit as over time they could have as many replicators as needed but may be constrained by how much of the plasmas they can produce and the sources for the materials that the plasmas are created from, essentially the costs of the inkjet cartridges. Hence I think materials is still the limiting factor while on board a spaceship you also have the limit of a fixed number of replicators. Replicators may be difficult to replicate as they may need materials not common in other objects and hence not provided in a plasma storage device. Star Trek technology seems to have a far greater use of plasmas then we do. They have warp plasmas and they transfer power through plasma conduits etc. It's reasonable that their replicators manipulate plasmas to form the objects. This also explains how the objects seem to materialize with a lot of sparkly light special effects. Conceiving how Star Trek level transporters could be achieved is a lot more difficult. The best I could imagine would be producing some kind of energy or plasma channel through which matter could be transferred.
@@johnwang9914 the issue with all that energy in matter is that you have to actually get to that energy somehow and the only way to get all that energy out of matter is through nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and matter-antimatter reactions and the later requires antimatter, which takes huge amounts of energy to create as it doesn't commonly occur in nature.
Actually, I've taken a university course where I was guaranteed an A (or an A-, if I really didn't do well, and, of course, I'd fail if I just didn't do anything at all, but we were guaranteed some kind of A provided we made some sort of effort). It was the hardest class I took that semester, and everyone spent a very long time on it -- several all-nighters. We all received good grades, and we were all encouraged to work together. This allowed the graders to be extremely harsh (I believe the average grade on homeworks was a third) -- we learned a lot. I put a lot of effort into that course, and so did my classmates. That series of courses is very highly regarded in my university, it's definitely not lightweight. I think the lesson here is that competition for grades doesn't need to be a motivating factor in education. In fact, a lot of my professors dislike grading styles which encourage ruthless competition. A lot of my courses have been uncurved -- there are clear specifications for what needs to be done to get a particular grade, it doesn't matter if you're better or worse than your peers. And no, I don't go to some mickey mouse university, or some ultra-progressive department within it. I've seen a lot of people, mostly boomers, complain about how the average grades in universities are rising, which, to them, means that we're all getting participation trophies (Bill Mahar is who I'm thinking of, here). But they never justify why some proportion of students within an educational instution should fail just because there exist people who perform (often marginally) better than they do in some arbitrary category.
I was getting straight A's in college during the Spring semester of last year but had to stop attending because the way financial aid is handled. Summer last year I was approved for financial aid but i would only receive the money into my own bank account AFTER both summer 1 and summer 2 semesters were over. It was also delayed for the Spring semester but I had assumed it was just due to administrative BS setting up my accounts and what not but apparently it is modus operandi for financial aid here. The only way I could use my money was at the student shop on campus. I would have to ask them to ring up a receipt then take it to the financial aid staffer at the admin building for a voucher and then take that voucher back to the student shop to make the transaction. Did that for my book, supplies and for the 3 days the student shop was open the first week of the semester a receipt for a cup noodle and small chips for my breakfast. I couldn't use the money for transportation, shelter, food or anything. And I just couldn't make it work. Most days I feel that I might as well be dead.
We referenced that problem as money comes in many colors in terms of research grants. A lot has to do with people thinking you would misuse the funds if given a chance. Universal Basic Income is sometimes called Unconditional Basic Income as there is no restrictions on how the money is used therefore it enables the recipient as they are being trusted to do what's right rather than be marginalized by the assistance as you seem to be. However, I think that as with cases of state social assistance enough of the population would require restraints in what's given so due to politics, the benefits will not be tailored to each individual. I hope you find a way to make the assistance you receive work, perhaps some counsellors could help.
Firstly, i also love your positive, non denigrating attitude. Secondly i know a man who is unbelievably wealthy. He works a full time job in the front line of a public Hospital in a non clinical role, confronted by the public for 12 hours a day. He's a wonderful man who just loves helping others.
there's always colony worlds and places of lower standard of living for those people who can't find motivation when their needs are met. social pressure also has a greater influence when there's less survival pressures, i think.
Correction on the Indigenous Americans/Natives. One of the current theories is that they actually orginate from Beringia itself. As in, when Eurasia and North America were still connected Ancient Siberians and Ancient East Asians mixed. And this mixed population stayed there for a while creating a unique people only found in the Americas. This also happened over 20k years ago, so the simplification of putting down roots and generations which can unfortunately also be applied to the descendants of colonists by the wrong sort is probably not the best one to have made.
godammit Steve, that thing about Picard getting the Mark Hammil treatment... perfect! yes TLJ was a brilliant film and I love the closing of Luke's story. And your response has me laugh/crying with joy at hearing someone celebrate Picard/Luke the way I do. 💖💖💖
I totally agree with the one around 42:45. It's totally on the nose: "Men's Rights Activists" are creeps. Every single one the rest of us meet makes us look at our family members / significant others and go: "I am so sorry men out there that are that...um...special." Seriously, you want to see what a Men's Rights Activist (MRA) looks like to the rest of us? The "Straight Pride Parade" people in Boston. Those "men"...that is what is wrong with MRAs to the rest of us. Look, women can bash men and be sexist. If men can, so can women. But as a man, in fact, as a white man in the USA, I recognize that I have been given a very healthy dose of genetic privelege / advantage. Men have pretty much run the world for several millenia, and often we have subjugated women while doing it. And yet, anytime women ask for equal pay, bodily autonomy, and treatment, a (very similar creepy) group of men clutch their *(insert a stereotypical euphemism for "pearls")* and act outraged and offended and demand their rights be respected as well. Is it any wonder most MRAs, Incels, and "Nice Guys" probably all share the middle overlapping space on Venn Diagram of Misogyny? Seriously, women want to be looked at, thought of, and treated as our equals. How about we get there before we worry about our "rights" as so many MRAs seem to define them?
I do like the notion that Quark, an otherwise balanced character, reveals this by giving an unreliable account of Ferengi culture. In that case, though I still thought that Sisko should have challenged the viewpoint in the episode, instead of letting it pass by as though Quark had won the argument.
There are lots of people who study really hard or endure hardships (physical labor, travel, time away from loved ones, etc.) for little to no money--simply for the reward of improving their own lives or the lives of others: scientists, artists, activists, etc. My father spent the bulk of his retirement years studying botany and volunteering his time as a gardener at a Catholic retreat center. Myself, I just retired from 30 years of teaching, and I'm planning to spend most of my time learning the art and craft of writing. Not for riches, but for enrichment.
Man, I loved school! Think about it this way, though: there are tons of sources, like Lynda.com, where you learn a lot, but aren't graded. They're profitable. So clearly learning for learning's sake is enough of a priority for it to be profitable even when not necessary.
In High School, I hated most classes, but I LOVED being in the JROTC (especially since the subject for the Air Force branch was Aerospace Science). In College, the core classes sucked, but I LOVED virtually every class that was part of the Animation Production program. When you are learning what you are interested in, you become invested, and you go the extra mile not because you have to, but because you WANT to
In both high school and junior high, I tended to be excused from the class for already knowing the material or simply left in the back row of the class where I could barely see the board. Basically school was where I was ignored.
Classmate of mine (we're 43) cashed in large in Silicon Valley around 10 years ago...~$15 mil. He essentially has a maximum safety $300k per annum annuity. Guy lives lives comfortably, but no where near ostentatiously and basically gives to charity to spend any leftover yearly income. He teaches grade school and fucks around with restoring cars in his spare time...welding, painting, lots of gritty work, on "ordinary" cool cars, not Ferraris. He is happiest person I could ever imagine.
Work isn't something that gives my life meaning, it's something that passively takes away time and energy from finding meaning in life. That being said, I have a desire for meaningful, productive, and beneficial work.
Regarding "Energy Credits". Didn't Cpn. Sisko mention using a month of transporter rations going home daily when he was a cadet in Star Fleet? So it sounds like you're describing a Universal Basic Income.
11:47 Not everyone in the Federation is interested in joining Starfleet but main characters are already members. They had to study very hard to become Star Fleet officers. They didn't do this because they wanted more money, they live in a post-scarcity civilization. For them Star Fleet wasn't a means to wealth, Star Fleet *was* their goal. Many people crave adventure and exploration. Even in a post-scarcity economy, you can't be a Star Fleet officer without the proper qualifications. Just as in the real world, it doesn't matter how rich you are, you can't be a pilot or a surgeon without the proper qualifications.
All right, Steve--regarding the comment at 24:20 and your succeeding happy rant about how much you loved The Last Jedi--I kept excepting you to break out laughing and say "Okay, that was a joke." Are you kidding? Have you watched Mark Hamill being interviewed about it? He was DEVASTATED! If you want me on your side about this you need to do an "Actually I really liked TLJ." Please ready the preceding in a happy and teasing tone of voice.
On People Not Knowing How To Read...um, yeah, moving beyond the obvious slant of the person making the statement, I'll address This in the manner in which the Actual conversation is being had (because, you know, having conversations, not only predated Reading; but, some would say, it's more important to share ideas in any way one can) - but, No, in the case of Star Trek (which is the general Topic), 'Print Media' is Not dead; Printing on Paper, generally, is - there's simply no need to waste paper & trees, when digital media does the job so much better; you, know...like the Print we're all reading, right now. Also, in a world where the digital medium has become a standard in everything from computerized communications to operating vehicles, I'd say we're proving the point, at this very moment. Kudos!
Two thoughts. 1. Star Trek: Insurrection. I love how people just assume that that the Son'a were going to keep their "deal" with The Federation. They manipulated Admiral Dougherty and plotted to transfer a populace to a location where they knew they were going to die and steal the energy that helped them do it. Do these really sound like people who are going to share? Dougherty was an idiot and the Federation people that agreed with him were idiots, too. 2. Voyager was always running low on energy to run their replicators and other ship equipment. Yet, they didn't have much trouble powering the transporters. So, obviously, transporting takes less energy than replicating things. Especially when you look at the size discrepancies large humans versus small replications. Even though they don't use money, they still have to account for the energy used. BWT. Absolutely loved your response to the MRA question.
My fave thing about the Sona issue is that if you take the bakku out of the radiation of the rings, THEY BECOME SONA. The radiation wouldn't have saved the Sona, and the bakku -having lost it as well- would degenerate into the same condition. Basically, everyone dies in that scenario. Everyone.
There is lore supporting the idea that transporters move matter rather than creating it like a replicator (for example the TNG technical manual). However, there is also lore supporting the idea that transporters CAN create matter, such as the existence of Thomas Riker. So, while they're DESIGNED to use the original matter when re-assembling the transported object, they don't HAVE to. In my mind, it's most likely a way of avoiding identity crisis (is the transported person really the same person) and cloning problems.
The major difference between the replicator and the transporter can be thought about like the difference between analog and digital. a transporter is more like analog where what ever matter in the transporter column is transported. The transporter moves the matter space with no effect to the object and what it may or may not be doing. A replicator operates more on a digital level. The object is created with no actual excited state of matter so to speak. that's why the replicated food tastes a little bad...The replicator doesn't produce the matter in an active state. not cause it cant but the original replicator patterns are just that just patterns on how to create this matter, not real scanned food in the transporter buffer. But dont forget every ship has a chef & galley food crew.
If you want to know if Ferengi have slavery ask the crews of the NX-01 and Enterprise D about their first encounters. As for the school metaphor: what if getting an F didn't matter, if you could just take the class again until you got the material with no penalty? What if nobody made you take that class?
For the people who are terrified of humanity becoming dumb couch potatoes due to post-scarcity/all basic necessities met, you know that people have basic ambitions, right? A kid who wants to be a doctor because the concept of sickness upsets them isn't doing it for the paycheck; they're doing it to fight sickness. There would be plenty of people who'd start manmade/handmade businesses because of the joy of the craft and demand from people wanting the aesthetic.
Regarding the difference between replication and transportation, the various series seem to adhere to the idea that living things can be transported, but they can't be replicated. E.g., if someone asks a replicator for a living baby lamb then the replicator can't do that, but if the replicator is asked for a lamb chop then it will easily produce one. And further on replication: I thought the replicators assembled atoms, not created them ex-nihilo. They use stored patterns, but take actual matter (from somewhere, such as a storage bin) and assemble that matter for the object desired. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but if I am correct then that explains quite a bit about why there are practical limitations on the Federation in regards to the limited availability of replicators in remote locations.
As an addendum, this would explain why something like gold-pressed latinum cannot be replicated. Lighter elements would be simpler to transport and re-arrange. heavier elements would be far too energy costly to do so.
I assumed they work on a much lower level than atoms. Think quarks or even lower. I do believe they make fresh matter out of energy every time, the problem is of course that even a single bit of matter takes inordinate amounts of energy to make (E=mc², after all), so they're not practical in places where energy isn't easy to produce. In a starship, there's a massive warp core, and they can recover energy from any matter that's recycled back into energy. On a remote planet, neither of those are practical.
@@chton "I assumed they work on a much lower level than atoms. " - Well, ST writers never really followed what we know about the real world (e.g., in TNG the introduction to the concept of a Heisenberg-compensator, a device needed to make transporters (and presumably replicators) work... but the very phrase "Heisenberg compensator" is an oxymoron.) If all one needs is energy to replicate anything, then a starship which carries some anti-matter could replicate an equivalent mass of anything made of matter. E.g., need a new widget made of tantalum but you don't have any extra tantalum on board? Then simply convert some of your antimatter (by annihilating with any matter, like a used shirt) to energy and then make your gadget. That in the ST series we see ships with replicators still needing to take on supplies now and again suggests that replicators cannot just make anything out of energy.
@@TheDanEdwards A "Heisenberg Compensator" would be a device that can get around the uncertainty principle, letting them get information with more precision than a nature should allow. Yes, it's impossible to our current understanding of physics, but it's not an oxymoron. They have a lot of technology we consider impossible now. them having found a trick to get around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the least of my worries when the rest is just as vague. As for tantalum point: Sure, theoretically that's possible. Presumably, they can deconstruct matter back into energy too, since otherwise a starship would generate massive amounts of waste material. But the process of transforming elements to others and of creating them is bound to be inefficient. Not a big deal for small things but bigger stuff is bound to get energy expensive. I imagine some elements are also a lot more inefficient to make than others, like we see in elements created from fusion or in supercolliders. And any supplies you can pick up, you don't have to replicate, so would save you all of that energy cost. So stocking up on energy-expensive materials and stuff that's used very often makes sense. But in a pinch, or on multi-year missions without opportunity to restock, they can be made from scratch.
@@frankendragon5442 latinum can be teleported but you only get chasaeum, an allotrope of latinum. The theory being tos/tng teleport is incomplete at best.
Here's another thought on Latinum. If we wanted to use Latinum as currency, there's no problem per se with the idea of it being replicated: the problem is with being able to use the replicated Latinum to buy things. In other words, the double-spend problem. Maybe the solution is similar to the DS problem solution in cryptocurrency: yes, you can replicate Latinum, but the replicated copies are no good as money because they must be "signed" somehow (since this is Star Trek, no doubt something "quantum" is involved) and these signatures can be easily compared to the original Latinum. So you can create copies, and you can spend one or the other, but not both.
For someone who says they love doing these types of videos because they require so little work you really got upset when a commentor wrote a joke for you ;)
I think if we really want to see how people would live in a post-working-for-necessity society, all we really have to do is look at retired people. I've seen so many retirees taking up new hobbies, educating themselves, getting active in the community, etc. Basically, all the things they didn't have time for while they were working. Yes, there are a few who sit around watching television, but not most of them. If our basic needs were provided for us (which given the increasing amount of automation, seems very likely in the future), I think most of us would act in much the same way.
I think the idea of the energy credit on people's accounts can make sense, but maybe on somewhere like Earth it's literally a government issue. Like, let's say you want a coffee. You can go to the store and get some coffee, come back, and make it yourself. Or you can go down the street and get a coffee from a shop. Or, if you're in a real hurry, you replicate it at home (where it might not taste quite as good, but it is a thing). Now, use the replicator and it doesn't bother Earth's government any, and it never costs you anything (to keep up with the idea that the Federation literally has no money). But if you go to the store, the government provides the store owner some kind of credit for doing its job for it. And when the store replenishes, it doesn't pay for the coffee it takes, but the coffee producer is also paid some kind of credit by the government. In the end, your patronage alone dictates who makes the extra credits (which somehow assign them beyond-basic level things that can't just 'be replicated' like land or something). Now, there's one big problem with this system, it means that you can't have someone walk into a store in a panic and take all the chocolate and hoard it, even though they technically 'could'. And that's where humanity comes in. We would have to grow beyond the idea of ownership, which makes the idea of the above "credit" less worthwhile. Taking that we would have, as a society, grown beyond the necessities of mass ownership, what on Earth would you need or want an extra "credit" for? Maybe it's literally just the credits you need to improve your craft. Maybe someone who runs a coffee shop runs a coffee shop and gets the credit to mostly support and grow his coffee shop, because running his coffee shop is reward for itself. I mean, think about it, we HAVE something like that, called the internet. How many people make stuff on the internet for free, how many people then join and try to help maintain and grow it, just for the hope lots of people will value and participate in that. In a post-scarcity society, maybe you can literally build a brick-and-mortar coffee shop like a community website, and the government will support it purely for the function of community, especially if it's popular. It wouldn't require money, per se, and it's a proven drive for humans in any of those areas where there actually is no physical scarcity. Some kind of physical internet.
1,000,000 likes for the TLJ hater takedown! Anyone who paid any attention to the old Star Wars movies would understand that Luke had a very plausible and fulfilling arc. For those that thought Luke was done dirty, watch 4-6 again. Luke is one of my favorite characters, but he wasn't as bad-ass as you remember and pretty useless to the plot. Empire and Jedi would have had the exact same ending had Luke not existed in them, because Luke made stupid decisions He left Yoda early in Empire, left his friends in Jedi to fight Vader, and was pretty insufferable doing both (whiney, then overly willing to save Vader at the risk of the rebel mission) . Solo gets captured and DS2 blows up, whether Luke existed to 5&6 or not. In TLJ, he became introspective and honest about the true damage of the LIGHT/DARK divide. He made mistakes and had regrets, like all old men, and they understandably effected him and affected his choices. Take off the rose colored glasses, and open yourselves to a larger Universe beyond a single family of dogmatic space wizards. 5,000,000 more likes for the takedown of the rapey creepers.
Steve... I love your Trek videos thus far dude. I just started watching them recently so I'm playing a bit of catch up here. I have to say, I find it amazingly entertaining how many comments you get from people with sticks so far up their assess that there are leaves growing in their mouths. :) Thanks for the content man. Off to check out Ensign's Log. :)
You know the U.S. is going wrong when China is discussing universal income with a bonus for community service or working while we don't even have medical.. Seriously when totalitarian regimes start moving toward U.F.P. societal systems before nations based on the enlightenment? We are leaning toward corporate feudalism. Worker consumers like the Southpark Amazon employees.
I liked your response to the comment about motivation in an economy where basic needs were met for free. Although, the commenter’s assertion that we are basically living in a world where everyone’s basic needs are met now seems very flawed. We have homelessness, starvation and lack of universal healthcare even in our own “1st world” country. We may have the means to supply everyone’s basic needs but our distribution system certainly requires that people earn them. While I also agree that many rich people do not contribute to society in a meaningful way, I think there are probably more that do “work” even though they don’t have to. Actors are a good example. Once an actor has really made it with a big movie or TV show, they probably have enough money to comfortably retire but they keep going. Maybe it’s for the money or the attention but they keep working. Just a couple thoughts, anyway...
Bleh, a shame that TLJ snuck in here. Your opinion of TLJ and especially it’s treatment of Luke Skywalker is the one thing on your channel I VEHEMENTLY disagree with, but I guess if we agreed on everything that would be kind of creepy. That being said, even just thinking about Luke in TLJ breaks my heart again just a little every time.
The fact that Mark Hamill himself was incredibly upset with the sequels and how they treated his character just confirms that his character arc was bad. I've watched too many videos where it looked like Mark was going to cry when Rian discussed the movies that I can't be convinced the movies were handled well. So, yeah, I kinda bristled when he said that TLJ was great and Luke's arc was good. Also I disagree with him on Voyager. To each their own, I guess!
Your response to the comment with the school grades analogy is basically what Picard himself says in First Contact, "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives, we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." It always amazes me how some people can't conceive of a world where people are motivated by anything other than monetary gain. I agree with you, I think most people aren't like that. Or at least they wouldn't be if the economic system allowed it.
I forget what UA-camr did an essay about it, but it is starkly apparent that even well meaning smart people cannot imagine a post capitalist world. Beyond being purposeful propaganda, this was even reflected in the media of the cold war where Soviets are shown as slaves to the state, in the military, or laying about doing absolutely nothing to improve themselves.
I think the question itself was faulty. People aren't "getting an A" just for existing and doing nothing. That is "getting a D", the absolute bare minimum of existence, the smallest point of "passing". If you want anything more than a D then you show up and do the work of study, exercise, character building, etc.
Love That Speech!
It reminds me a lot of the people who can't conceive of being ethical, moral beings rather than going on murder and rape sprees without the threat of eternal punishment by some omnipotent being. The fact that those people are often one and the same isn't lost on me!
@@Broockle capitalism is inherently exploitive. There are many other models of organized work and society that produces goods but benefits everyone involved rather than funneling profit and resources upward. Look at co-ops in Spain and even ones in America like ACE hardware and Land o Lakes. They are examples to show other things are possible, even if they are forced to engage in market forces influenced by profit as the ultimate priority.
If I didn't have to go to work every day to pay bills I would be growing my own food, writing books, and taking masterclasses , great courses, and curiosity stream! what I great dream sigh ... sniff... well off to work ... " Hi did you find everything you looking for?" Thanks for shopping with us " Hi did you find everything you looking for...
As Steve indicates, the way to think about it is to consider what you'd do if you were rich. Practically everybody has a mental image of the life they would lead if they won the lottery. They imagine doing things like engaging in work that they'd enjoy but which often don't pay well, like being an artist or actor or something. Or they say they'd travel, or go back to school to learn stuff, or take time to read all the great novels, etc. Very few people imagine that after winning the lottery they'd sit in a corner and quietly waste away because they didn't have to struggle to get by.
Also worth noting that the are cultural differences here. In modern western culture you're raised constantly exposed to the idea that you work for a living. "The value of a dollar", "a real man supports his family", etc, are all cultural notions we're impressed with all our lives. We tend to think of these things as universal constants of human psychology, but they're really not. It's entirely reasonable that in the Federation people are raised with different ideas, like "you're only a success if you're working to improve yourself" or "bad people do nothing, good people contribute". So pointing out that the Federation society might not work well for us, here today in our cultural context, could be correct - but doesn't prove that it doesn't work for them, in their time and their cultural context.
I'm with you. I'd be working on a doctorate in Urban Planning and working on building truly accessible housing. I'd also cook. *sigh
"why does a painter paint? Why does a boxer BOX? Do you know what Michaelangello used to say? The sculptures he made were already there, before he started, hidden in the marble. All he needed to do was *fsht* remove the unneeded bits. Wasn't quite that easy with you Data, but the NEED to do it, MY need to do it was no different than Michaelangello's need"
Remove the need to do menial jobs just to pay bills, and guess what? The Artists can now focus on ART. The writers can now focus on WRITING. The builders can now focus on BUILDING. The dreamers can now focus on dreaming and bringing those dreams to reality. Imagine if John Aaron had remained on the ranch because he had to, instead of getting the opportunity to come to NASA and become one of the most capable flight controllers the organization ever had? (SCE to Aux anybody?). Speaking of NASA, did the great Test Pilots of history seek that job because it was somehow financially lucrative? (except for maybe "Slick" from The Right Stuff) There was no financial benefit to it, in fact they were generally working for peanuts and nobody would sell them life insurance. They did it because they LOVED it. There would be SO MUCH more fulfilment out of life if you were able to do the things you love, instead of forced to do what you hate just to make ends meet.
Man, that would be nice. I'd be doing leather work and general crafty stuff. I also probably wouldn't suffer from depression quite so badly (it might still be there, but not exacerbated by work/lack of time with my family)
@@grahamhaspassedaway4580 note that not all people need to have what is considered "refine" culture. You can read Garfield comics all day and be a expert in the subject. This world do not require to do anything productive, only be yourself. The productive stuff comes as default, no matter if you intended.
Actually, I had a janitor that worked at my elementary school. One day I learned that he had won the lottery some years ago, and was set for life. Turned out that he just liked being a janitor and it gave him something to do during the day.
That's a fascinating story, I've heard similar ones about other lottery winners. I think it's been proven that other than reducing stress about material needs (if you have the ability to maintain your wealth at least, something that sadly many lottery winners struggle with), the happiness you get from having more money is temporary, you need more in your life. Also, I'd like to think that that's the backstory of the janitor in Scrubs 😄
I am so sick of the bullshit capitalist lie that people would be lazy if their needs were met!
Anybody go hungry at lunchtime with him on duty?
This is the plot of the comic strip Frazz
This, litteraly this. Profit is not the only incentive to work
I always found the argument that "If you take away the need to work, life would no longer have any meaning" to be incredibly self-defeating. Like, I'm sorry but I really don't see that as a plot-hole, or some kind of counter argument to Star Trek's ideal future. I see that as real people, here and now, depressingly admitting that they have absolutely nothing to live for. That if it wasn't for their obligation to their job (Which many of them probably don't even enjoy anyway), that they would just lay down and die.
I'm with Steve on this. I'm the one who gives my life meaning. There are so many things in my life that I love doing, that I look forward to. Family, friends, hobbies, personal projects... Don't get me wrong, I feel depressed when I have nothing to do. But I don't see work as a solution to that. I always have and always will see work as an obstacle between me and all of the other things I love to do with my time. A necessary evil that I would happily do without, quite frankly.
Forgive me if I come off as a little preachy, it's not intended. I'm only trying to say that the argument "If you never had to work, your life would have no meaning" sounds more like you personally are in a bad place, and if so I'm sorry to hear that. But like I said, I've always seen work as an obstacle between me and the rest of my life, not a constructive part of it.
indeed well said. the luckiest people of those who have a job they love. and if you weren't forced to do that wouldn't you do what you love anyway.
@@thestonedraider8684 Yes, exactly. Some are lucky enough to have a job they love, and they would be doing that job even if they did not have to.
If you had work that you found meaningful and fulfilling, it wouldn't be "work" anymore.
I couldn't agree more. Making your work your whole life is just do sad.
"why does a painter paint? Why does a boxer BOX? Do you know what Michaelangello used to say? The sculptures he made were already there, before he started, hidden in the marble. All he needed to do was fsht remove the unneeded bits. Wasn't quite that easy with you Data, but the NEED to do it, MY need to do it was no different than Michaelangello's need"
Self worth and motivation has been tied to economy for so long that people simply can't fathom a world without it.
My uncle once worked on a long-term contract in a remote region where the employer provided worker habitation and common services. There was this well-stocked grocery store you could go to where you could take anything you wanted and go home. No cash register or anything. No scan-it-yourself or no invoice etc.
He couldn't believe his luck. He knew this new job had perks, but this was novel! The first time he went there, he grabbed everything he could and then some, brought it home and... very soon realized he had taken WAY too much and some of the fresh produce would undoubtedly spoil before he got a chance to eat it.
On his next visits, he only took what he really needed. When he spoke to his colleagues about this, nearly all of them had had a similar initial experience of it, with everyone making the same mistake of. They all took too much at first and later realized the store wasn't going anywhere.
Greed comes from scarcity. It's not an inherent characteristic of human life, but is born out of our material context. The Federation is built upon that concept. When everyone's Pyramid of Needs is fulfilled, and there is no indication of that condition changing tomorrow, then people settle into contentment needing much less luxury than in a world with constant, nagging scarcity. Why hoard anything when it doesn't have monetary worth?
I am not arguing with any of the post scarcity economy. What happens when the 2275 Picard Merlot is especially good and only 75 bottles are left. If there is no money what assigns who gets those bottles. About gold pressed latunum, perhaps ingots, bars, strips when they are created they have a specific individual crystalline structure each is different so if you replicated it - it might be found out as a duplicate.
anybody thar thinks money gives their life meaning is in a sad state.
I think it’s not that money gives their life meaning but more that the fact that things are not free means that people value property and goods and services and will therefore work to earn the stuff that gives them access to those goods and services and property.
That stuff happens to be money.
Thar is certainly true
Money is just the means to do the things you need and want peaceably. Family, fast cars helping the downtrodden in short, the things that give your life meaning often require it.
It doesn't give life meaning but it makes life easier when emergencies arise. Back in the day when I was starting my career, I would always stress over strange sounds the car was making, or the fridge was making. I was always one appliance failure away from a bad month. I would obsess over my speed when driving, cuz even two points on my license meant a 100 dollar increase for car insurance. Twenty-five years later, and my life is less stressful. It is the love of money that is bad for you.
Danielle Black
I just wanted to add that those who assume that people become inert if they do not (or cannot) work completely ignore the lives and experiences of the disabled. When I was forced to stop working, I found that it was imperative to find ways to develop my mind and contribute. While my disability is not fun, I feel incredibly lucky to have the time and head space to study any and all topics that interest me. I have had the chance to study languages, world and American history, and advanced scientific concepts. I have had the time to fact check the media and to place events in historic context. I do citizen science work, free math and science tutoring, and I love developing my skill set. The truth is that humans can’t live long doing nothing. You would become depressed very quickly. My drive to be the best that I can be did not disappear when I became disabled. Thank you for the great videos!
I also discovered that in the TNG episode Rascals there is a group of ferrengi who own slaves.
Like mining slaves... Yeah
Ferrengi see the world only as the exploiters and exploitable. SO slaves were just the ones who got exploited and failed to profit.
Also, ferengi pirates, those who have had their license revoked, aren't considered ferengi, and thus their actions do not reflect on the values of ferengi society.
@@codyofathens3397 Ah, the "no true Ferengi" fallacy!
As he pointed out in the video this is Quark's view of Ferengi history and to him making slaves of other species is ok as long as you don't do it to your own kind.
Jose McDuff Quark ain’t alone. Most people I meet have blind-spots when it comes to their own gender politics. Quark takes for granite, I mean granted, the role of men and women in the society that raised him. Just a bundle of unexamined assumptions.
As someone who was mainly in independent studies in HS, I went to classes to hear the teacher teach and still did extra work because I wanted to learn as much as possible and enjoyed it. Even went to classes I wasn't in just because I found them fascinating. So I didn't receive a grade for my drop-in classes.
I did _not_ know the difference between "personal" and "private" property. Now I do at less than 3 mins. into the video.
It's a common thing we Marxists have to explain to people. Right-wingers often try to make it sound like the state would show up and take away your toothbrush.
Regarding the comparison to school and guaranteed "A"s, I think Steve is right on about the mischaracterization of receiving the basic necessities as Acing the class. However, beyond that, it assumes that the only reason to even take a class is to receive a grade. Sure, some kids don't like school at all, but that is likely because of outside influences or the inability of the teacher or subject content to engage the child. Children are innately curious; they want to learn. Our school system doesn't always effectively fulfill that need. Imagine instead a school where the students were empowered to achieve their potential in the subjects that truly engage their desire to learn. It's probably a Federation school.
schools that dont give grades consistently produce smarter, higher performing, happier kids. extrinsic rewards are crippling to a persons motivation, regardless their age whether it be grades or money.
Regarding the Federation economy and people saying "nobody would do anything" -- if I didn't have to spend half my waking hours making someone else profit so I can just tread water, I'd be using that time making video games or other media projects as an entertainer.
In other words. Undertaking work that's actually of value *TO ME.*
On your comment about the American education system, I recall a group of American exchange students who came to the UK. They were taught (and were proud) that, in regards to WWII - and I quote - 'America was the first to stand up to the injustice in Europe'.
We had to gently remind them (and their egos) that America was in fact one of the last. While America watched from the side-lines, the Nazi regime was aiming to overrun Europe. America came in late into the war following the attack on Pearl Harbour, and guaranteeing the defeat of Hitler. A lot of Europeans to this day still view that late entry as 'sweeping up and taking the glory', while Europe sacrificed a hell of a lot more from Day 1.
It's from that experience for me that I knew - and I'm continually shown - that the American education system, at least regarding history and the telling of it's own, is rather poor.
People forget about their childhood... No work, no responsibility, tons of motivation to do stuff.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was guaranteed to pass every class I took, I'd take classes that interested me. Of course if my advisor or professor told me I needed something else as a prerequisite too, I'd go do that. And you know what? I'd put in the same amount of work and end up with the same exact degree on my wall.
I think it depends. I went back to school and put in 110% because I enjoyed the classes and the subject matter and felt like it was important to learn what I was being taught because I'd need to know it for my future intended career. But if I were going in for a Math degree and was given a prerequisite of an Underwater Basket Weaving course, yeah, I probably would sign up and then never show and milk my free A, because there's really no value to it - it isn't something I want to do, there's no niche market for underwater basket weavers, and it's not going to help me succeed. And I think that's just fine. I could use that time to focus on the stuff I do want to do. I might pop in to see what it's about, give the minimum of effort, because you never know, maybe underwater basket weaving would become a surprise passion.
If I could guarantee a comfortable existence for myself for the rest of my life, I absolutely would quit my job tomorrow. I'd take off into the world and explore, or maybe just go back to school and learn.
Was this in grade school or in University. University tends to be self guided perhaps with counselors but schooling up through high school are probably what's being referenced as it was designed to provide workers for the industrial revolution.
Still, in high school, I was often excused from class for already knowing the material. I would typically spend two hours in school over a two day period though I would often have to return to be excused from the next class so I couldn't wander far. Fortunately two shopping centers were accessible by LRT within a few minutes and the trains were at five minute intervals.
@@basiliskxviii - Which is basically what retirees do, isn't it?
Most of the middle/upper-middle class folks who retire with enough savings (+ SSI, Medicare, pensions, etc.) to live a comfortable existence for the final 20 or so years of their lives do exactly that......take off into the world, explore, go back to school and learn, etc.
New retirees tend to relax and travel for a little while, but shortly thereafter most folks tend to seek out something else societally productive to do with their time. My parents now, and my grandparents before them, have taken classes, volunteered in the community, helped out with family, etc. They even take part-time employment, whether doing something they specifically enjoy or just to have something that will at least keep them active.
Retirees don't NEED to work for income any more, and yet the overwhelming majority of them continue to do many positive productive things for society, whether that work comes with any financial compensation or not.
"Family" is one of my favorite episodes because of the end of it. Picards nephew, Robere's son, is outside looking at the stars when in the house his Mother says to her husband "He's still out there, dreaming of space and Starships." Robere replies with a grunt. Marie adds "Its getting late." Robere grunts again and this man , who is dead set against all that 'Federation stuff,' adds "But let him DREAM" (emphasis mine) Then, a subtle version of the classic theme sneaks up on us, and I get goosebumps everytime.
I would love a society where you were defined by what gave you fulfillment, instead of how much you earned (or inherited at birth). If you wanted to focus on linguistics you didn't have to worry about how you were gonna pay the bills, or on the other end if you wanted to own a business (like a wine vineyard) you'd do it because you actually loved the work and "being rich" wasn't the goal in an era where the only limit was Star Trek's advanced technology and your imagination.
If you are an outstanding linguist you will be defined by this achievement. Taking on linguistics is usually a shortcut for many people who dont want to sacrafice anything to be a great linguist and make up many excuses ignoring the fact that reality rewards the best and punishes the mediocre. Taking on just an area is not enough and the free market is a great tool to evaluate if this market is anything worth. You need to do the right thing and do this thing right... Most peoply do just one of theese out of two
Given how much you enjoy the running gag about how little work the comment response video require, perhaps you should call them "Not Even Not Actually Trek, Actually."
"Actually 'Not Actually Trek, Actually'"
He already used that title for his Orville videos, so that wouldn't really fit. Although I am hoping for a Not Even Not Actually Trek, Actually about Galaxy Quest (the true even-numbered Trek movie between Insurrection and Nemesis).
Looking at Star Trek Economy I would always try to find answers based on what Captain Picard said about how “Humanity has move passed the need of hoarding personal possessions”. For example, why doesn’t everyone have a big fancy house? Perhaps because not everyone wants to, perhaps people enjoy a more cozy residence. People live where they want, and they do the job they love to do without the fear of Bankruptcy or social stigma.
It's the bankruptcy part that I think will be difficult to address. The concept of a Universal Basic Income could address poverty, and human nature will still motivate us to do more if we can but some people will still leverage their risks higher for better housing and lifestyle and circumstances may occur where they could no longer earn the additional income for the housing and lifestyle, certainly not on basic income alone. Therefore it would be necessary to include a premium on all expenditures that leverages individual risk and provisions provided to transition people back to a life they can afford on basic income alone. Basically a state and or insurance funded bankruptcy.
@@johnwang9914 sounds like you describing a criminal sociopath..
And they separated in federation and treated to hopefully fix their sociopathy..
Says the man who owns a winery. Yes, it was in his family for hundreds of years - but he still owns a winery.
Someone: *asks why anyone would do anything if they can live in decent conditions anyway*
Me: *laughs my ass of in Nordic*
ya you guys ship your indecent conditions overseas
Funny, I thought Wesley eventually went back to Starfleet to help guide particular graduates towards their inevitable destiny. He remained anonymous as the wise old grounds keeper Boothby. Also he's been there since 2321, which means Wesley / Boothby lived in his own timeline. You wanna' write a screenplay? 🎬
this is my new head canon
The question about what would we do if we didn't have to struggle to survive made me laugh, and I loved your response.
The sick part is, I always hear that question from people that ARE wealthy enough (or nearly so) to sit around and do nothing, and they don't seem to get the irony in it (or hope we don't)
As an extra point, it did always strike me as amazing that Joseoh Sisko would spend decades cosplaying as an ancient chef. Not just putting on the hat and handing out the food, not just cooking in the kitchen when he felt like it, but scrubbing clams, washing dishes, managing staff. For...70 years? 100? In a world of infinite resources where you can do anything, the people of Earth are pretty conservative with their life choices, at least the ones we see.
Of course, with the kind of tech and social organisation in the Federation, it wouldn't matter if the mass of humanity devoted themselves to mindless hedonism, or drifting from failure to failure like Bashir's father. In such a world, a tiny elite - maybe little more than Starfleet and a few civilian engineers and administrators - could provide everything needed to maintain humanity and technical progress. Maybe that's why everyone is so obsessed with their jobs - Joseoh Sisko the chef, Keiko the botanist, Jake Sisko the writer - in the absence of material need, mankind has developed a relentless ethic of self improvement through labour as a scaffold for maintaining a meaningful life over 14 or 15 decades.
I often wondered why in a world of limitless abundance and variety, culture, food, sex, holodecks, a world in which presumably there is almost no authority, restriction or coercion, people would join Starfleet. Who would willingly choose obedience to orders, stress and physical danger? Well - because we really are finally confronting the meaning of our lives. Surrounded by ecstatic sybarites and people working a 20th century job in a 23rd century world, whi wouldn't want to get far away and experience real peril and adventure with real consequences, a chance to prove yourself in the grandest possible arena. And no profit motive in sight.
"Maybe you made a bong out of the lightsaber..." Someone's been watching Kevin Smith movies.
I always figured the civilian workers on exploration ships in TNG (e.g. Mot the barber and Guinan) were artists and poets who traded their services (in menial roles to improve crew morale) in exchange for a berth on the final frontier. They didn't necessarily have the most satisfying or fulfilling day job, but they had an opportunity to broaden their horizons, to witness strange new worlds and to experience some of the greatest inspiration available for their generation (but the whole "apprenticeship to a god-like being" angle could also work)
I would love to read stories about the reign and reforms of Grand Nagus Rom.
*I'm sorry for mentioning Voyager in this post:* I would argue that every realm has a *preferred* currency. Prison inmates have their cigarettes. The crew of the U.S.S. Voyager had their replicator rations.
Lt. Paris even ran a lottery using rations from participating crewmates. While the odds were that nobody would win the draw, Lt. Paris always got a cut of the proceeds. That is, until Chakotay shut it down. Ethical, yes. Buzzkill, also yes.
If gambling is unethical, how come EVERYBODY in TNG plays poker?
But it would make sense,that the replacator use on Voyager was limited,as they had to be careful to use not to much energy/matter.(On whatever those things need to function)
@@slothfulcobra Poker is a fair game where each player had an equal chance to win. Paris's lottery was set up so that the prize would grow with each draw, meaning that if nobody won the draw, the size of the prize would grow. However, Paris retained 10% of what was added to the prize pool for each drawing, meaning he always came out a winner. That was the unethical component of his lottery, he would always win.
Every realm where there is shortage has a currency. If there is permanent abundance then what is the point of currency?
It wasn't ethical that Chakotay shut it down. That all had INFORMED CONSENT.
It was _unethical_ that Chakotay shut it down; _not just_ a buzzkill.
Love your response to NittyBlahBlah keep up the good work
I honestly wonder if Nitty was just trolling
damn, what a piece of work NittyBlahBlah is, just ... wow. I will say this in his favor, he knows how to string words together in a totally non-lazy way to make an ill-informed comment.
@@wellingtonsmith4998 The hilarious situation where someone's in such a rush to prove how much smarter they are, they end up proving how incredibly dumb they are instead.
Steve - your economics video was very informative. In then end, it is hard for us to imagine a post-capitalist world because our thoughts and actions are so often determined by capitalism. An example is misunderstanding the difference between personal and private property. Of course, the owners of production benefit from this misunderstanding - "those darn socialists want to take away your tooth brushes!"
It's a common misconception that socialism removes the concept of property ownership and capitalism. This is mostly due to the authoritarian communist countries that promised to provide socialist services through a command economy such as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela and China. These countries have few socialist programs if any, they simply promised socialism. We complain about unfair competition from China due to low wages and a lack of employee rights, basically we're complaining about the lack of socialism in China. Indeed, the country that spends the most per capita on socialist programs though ineffectively is the US.
You do not need to change property rights to proceed closer to a socialist utopia but you may have to change the concept of money as it is trading goods and services for some unchanging tokens that allowed the artificial accumulation of resources in the first place. After all, goods often decrease in value over time, produce always rots if not used and labour is of most value when needed and of no value once done while currencies are what economists call fungible, that is it's main strength and main weakness in society. This problem is currently handled by inflation but we've had negative economic effects from inflation in the past so the interest rates are now regulated rather than left to the free market.
Conditions can be placed on money with digital currencies and it's interesting to note that early American bank issued currencies(stamps) often had expiration dates. We really need someone like Ben Franklin to debate and influence digital currencies.
I see Universal Basic Income and digital currency capable of conditions needed to achieve a Star Trek level of Utopia not changing property rights. However, current blockchain currencies have notable flaws such as the energy cost involved as millions of servers compete to produce an acceptable checksum to entrench a block into the block chain. I think that authorized public notary servers either from government or banks are needed to entrench the blocks into the chain without the wasted computation.
In reference to ContraZombie4. Have you ever had to struggle for basic living requirements? To do so is not living, it is existing from paycheck to paycheck. It is living in this OR that survival. Having to decide between buying food OR paying the electric bill OR getting your vehicle serviced so you can continue to work to not have enough money to meet basic needs. When basic needs are met, living can begin. Living an optimal life that is so much more fulfilling than living in a constant state of need. So bugger off.
The thing about working when the basic living requirements are met is that then the work must not be a means to an end but purpose in itself, for the one doing it. Cleaning someone else's bathrooms, diving in sewage or screwing together identical mass produced screwdrivers is not a purpose in it self to anyone. People would ever only do such a thing on a regular basis when they are forced to.
Not guaranteeing the citizens in a society the basic living requirements, is a means to getting the most desperate people to do those jobs which must be done and no one would do them otherwise.
In the Star Trek epoch we can assume that such jobs have all ben automatized away, public bathrooms clean themselves, and well we have replicators to replicate screwdrivers and other mass produced items.
Now even in our current world which needs those jobs to be done by people, if those jobs would be exceptionally well payed people would still dot hem, because who wants to sattle for basic living requirements anyone wants more than that.
It's always been a dream of mine to just study, study, and study. If money and basic needs weren't such a problem, I'd probably spent most of my adult life in education and learning new things. The pursuit of knowledge. A lot of that could be put to practical use on the side, or taught to others. The world would be my oyster and my anxiety and depression would pretty much be gone.
Nothing can stop you from going to a library and indulging your need to learn, to your heart's desire, for _free._ Libraries have branched out and quite a few offer many more resources than just books and music. Toys, cooking equipment (saw photos of cake pans for loan even), games, study spaces, online classes, homework help for kids, story time for kids, downloading books through Amazon to your Kindle/Kindle app for free on loan (and no late fees; it removes itself at the end of the loan period), DVD's, Blu-Ray, downloading videos on a loan basis... Just a ton more stuff. It might not get you a degree, but nothing stops you from learning to your heart's content.
600 vs trillions? Picard summed that up in Justice:
DATA: Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir?
PICARD: I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that.
kind of mute point if you have a secret base that is cloaked on the planet, and can transport people to the base to enjoy the effects while they secretly study the fascinating culture of the baku.
Keep in mind that they wanted to rapidly harvest the life extending radiogenic particles and it was the rapid extraction that would make the planet uninhabitable. Slower sustainable extractions was possible but not seen as possible as some of their population would die before enough was harvested. Also, their population were children who had left the planet in the first place so their situation was due to a decision they had made. In my opinion, had they been forthright and asked the 600 living on the planet for the insurance albeit at the inconvenience of rendering the planet uninhabitable for several Millenia then such destruction would be more acceptable, it was the intent to covertly take what they wanted which was wrong.
If Data asked me that question I would have answered differently...
DATA: Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir?
Me : For what?
[DATA opens his mouth to reply]
Me : I would rather be in a monogamous relationship than be in that same kind of relationship with a thousand others. That's just too much work.
DATA : Perhaps I should clarify sir, I meant saving one life over saving one thousand lives.
Me : Why not both?
DATA : And if such a thing were not possible?
Me : I don't believe in no win scenarios Data.
Yes. I would respond to Data with memes.
When it comes to the energy credits a hint to that interesting idea was Sisko saying he used up all his Transporter credits when he was in the academy. Also people do things cause they like many would work to better themself for what ever reason they have chosen. It's the belief system of the Federation and humanity. Though some would go bare minimum and just live off their benefits. But I feel most will do something extra with themselves.
kamenwaticlients In fairness, “transporter credits” could also be referring to some kind of hall pass or home leave at the Academy. You know, some kind of rule like academy student are only allocated half a dozen uses of the long range transporter per semester to ensure the cadets are kept within the local area and aren’t beaming off to the other side of the planet whenever they’re not in class.
The only part of "Ferengi's never had slavery." that makes sense is the purchasing power of slaves. Slaves can't buy anything. I could see Ferengi's not allowing slavery because of that, but allow company scrip pseudo-slavery.
Also they are costintensive. Get those to provide for themselves and sell them something...
Good point. And I guess things are easier if a slave does not realize that he is one.
@@slashandbones13 Not disagreeing with your main point, but is it established that Ferengi have the same gender distribution as humans?
Actually, if the Ferengi are actually free market capitalists who value a strong economy as the means to acquire wealth, then they would foster a strong middle class, as their demand and purchasing power are what power an economy. You can't run a business without a steady and robust volume of paying customers. Slaves don't make or have money. Paying less than a living wage does not create a strong middle class. Therefore, there may be something to Quarks egalitarian view of Ferengi history.
why do you need a slave when you have an employee that you can pay what ever you want and exploit in any way?
I fully agree about men’s rights activists, and it’s also a good opportunity to bring up something else: menslib, which is basically what the men’s rights movement should have been.
The critical difference is that it’s not an anti-feminist movement, it fully supports feminist causes while also seeking to recognize the societal difficulties men face. A good example since it’s actually one of the primary concerns brought up by menslib is societal expectations of men to be stoic and not express emotion or have moments of vulnerability, and how toxic that is especially to young men or those suffering from clinical depression. I recommend you check it out.
Also, by the way, love the videos as well as ensigns log, keep doing what you do.
Man... with every video you do, I like you more and more. Thank you, Steve, for eloquently articulating pretty much everything I've been saying about all of this stuff -- Trek economics, Voyager, Last Jedi, politics, Trek in general -- for as long as I can remember.
I always imagined replicated food would taste like Denny's version of whatever you ordered.
Whatever else we may say about a post scarcity economy, no one has any non-fantasy ideas for getting there. That means we need to keep working
It's crazy to me that some ppl can't fathom what would motivate ppl to work if their basic necessities were guaranteed. Ppl have higher level wants and desires beyond basic survival, and once a person's physiological needs are met, those higher level desires take over. Pick any human desire beyond survival, and that would motivate ppl.
And you don't have to be a "raging liberal" to recognize this and support a system that guarantees basic needs. I'm a libertarian, and I support a guaranteed minimum income system. Decoupling basic survival from work is the ultimate provision of freedom, and would actually serve to enhance free markets by creating a universal BATNA (that's a negotiating term) for any circumstance.
Mark Pompeo nice comment. In my mind I think I’m a libertarian too (at least by my understanding of the definition) but then I see others that claim that moniker that I totally disagree with.
I think those that can’t fathom the motivation are similar to those that can’t fathom the idea of having morals despite no god
I guess some people only see the first two levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
@@nbuckley282 Yeah, a lot of libertarians suck. The ideological purists who treat physical violence as the only form of aggression, ignoring all sorts of abusive, predatory behaviors that are economic or psychological in nature. And the smug pricks who trot out quotes like, "Any man who would sacrifice an ounce of liberty for a pound of safety deserves neither," ignoring the hypocrisy of claiming to champion individual freedom then turning around and telling people who disagree with them that they don't deserve freedom. I argue with those types a lot. They're the worst.
@@crazypomp927 I agree with all of this. I was a right-leaning Libertarian in my early 20's, and then I grew up. I do agree with a lot of Libertarian philosophy, but a lot of what self-identified "mainstream" Libertarians claim to want is actually self-contradicting and simply impossible in a modern society. Also, many of the most important Libertarian ideals are not feasible without everyone having a basic minimum standard of living.
The "can't be replicated" discussion around 07:00
I think what's most likely is that gold-pressed latinum is likely fractaly designed and possibly registered as diamonds are today.
We know that transporter patterns don't hold over time, the pattern degrades. We even know from transporter duplicates that destabilization doesn't happen instantly, the patterns are effectively checked against the original on rematerialization before dematerializing the original.
This solves the scarcity problem (registered fractal patterns with intricacies of blemishes from the "pressing" of the latinum serving as the registration number). The fractal blemishing would be the effective analog of our highly precise patterning on bill corners, preventing scanning and printing by inexpensive printers.
When we were kids in school we all had dreams of what we wanted to do when we grew up. None of them included working at a menial job in order to just survive!
Sounds like you need socialism star trek style
That comment about "everybody getting an A"... grades are meant to be a reflection of your grasp of a topic, not a reward.
The elites used to think it was useless to teach peasants to read, too.
On Replicator vs Transporter:
Afaik both use a pattern then use local material stores to re-assemble that pattern.
Replicators have a resolution on the atom scale.
Transporters have a resolution on the quantum scale.
Hence any pattern that relies on quantum accuracy can only be transported, but not replicated.
Technically one could create a quantum scale replicator.
Technically one could also materialize a transporter pattern multiple times too.
My assumption is that both of those are simply illegal for a huge host of reasons.
Materializing the same person multiple times is even more morally questionable than cloning a person would be since it includes their memories and personalities.
I'm assuming that quantum resolution replicators would similarly allow the replication of many items or substances that are questionable or dangerous.
Dilithium, for example, is a necessity for matter/antimatter reactors. I'd be fairly certain that the federation would want to restrict access to that...
Just my thoughts ^.^
Hi. As a Star Trek fan all the way from Cape Town South African I’ve exclusively watched TrekCulture. But now that Ive stubbles onto your videos I’m hooked! Your great sense of humour, mixed with such deep thought out views of the trek universes is refreshing and gave me a far deeper appreciation and insight into this world
Great stuff, man. Been feeling lonely in regards to how I see the world lately, so this video cheered me up no end.
I think I forgot to mention this in the Geordi video, but the whole his future self being married to Leah Brahams might not be as creepy as it would look at first glance, as while the novels are only B-canon, in a trilogy of novels called The Genesis Wave, Leah's husband is actually killed by the titular wave, which causes Leah to team up with Maltz from Star Trek III to hunt down the source of the wave and kill the people responsible. If you work in the dead husband part of that into the A-canon, and have Leah actually be the one who approaches Geordi instead of having him try to put the moves on a widow, it could totally work.
This doesn't have anything to do with the comments, I just remembered that I'd meant to write something like this earlier and forgot.
Probably would've been better if I'd gotten to it at the time, but oh well.
What if it used more power to make the gold-pressed latinum than the worth of the gold-pressed latinum?
Luxuries have to be able to buy. Bashir's enhancements were bought.
We will Want to learn in the future. Drive to be more can be met when basic survival is not an issue.
Philosophy is never a waste of time!
Why does life have to be a struggle? Why can't it be a pursuit? I don't think that everybody is motivated for their green pieces of paper. I think that a lot of people actually enjoy what they do. However, these are people that are well compensated.
Having all your needs met does not mean living in luxury. It means having everything you're entitled to as a Terran.
We become a society of artists, scientists, and philosophers people who follow their soul, rather than their wallet. Humanity would never be more free.
However, you are welcome to work. Join Starfleet! Run for office. Join security/fire. Go practice Frontier medicine on Bajor.
You can do, or be Anything you want. They will educate you free! The cure for cancer could have been pissed away because we didn't accept the right child into college. That won't happen anymore. Plus, it isn't ours. Humans covet. Needs of the many...
Converting energy to matter is a ridiculous concept. The amount of energy for even a small amount of matter is incredible, that's why they use antimatter. I would presume the replicators simply fabricate products from plasma sources. There's extensive use of plasmas in Star Trek, at least in post TOS Star Trek, they have warp plasma and plasma conduits for power. They likely have a number of plasmas such as hydrocarbons for organic items like food, metal plasmas for objects and hence they can't fabricate dilithium as they would need dilithium plasma, Latium would need Latium in the plasma to produce gold pressed lattium and they would only have enough plasmas for common products. Basically, I see replicators having the equivalent of inkjet cartridges rather than convert energy into matter. If the replicators produced objects from energy, they would be more powerful than the antimatter the warp drive runs on.
In your take on how transporters are different from replicators : I think TNG would disagree with you.
In the ep where Picard was kinda possessed by some energy life form or something and sent out into space but needed to come back, Picard's physical pattern was stored in the transporter system (cause that's how he left), Data then had to attempt to recombine his energy pattern with what was left in the pattern buffers. Due to this "new body" Picard has little to no recollection of what happened to him in space. - My thoughts were bc his neural pathways were the same as when he left, bc he had no neurons, thus no neural pathways, in his energy form.
There's also something similar in Voyager when they had to hide the telepaths in the pattern buffers. They had no memory of being "incorporeal" then either.
Then there's also the "double Riker" bit - again in TNG...need I go on?
EDIT :
Okay for an industrial replicator : I think size would be the factor here. Like you could use one to replicate smaller ones (like for personal use) or use one to make the parts of another industrial one then put it all together.
And wishing for more wishes [from the same jinn] is against the _new_ rules but wishing for more jinn isn't bc they would all be different jinn, not carbon copies - there are many ways to make yourself get more jinn, even by just attracting more jinn to you, obtaining them for "free" having the disappear from where they are and reappear where you, the wisher, are...
EDIT 2 : I thought it _was_ explained on cam as "no monetary currency", but there was "reputation as currency", especially since energy would be pretty much free anyways, at least on Earth.
I really think we are in the mirror universe.
well I do agree with all the social justice and equality thing with tolerance for other genders races and makes things and other things like that right but the economic model is post scarcity and Star trek so I guess I'm considered a conservative Star trek fan Steve shives because I don't believe in being paid and I don't believe in economic corruption or the value of money at all in anything does that make me up a pious religious person that Jean-Luc Picard would hate in one of the Star trek next generation episodes that is so divorced from the world of materialism belt and everything to do with money that Star trek absolutely got passed except for trading with a ferengi? Am I that much of a conservative now to these new age socialists in this world meaning our world the real world that demands money and the censorship of big tech debates online with science and advances that is very progressive and artificial intelligence and in killing off big oil that even the progressive movement on The Young Turks and the social justice warriors on Fox news that hate Islam now want communism and censorship like in China and tiananmen square in 1989 hating atheists and academia types like Carl Sagan? Has Hollywood lost his ever-loving mind have we lost our minds or we all so desperate for the good life in this world the real world that we are just losing our imaginations our ability to think and our ability to talk and debate ideas and science without being intimidated harassed bullied into that Mafia like mentality that was ultimately in another Star trek episode in the holiday of all things where it was all about protectionism the mob money all that stuff money kills science debates online man sorry just my diatribe on why I think people think of me as a conservative now in this new age communist socialist sjw far right libertarian b******* movement that's really killed my interest in making a buck and having a lot of empathy for other people being almost like a modern-day version of an Android or robot that doesn't understand anything about human nature anymore or an alien like a Vulcan seeing human race as just plain stupid and uninvolved.
@@john-paulhunt9835 you have cognitive dissonance sir
@@john-paulhunt9835 I agree with this last reply to your crazy person rant. I also feel obligated to ask, _have you never heard of a comma, or punctuation marks of any kind? Holy shit! Hahahaha
Miguel's criticism was exactly my own, in the original video comments. As I expanded on it, a lot of things like Sisko's would be things which under a *capitalist* economy would be considered to fall under public or private property, whereas when you have replicator technology, and the like - it's a personal property thing, where you carry out your hobby. Glad to see you acknowledging it!
Also to that person who went off on the print media joke, not everyone can read and learn in the same way. I have dyslexia which make reading difficult and I have lots to do in my life that listening to a podcast or audio book or youtube video makes me more informed.
Riker is perfect example that transporter can copy things
After basic needs are met, How would people earn extra credits if they wanted to? I can see two possibilities. One would be to produce something that people would want to voluntarily buy. An artist could produce and sell paintings. The most common way, however, would be to join a service organization of some sort. For example, you might join a guild that builds and maintains infrastructure. Another way of course would be to join Starfleet.
The term "Starving Artist" would no longer be a thing. There is only one downside I see to that, Vincent Van Gogh. "He transformed the pain of his tormented life into ecstatic beauty" so you would be removing much of that pain, so a very select few artists would have lost some of what made their art so memorable. But certainly a far, FAR lower percentage of those who would never see their art get made because they instead had to focus on menial BS jobs just to put food on the table.
@@k1productions87 That's an interesting analogy, because Vincent Van Gogh suffered from health problems, including his mental health. Which, personally, I think is a part of what people consider his "pain". He may have done better in the world of Star Trek -the future we see that is- depending on the treatments available, but if that would hinder his artistic ability is questionable. Many artists with mental health problems have actually been able to create more, and more quality works when those problems were properly treated. Perhaps not all but the "tormented genius" whose genius comes from that torment is a bit too popular a trope; though they may have been able to offer unique and even less so but relabel insights. And even if it were true, there are many difficulties one could face in life regardless, as I mentioned above health issues for instance. As you said though, in general all artists would be able to focus on their art and not survival.
Universal Basic Income does not remove jobs, there would still be jobs, people would just not be reliant on jobs for the essentials. There would still be corporations and organizations other than Star Fleet and these organizations need not pay their employees as much as all the earnings would be in addition to the necessities of life hence there would be no need for minimum wage which removes opportunities to enter the job market. Yes, automation and replicators would reduce the need for factories and the distribution infrastructure hence reduce the number of available jobs but that's just more reason to have basic income as such reduction of jobs is inevitable. Both automation and personal fabricators such as replicators would increase the GDP so enough wealth to support the UBI would exist, it's just that the increased wealth generation would be distributed evenly rather than to the shareholders and hence only to the top 15% in wealth.
@@k1productions87 I could live with less art if we removing basic human suffering
"A replicator is just a transporter."
*Star Trek nerd rage rising.*
And it's people like that who must wonder why Kirk didn't replace a redshirt that way. *shudder*
If a transporter could convert matter into energy and back into matter with minimal losses then why would they need antimatter... I would imagine the transporter changes matter into something that could be manipulated like energy such as a plasma. Starting with TNG, there are a lot of plasmas in use, warp plasma plasma conduits for energy etc.
I always assumed the replicator had a source of raw materials and used them via the modified transporter pad.
I totally agree with you on Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi. His character reflected everything seen in the canon stories featuring Luke. I never liked Luke in the old EU as he felt fake. TLJ Luke felt real to me given the events that happened before the sequel trilogy.
People just want to bitch for the sake of bitching. Its hilarious (in a sad way) to see people claim TLJ is not only the worst Star Wars movie ever made, but the worst MOVIE ever made,... and yet in the same breath will still admit the new movies are better than the prequels. My gods... even typing that makes my brain fizzle in my head
RM_Prime I had no problem with Luke , my issue with TLJ is some continuity errors with TLJ companion books...that are marketed as canon.
Just a super nerd issue
In the DS9 episode Explores they talk about transporter credits:
SISKO: I remember, Jake, I wasn't much older than you when I left for San Francisco to go to Starfleet Academy. For the first few days, I was so homesick that I'd go back to my house in New Orleans every night for dinner. I'd materialise in my living room at six thirty every night and take my seat at the table just like I had come down the stairs.
JAKE: You must have used up a month's worth of transporter credits.
But maybe that's just a cadet thing.
Your explanation of replicating gold-pressed latinum is exactly how I would explain it too. Additionally, I always assume replicators 'cheat' by having small patterns for components that they combine instead of patterns for the whole thing. A potato can just be replicated from the same micron size block of potato pattern, repeated. That doesn't work for living things, those need a full size pattern to come out alive again. Same thing with other non-replicatable substances like latinum. The pattern needs to be too big to store to make it have the same properties.
I'm pretty sure that in canon replicators and transporters aren't remotely similar technologies specifically because they're trying to avoid the transporter murder question. The fact that the writers can't keep it straight does make it tricky though. TNG contradicts itself on this several times in the first season alone.
@@gagrin1565 i'd need to go through the episodes again to see if they ever indicated that it's completely different technology. The way I see it, the murder question isn't really applicable anyway because you get deconstructed and reconstructed from a quantum mechanical energy pattern. Imagine it like freezing you, passing your entire body through a fine mesh sieve, mailing all the little cubes to somewhere else, and stacking them again, then reactivating all your processes. Did you get murdered by the machine? Not really, they deconstructed and reconstructed you. It's not a case of scanning you and recreating you.
It would be nice to have an ideal society where people aren't working for starvation wages but to improve upon the world and have meaning to their existence.
About the replicator vs transporter discussion, I agree with the idea there may be some things not creatable by replicators - such as dilithium, which is one of the more obvious items since they have to mine it for energy production. However, the bigger example why people aren't commonly cloned after stepping through a transporter. This may be technical, but it may also be a policy restriction placed on the use transporters so they can't be used in this way, mainly for ethical reasons.
The impression I get from the show is of the former, the transporter can move most things but the replicator is somewhat more restricted in what it can produce.
I think that the common concept of transporters hence replicators converting matter to energy and back to matter is flawed, unfortunately it's canon because of dialog saying so even in TOS but this can be retconned as the characters simply trying to explain a complex process to people with less technology. Einstein's equations simply means the amount of energy required would be astronomic and why would they even need antimatter if they could directly convert matter into energy and vice versa.
I would envision replicators manipulating various plasmas to coalesce into the objects and hence could only make objects of materials that it has in various plasma storage containers like the colour inkjet cartridges of our printers hence it would only have the materials for the most common consumer objects, mostly for food.
I would envision transporters as partially destabilizing an object into a plasma which could be manipulated like energy before it coalesces back into an object. Early proposed special effects for TOS involved the characters traveling down a beam of light to the planet, they thought such special effects would be too expensive, the apparent scale of the characters and the beam to the ship would be wrong and it just wouldn't look right but it would be more consistent with moving objects as a plasma that re-coalesce.
Ever since TNG, Star Trek has expressed an abundant use of plasmas from warp plasma to explosive plasma energy conduits running everywhere. It's conceivable that much of their technology is from a better understanding and use of plasmas.
The "what would the motivation be" thing always bothered me. As someone who worked min wage jobs most of my adult life and only in the last 7 years got a factory job that pays the bills i can tell you its nothing but cruel and inhumane to force people to work or die. I work a factory job 7 days a week. Bills are covered and my roommate is jobless right now. Shes using her extra time to do collage and is going to be somekinda legal thing. Something to do with paperwork for a law office. Whatever its called. If she had a full time job, she would have to give that up. She has all her needs met and yet shes doing homework right now. She don't HAVE too, she just is.
I got the joke about the death of print media the first time. That's part of the pleasure of watching Star Trek, when future jokes become presently funny.
If you consider when Star Trek IV was made, the comment is surprisingly prescient. Even almost a decade later with Seaquest 2032's episode "Playtime", writers and futurists were still expecting printed news media transitioning to inexpensive flexible electronic displays physically similar to newsprint rather than the entire market niche disappearing. What the futurists and writers of the eighties, when Star Trek IV was produced, failed to realize is the explosion of alleged news sources that the internet gave voice to and how that ruined the business model of printed news media.
Thumb Up #01, apparently! 👍 You're welcome! Thanks again for another thoughtful, digital video recording! 🎬🖖✌️🙏🤠😎🤓
Notes: "Atheist"? Hmm. Okay, relatively recently, I saw an interview in a television talk show, and please, pardon me for forgetting which one and who the two men were. One guy, a male homosexual, was telling the other one, a male heterosexual, about the distinctions that they have. A, "Platinum" level one, is one born by, C-section, so his phallus was never inside his mother's birth canal. A "Gold" level one, is one whose phallus hasn't been inside a birth canal since it passed through his mother's. That all made sense to me. It fits in with so much other stuff. Like, I forget how long it was since I read it, when I discovered that there aren't just many types of, Theists, but also, Agnostics & Atheists, as well. But I don't recall the categories.
So, okay, there's a, Fantasy Genre, movie made by one of the guys from, "Monty Python's Flying Circus". In it, there's a group of, Adventurers, and one of them just happens to be a, Christian, according to his claims.
While the others are having problems with, monsters, he is not, because he doesn't believe in them. He's wondering what all of the fuss is about, as the others carry on so.
One of the girls in our movie viewing party said that the other characters should convert quickly! But my problem with the movie was, that I couldn't tell if that guy was experiencing a mere storm at sea, rather than the actions of a, sea monster, or was he experiencing calm seas and weather.
So would your category be, "I believe in mine, not yours"?, as it was with those characters? 🤔
Hmm. I think that what, Kirk, said to, Apollo, might place him in that category. 🤔
But then you used the term, "God", as if it were a name, not a title, as so many do, especially in a, monotheistic society. So then, is it that you don't believe in the existence of, omnipotent beings, or that even if they do exist, they aren't worth worshipping? 🤔
7:40 it might be more about energy costs then actual inability to replicate things, if the material is just so costly to replicate (energy wise) that it would be cheaper to find, mine, process and transport it from place to place (even though the material is pretty rare) then you could say it's impossible to replicate, and in case of things like dilitium cristals it could be that you would spend way more energy to replicate one then it could ever produce after refining, turning it into a pointless exercise.
the thing about star trek society is more about setting a base line of well being for EVERYONE and freeing them to pursuit what they actually want to do, just think about it if you could free 99% of our workforce one day, give them a star trek standard style of life and ask them to do what they actually dream of, the amount of culture, science, philosophy and innovation that would be available would be amazing.
The energy equivalence of matter to energy means a small amount of matter is an astronomic amount of energy so this whole replicating out of energy or even the transporting matter as energy is pure fiction and always will be. The closest we will come to replicators will be custom fabricators and they will always be limited by materials not by energy. What I would imagine a Star Trek level replicator to be would be something that can manipulate materials such as plasma into various forms and have the plasma collapse into solid matter. Numerous plasmas would be used, hydrocarbon plasmas for organic material and a number of common metals much as our color inkjet printers have multiple colored ink. This would explain the Star Trek limitations to their replicators such as not being able to produce dilithium and structures that are replicated not being as strong though in theory they could be incredibly strong through meta and nano materials. As per the cost of items that are replicated, on Voyager they often talk about replicator rations and energy but this could just be a limit of time and the operational costs of the equipment hence just a limit on the number of replicators onboard. A planetary economy would not have that limit as over time they could have as many replicators as needed but may be constrained by how much of the plasmas they can produce and the sources for the materials that the plasmas are created from, essentially the costs of the inkjet cartridges. Hence I think materials is still the limiting factor while on board a spaceship you also have the limit of a fixed number of replicators. Replicators may be difficult to replicate as they may need materials not common in other objects and hence not provided in a plasma storage device.
Star Trek technology seems to have a far greater use of plasmas then we do. They have warp plasmas and they transfer power through plasma conduits etc. It's reasonable that their replicators manipulate plasmas to form the objects. This also explains how the objects seem to materialize with a lot of sparkly light special effects.
Conceiving how Star Trek level transporters could be achieved is a lot more difficult. The best I could imagine would be producing some kind of energy or plasma channel through which matter could be transferred.
@@johnwang9914
the issue with all that energy in matter is that you have to actually get to that energy somehow and the only way to get all that energy out of matter is through nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and matter-antimatter reactions and the later requires antimatter, which takes huge amounts of energy to create as it doesn't commonly occur in nature.
Actually, I've taken a university course where I was guaranteed an A (or an A-, if I really didn't do well, and, of course, I'd fail if I just didn't do anything at all, but we were guaranteed some kind of A provided we made some sort of effort). It was the hardest class I took that semester, and everyone spent a very long time on it -- several all-nighters. We all received good grades, and we were all encouraged to work together. This allowed the graders to be extremely harsh (I believe the average grade on homeworks was a third) -- we learned a lot. I put a lot of effort into that course, and so did my classmates. That series of courses is very highly regarded in my university, it's definitely not lightweight.
I think the lesson here is that competition for grades doesn't need to be a motivating factor in education.
In fact, a lot of my professors dislike grading styles which encourage ruthless competition. A lot of my courses have been uncurved -- there are clear specifications for what needs to be done to get a particular grade, it doesn't matter if you're better or worse than your peers.
And no, I don't go to some mickey mouse university, or some ultra-progressive department within it.
I've seen a lot of people, mostly boomers, complain about how the average grades in universities are rising, which, to them, means that we're all getting participation trophies (Bill Mahar is who I'm thinking of, here). But they never justify why some proportion of students within an educational instution should fail just because there exist people who perform (often marginally) better than they do in some arbitrary category.
I was getting straight A's in college during the Spring semester of last year but had to stop attending because the way financial aid is handled. Summer last year I was approved for financial aid but i would only receive the money into my own bank account AFTER both summer 1 and summer 2 semesters were over. It was also delayed for the Spring semester but I had assumed it was just due to administrative BS setting up my accounts and what not but apparently it is modus operandi for financial aid here. The only way I could use my money was at the student shop on campus. I would have to ask them to ring up a receipt then take it to the financial aid staffer at the admin building for a voucher and then take that voucher back to the student shop to make the transaction. Did that for my book, supplies and for the 3 days the student shop was open the first week of the semester a receipt for a cup noodle and small chips for my breakfast.
I couldn't use the money for transportation, shelter, food or anything. And I just couldn't make it work.
Most days I feel that I might as well be dead.
Sorry to hear that, buddy. Stay strong. Try again!
We referenced that problem as money comes in many colors in terms of research grants. A lot has to do with people thinking you would misuse the funds if given a chance. Universal Basic Income is sometimes called Unconditional Basic Income as there is no restrictions on how the money is used therefore it enables the recipient as they are being trusted to do what's right rather than be marginalized by the assistance as you seem to be. However, I think that as with cases of state social assistance enough of the population would require restraints in what's given so due to politics, the benefits will not be tailored to each individual. I hope you find a way to make the assistance you receive work, perhaps some counsellors could help.
Firstly, i also love your positive, non denigrating attitude. Secondly i know a man who is unbelievably wealthy. He works a full time job in the front line of a public Hospital in a non clinical role, confronted by the public for 12 hours a day. He's a wonderful man who just loves helping others.
You are modern philosophy, Steve. Keep it going
Basic necessities is getting the ability to attend class not getting an A in said class. Love your videos!💜
there's always colony worlds and places of lower standard of living for those people who can't find motivation when their needs are met.
social pressure also has a greater influence when there's less survival pressures, i think.
Correction on the Indigenous Americans/Natives.
One of the current theories is that they actually orginate from Beringia itself. As in, when Eurasia and North America were still connected Ancient Siberians and Ancient East Asians mixed. And this mixed population stayed there for a while creating a unique people only found in the Americas. This also happened over 20k years ago, so the simplification of putting down roots and generations which can unfortunately also be applied to the descendants of colonists by the wrong sort is probably not the best one to have made.
godammit Steve, that thing about Picard getting the Mark Hammil treatment... perfect!
yes TLJ was a brilliant film and I love the closing of Luke's story. And your response has me laugh/crying with joy at hearing someone celebrate Picard/Luke the way I do. 💖💖💖
I totally agree with the one around 42:45. It's totally on the nose: "Men's Rights Activists" are creeps. Every single one the rest of us meet makes us look at our family members / significant others and go: "I am so sorry men out there that are that...um...special."
Seriously, you want to see what a Men's Rights Activist (MRA) looks like to the rest of us? The "Straight Pride Parade" people in Boston. Those "men"...that is what is wrong with MRAs to the rest of us.
Look, women can bash men and be sexist. If men can, so can women. But as a man, in fact, as a white man in the USA, I recognize that I have been given a very healthy dose of genetic privelege / advantage. Men have pretty much run the world for several millenia, and often we have subjugated women while doing it. And yet, anytime women ask for equal pay, bodily autonomy, and treatment, a (very similar creepy) group of men clutch their *(insert a stereotypical euphemism for "pearls")* and act outraged and offended and demand their rights be respected as well. Is it any wonder most MRAs, Incels, and "Nice Guys" probably all share the middle overlapping space on Venn Diagram of Misogyny? Seriously, women want to be looked at, thought of, and treated as our equals. How about we get there before we worry about our "rights" as so many MRAs seem to define them?
I do like the notion that Quark, an otherwise balanced character, reveals this by giving an unreliable account of Ferengi culture. In that case, though I still thought that Sisko should have challenged the viewpoint in the episode, instead of letting it pass by as though Quark had won the argument.
Sometimes, you can't argue everythingad infinitum.
There are lots of people who study really hard or endure hardships (physical labor, travel, time away from loved ones, etc.) for little to no money--simply for the reward of improving their own lives or the lives of others: scientists, artists, activists, etc. My father spent the bulk of his retirement years studying botany and volunteering his time as a gardener at a Catholic retreat center. Myself, I just retired from 30 years of teaching, and I'm planning to spend most of my time learning the art and craft of writing. Not for riches, but for enrichment.
Man, I loved school! Think about it this way, though: there are tons of sources, like Lynda.com, where you learn a lot, but aren't graded. They're profitable. So clearly learning for learning's sake is enough of a priority for it to be profitable even when not necessary.
In High School, I hated most classes, but I LOVED being in the JROTC (especially since the subject for the Air Force branch was Aerospace Science). In College, the core classes sucked, but I LOVED virtually every class that was part of the Animation Production program. When you are learning what you are interested in, you become invested, and you go the extra mile not because you have to, but because you WANT to
In both high school and junior high, I tended to be excused from the class for already knowing the material or simply left in the back row of the class where I could barely see the board. Basically school was where I was ignored.
Classmate of mine (we're 43) cashed in large in Silicon Valley around 10 years ago...~$15 mil. He essentially has a maximum safety $300k per annum annuity.
Guy lives lives comfortably, but no where near ostentatiously and basically gives to charity to spend any leftover yearly income. He teaches grade school and fucks around with restoring cars in his spare time...welding, painting, lots of gritty work, on "ordinary" cool cars, not Ferraris.
He is happiest person I could ever imagine.
Also, *take a drink for Steve pretending that the Baku were ever asked if they wanted to stay on their planet.* xD
Work isn't something that gives my life meaning, it's something that passively takes away time and energy from finding meaning in life. That being said, I have a desire for meaningful, productive, and beneficial work.
Regarding "Energy Credits".
Didn't Cpn. Sisko mention using a month of transporter rations going home daily when he was a cadet in Star Fleet? So it sounds like you're describing a Universal Basic Income.
11:47 Not everyone in the Federation is interested in joining Starfleet but main characters are already members. They had to study very hard to become Star Fleet officers. They didn't do this because they wanted more money, they live in a post-scarcity civilization.
For them Star Fleet wasn't a means to wealth, Star Fleet *was* their goal. Many people crave adventure and exploration. Even in a post-scarcity economy, you can't be a Star Fleet officer without the proper qualifications. Just as in the real world, it doesn't matter how rich you are, you can't be a pilot or a surgeon without the proper qualifications.
All right, Steve--regarding the comment at 24:20 and your succeeding happy rant about how much you loved The Last Jedi--I kept excepting you to break out laughing and say "Okay, that was a joke." Are you kidding? Have you watched Mark Hamill being interviewed about it? He was DEVASTATED! If you want me on your side about this you need to do an "Actually I really liked TLJ."
Please ready the preceding in a happy and teasing tone of voice.
On People Not Knowing How To Read...um, yeah, moving beyond the obvious slant of the person making the statement, I'll address This in the manner in which the Actual conversation is being had (because, you know, having conversations, not only predated Reading; but, some would say, it's more important to share ideas in any way one can) - but, No, in the case of Star Trek (which is the general Topic), 'Print Media' is Not dead; Printing on Paper, generally, is - there's simply no need to waste paper & trees, when digital media does the job so much better; you, know...like the Print we're all reading, right now. Also, in a world where the digital medium has become a standard in everything from computerized communications to operating vehicles, I'd say we're proving the point, at this very moment. Kudos!
Two thoughts.
1. Star Trek: Insurrection. I love how people just assume that that the Son'a were going to keep their "deal" with The Federation. They manipulated Admiral Dougherty and plotted to transfer a populace to a location where they knew they were going to die and steal the energy that helped them do it. Do these really sound like people who are going to share? Dougherty was an idiot and the Federation people that agreed with him were idiots, too.
2. Voyager was always running low on energy to run their replicators and other ship equipment. Yet, they didn't have much trouble powering the transporters. So, obviously, transporting takes less energy than replicating things. Especially when you look at the size discrepancies large humans versus small replications. Even though they don't use money, they still have to account for the energy used.
BWT. Absolutely loved your response to the MRA question.
My fave thing about the Sona issue is that if you take the bakku out of the radiation of the rings, THEY BECOME SONA. The radiation wouldn't have saved the Sona, and the bakku -having lost it as well- would degenerate into the same condition. Basically, everyone dies in that scenario. Everyone.
There is lore supporting the idea that transporters move matter rather than creating it like a replicator (for example the TNG technical manual). However, there is also lore supporting the idea that transporters CAN create matter, such as the existence of Thomas Riker. So, while they're DESIGNED to use the original matter when re-assembling the transported object, they don't HAVE to. In my mind, it's most likely a way of avoiding identity crisis (is the transported person really the same person) and cloning problems.
The major difference between the replicator and the transporter can be thought about like the difference between analog and digital. a transporter is more like analog where what ever matter in the transporter column is transported. The transporter moves the matter space with no effect to the object and what it may or may not be doing. A replicator operates more on a digital level. The object is created with no actual excited state of matter so to speak. that's why the replicated food tastes a little bad...The replicator doesn't produce the matter in an active state. not cause it cant but the original replicator patterns are just that just patterns on how to create this matter, not real scanned food in the transporter buffer. But dont forget every ship has a chef & galley food crew.
You really had some fun in this one chief! Plenty of moments deserving of a hearty "Well Done!".
If you want to know if Ferengi have slavery ask the crews of the NX-01 and Enterprise D about their first encounters.
As for the school metaphor: what if getting an F didn't matter, if you could just take the class again until you got the material with no penalty? What if nobody made you take that class?
I love your rendition on the school metaphor. It's soooo much better
For the people who are terrified of humanity becoming dumb couch potatoes due to post-scarcity/all basic necessities met, you know that people have basic ambitions, right? A kid who wants to be a doctor because the concept of sickness upsets them isn't doing it for the paycheck; they're doing it to fight sickness. There would be plenty of people who'd start manmade/handmade businesses because of the joy of the craft and demand from people wanting the aesthetic.
Regarding the difference between replication and transportation, the various series seem to adhere to the idea that living things can be transported, but they can't be replicated. E.g., if someone asks a replicator for a living baby lamb then the replicator can't do that, but if the replicator is asked for a lamb chop then it will easily produce one.
And further on replication: I thought the replicators assembled atoms, not created them ex-nihilo. They use stored patterns, but take actual matter (from somewhere, such as a storage bin) and assemble that matter for the object desired. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but if I am correct then that explains quite a bit about why there are practical limitations on the Federation in regards to the limited availability of replicators in remote locations.
As an addendum, this would explain why something like gold-pressed latinum cannot be replicated. Lighter elements would be simpler to transport and re-arrange. heavier elements would be far too energy costly to do so.
I assumed they work on a much lower level than atoms. Think quarks or even lower. I do believe they make fresh matter out of energy every time, the problem is of course that even a single bit of matter takes inordinate amounts of energy to make (E=mc², after all), so they're not practical in places where energy isn't easy to produce. In a starship, there's a massive warp core, and they can recover energy from any matter that's recycled back into energy. On a remote planet, neither of those are practical.
@@chton "I assumed they work on a much lower level than atoms. " - Well, ST writers never really followed what we know about the real world (e.g., in TNG the introduction to the concept of a Heisenberg-compensator, a device needed to make transporters (and presumably replicators) work... but the very phrase "Heisenberg compensator" is an oxymoron.)
If all one needs is energy to replicate anything, then a starship which carries some anti-matter could replicate an equivalent mass of anything made of matter. E.g., need a new widget made of tantalum but you don't have any extra tantalum on board? Then simply convert some of your antimatter (by annihilating with any matter, like a used shirt) to energy and then make your gadget.
That in the ST series we see ships with replicators still needing to take on supplies now and again suggests that replicators cannot just make anything out of energy.
@@TheDanEdwards A "Heisenberg Compensator" would be a device that can get around the uncertainty principle, letting them get information with more precision than a nature should allow. Yes, it's impossible to our current understanding of physics, but it's not an oxymoron. They have a lot of technology we consider impossible now. them having found a trick to get around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the least of my worries when the rest is just as vague.
As for tantalum point: Sure, theoretically that's possible. Presumably, they can deconstruct matter back into energy too, since otherwise a starship would generate massive amounts of waste material. But the process of transforming elements to others and of creating them is bound to be inefficient. Not a big deal for small things but bigger stuff is bound to get energy expensive. I imagine some elements are also a lot more inefficient to make than others, like we see in elements created from fusion or in supercolliders.
And any supplies you can pick up, you don't have to replicate, so would save you all of that energy cost. So stocking up on energy-expensive materials and stuff that's used very often makes sense. But in a pinch, or on multi-year missions without opportunity to restock, they can be made from scratch.
@@frankendragon5442 latinum can be teleported but you only get chasaeum, an allotrope of latinum. The theory being tos/tng teleport is incomplete at best.
Here's another thought on Latinum. If we wanted to use Latinum as currency, there's no problem per se with the idea of it being replicated: the problem is with being able to use the replicated Latinum to buy things. In other words, the double-spend problem. Maybe the solution is similar to the DS problem solution in cryptocurrency: yes, you can replicate Latinum, but the replicated copies are no good as money because they must be "signed" somehow (since this is Star Trek, no doubt something "quantum" is involved) and these signatures can be easily compared to the original Latinum. So you can create copies, and you can spend one or the other, but not both.
For someone who says they love doing these types of videos because they require so little work you really got upset when a commentor wrote a joke for you ;)
I think if we really want to see how people would live in a post-working-for-necessity society, all we really have to do is look at retired people. I've seen so many retirees taking up new hobbies, educating themselves, getting active in the community, etc. Basically, all the things they didn't have time for while they were working. Yes, there are a few who sit around watching television, but not most of them. If our basic needs were provided for us (which given the increasing amount of automation, seems very likely in the future), I think most of us would act in much the same way.
I clicked like mostly for the MRA comments.
I think the idea of the energy credit on people's accounts can make sense, but maybe on somewhere like Earth it's literally a government issue. Like, let's say you want a coffee. You can go to the store and get some coffee, come back, and make it yourself. Or you can go down the street and get a coffee from a shop. Or, if you're in a real hurry, you replicate it at home (where it might not taste quite as good, but it is a thing). Now, use the replicator and it doesn't bother Earth's government any, and it never costs you anything (to keep up with the idea that the Federation literally has no money). But if you go to the store, the government provides the store owner some kind of credit for doing its job for it. And when the store replenishes, it doesn't pay for the coffee it takes, but the coffee producer is also paid some kind of credit by the government. In the end, your patronage alone dictates who makes the extra credits (which somehow assign them beyond-basic level things that can't just 'be replicated' like land or something).
Now, there's one big problem with this system, it means that you can't have someone walk into a store in a panic and take all the chocolate and hoard it, even though they technically 'could'. And that's where humanity comes in. We would have to grow beyond the idea of ownership, which makes the idea of the above "credit" less worthwhile. Taking that we would have, as a society, grown beyond the necessities of mass ownership, what on Earth would you need or want an extra "credit" for?
Maybe it's literally just the credits you need to improve your craft. Maybe someone who runs a coffee shop runs a coffee shop and gets the credit to mostly support and grow his coffee shop, because running his coffee shop is reward for itself.
I mean, think about it, we HAVE something like that, called the internet. How many people make stuff on the internet for free, how many people then join and try to help maintain and grow it, just for the hope lots of people will value and participate in that. In a post-scarcity society, maybe you can literally build a brick-and-mortar coffee shop like a community website, and the government will support it purely for the function of community, especially if it's popular.
It wouldn't require money, per se, and it's a proven drive for humans in any of those areas where there actually is no physical scarcity. Some kind of physical internet.
1,000,000 likes for the TLJ hater takedown! Anyone who paid any attention to the old Star Wars movies would understand that Luke had a very plausible and fulfilling arc. For those that thought Luke was done dirty, watch 4-6 again. Luke is one of my favorite characters, but he wasn't as bad-ass as you remember and pretty useless to the plot. Empire and Jedi would have had the exact same ending had Luke not existed in them, because Luke made stupid decisions He left Yoda early in Empire, left his friends in Jedi to fight Vader, and was pretty insufferable doing both (whiney, then overly willing to save Vader at the risk of the rebel mission) . Solo gets captured and DS2 blows up, whether Luke existed to 5&6 or not. In TLJ, he became introspective and honest about the true damage of the LIGHT/DARK divide. He made mistakes and had regrets, like all old men, and they understandably effected him and affected his choices. Take off the rose colored glasses, and open yourselves to a larger Universe beyond a single family of dogmatic space wizards.
5,000,000 more likes for the takedown of the rapey creepers.
Steve... I love your Trek videos thus far dude. I just started watching them recently so I'm playing a bit of catch up here. I have to say, I find it amazingly entertaining how many comments you get from people with sticks so far up their assess that there are leaves growing in their mouths. :) Thanks for the content man. Off to check out Ensign's Log. :)
You know the U.S. is going wrong when China is discussing universal income with a bonus for community service or working while we don't even have medical.. Seriously when totalitarian regimes start moving toward U.F.P. societal systems before nations based on the enlightenment? We are leaning toward corporate feudalism. Worker consumers like the Southpark Amazon employees.
I liked your response to the comment about motivation in an economy where basic needs were met for free. Although, the commenter’s assertion that we are basically living in a world where everyone’s basic needs are met now seems very flawed. We have homelessness, starvation and lack of universal healthcare even in our own “1st world” country. We may have the means to supply everyone’s basic needs but our distribution system certainly requires that people earn them. While I also agree that many rich people do not contribute to society in a meaningful way, I think there are probably more that do “work” even though they don’t have to. Actors are a good example. Once an actor has really made it with a big movie or TV show, they probably have enough money to comfortably retire but they keep going. Maybe it’s for the money or the attention but they keep working. Just a couple thoughts, anyway...
Bleh, a shame that TLJ snuck in here. Your opinion of TLJ and especially it’s treatment of Luke Skywalker is the one thing on your channel I VEHEMENTLY disagree with, but I guess if we agreed on everything that would be kind of creepy.
That being said, even just thinking about Luke in TLJ breaks my heart again just a little every time.
The fact that Mark Hamill himself was incredibly upset with the sequels and how they treated his character just confirms that his character arc was bad. I've watched too many videos where it looked like Mark was going to cry when Rian discussed the movies that I can't be convinced the movies were handled well. So, yeah, I kinda bristled when he said that TLJ was great and Luke's arc was good. Also I disagree with him on Voyager. To each their own, I guess!
There are no instances of Latimum going via a transporter, they are shipped in several episodes...