The Future is... slavery??

[dragoner]

It was weird where they were brought in, and that episode had time travelers too. I believe it is their first appearance though.

 

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one here who isn't a Trekkie?

:mrgreen:

 

[dragoner]

I would not call myself a "trekkie", as a matter of fact I had to look up the episode I was thinking about, Captain's Holiday, and it isn't the first appearance of the Ferengi.

 

[Condottiere]

Salvaging advanced technology from starship wrecks, known and unknown origin, seems a dangerous but possibly enriching experience.

First, you send in the cannon fodder.

 

[Minty]

The thing that bothered me is that, well, labour still exists, but remuneration is, at best, wishy-wasy.

It's stated a few times that, at least on Earth, people work not for money but to better themselves and those around them. and for certain jobs I can fully see that. I think being a starship Captain is a pretty sweet gig even if you don't get paid for it. I think that could well be a fulfilling life.

Ben sisko's father is a chef and a restaurateur. Now I HATE cooking, but I can see why he could find that satisfying. In a world where most people eat replicated foods he's more of an artist than a cook. He cooks for the pleasure of the creative act, and to see the pleasure on his diner's faces.

But his restaurant had waiters.

Waiters!

You're telling me those people were doing that for nothing but the smile on a stranger's face? I've been a waiter, it's one of the worst jobs in the world.

There are a lot of jobs I think a post-scarcity society could fill just because they are fulfilling, satisfying jobs. There are also a lot of jobs you can replace by robots. The federation has no need of road-sweepers and dish-washers.

But If you want to explain where the waiters come from, and the prostitutes and the chiropodists and the data-entry clerks and... well basically everything that requires a human touch, but not a human soul...

Well, you have to invoke either money, slavery or a fundamental shift in human nature...

 

[Anonymous]

If the work you do carries the same status then the differences between CEO of Google and waiting tables changes. If you had everything you needed and access to what you wanted and you wait tables, what's the big deal? I would go a step further and not want to work at all but some people like to work.

Waiting tables is just a space filler, fill in any job. I agree most menial tasks would be automated/robotised. The human touch is a good thing and interacting with people has it's own reward and when you take out the "I'm paying $64000 for this meal, you'd better treat me like a king" aspect of it, it can be a positive thing and not a master/slave one.

 

[phavoc]

I think the panel missed some of the between the script lines information regarding the Federation. The idea is that your basic living needs are met - you have food, you have shelter, you have access to public assets and such. But you want a holodeck vacation? That probably costs you some energy credits. You want to travel to someplace distant? That probably costs you.

We know other civilizations still use forms of exchange (gold-pressed latinum for the Ferengi, at least, maybe others). A review of the Memory Alpha wikia entry also points to other references, credits and such. There's a quote in there from Ronald Moore that Roddenberry had decided NO money of any kind would exist in the ST universe - but this after previous references to it had already been made in ST:NG as well as the original series.

The idea of energy credits or something similar does make sense. In multiple episodes of ST we know that not everything could be replicated. And we know that not all replicated things tasted 100% the same as cooked. That sets up an area where people could and would trade. Barter works on small scale, but across a planet (or a Federation), some other manner of exchange is required to allow for reasonable trading.

 

[-Daniel-]

For me, this is a perfect example of where some over zealous nerds on some panel want to try and force reality as they know it onto a fictionalized story and then find they can't answer all the questions of reality. So they go to the extremes of slavery.

Not working for money is not the same as not being given money. I know a man who went from being a surgeon to opening a pet store because he felt so unfulfilled. His income dropped by more than 60% when he did so. He clearly has elected to work for more than money. If all your needs are met, then many who elect to become Lawyers or doctors or bankers might find with the goal of high income removed, they do not want to do those things.

I guess the bottom line for me is this; It's a TV show and Movie franchise. We do not need to understand 100% the economics of how it works nor do we need to assume every waiter is a slave either. Neither is really needed. :|

 

[Condottiere]

And would Holodeck creations be considered slaves? Or just phantoms or simulacrums?

If you gave them independent artificial intelligence only stored in RAM, would switching them off be considered murder or even genocide?

 

[Galadrion]

And would Holodeck creations be considered slaves? Or just phantoms or simulacrums?

Well, are movie/television characters slaves, phantoms, or simulacra? (The answer, of course, is no - they are fictional creations, usually being portrayed by actors... although not necessarily, in the case of holodeck characters, or animation characters, for that matter!) Now, the actors (or artificial intelligence, if that's involved) might be considered a slave, but that's a separate matter.

There's a quote in there from Ronald Moore that Roddenberry had decided NO money of any kind would exist in the ST universe - but this after previous references to it had already been made in ST:NG as well as the original series.

I'd be interested in knowing more about the context of this quote before I'd seriously consider it as an answer. I know that Roddenberry wanted to deemphasize the importance of money, at least as far as citizens of the Federation were concerned, but I don't know from any primary source that he intended to eliminate money as a social concept. (Completely eliminating money would require a radical re-imagination of so many aspects of culture that I can't really picture anyone carrying through with it successfully - a writer trying to do so would wind up contradicting themselves over and over again.)

Now, completely eliminating physical money - that I can see as achievable. Not necessarily easy, since there are going to be some stubborn individuals holding out for a long time, but I can see some benefits, once computer reliability and security and ubiquitous wireless access is available, to going to a completely virtual currency. But a virtual currency is not the same thing as complete absence of currency.

 

[Askold]

What the panel really missed was that Roddenberg wanted the Federation to represent an utopia. It was supposed to be the perfect society that had evolved beyond the petty infighting and greed that humanity is plagued with and instead it was to be the representation of what we can do at our best.

...Naturally writers broke this premise several times because writing about an utopia is difficult, creating conflict and showing the "dark side" of the Federation creates interesting story lines and of course some of them may have disagreed with Roddenbergs view of what a perfect society is.

 

[Anonymous]

this is in no response to anyone in particular on this thread

did anyone actually think that it was a well thought through idea or just some sh!t they thought they could sell to a network and make some money from?

i mean, really?

what are we discussing?

really?

 

[phavoc]

Do you mean Star Trek itself? Roddenberry sold it as "Wagontrain to the stars" idea, because Westerns were really big at the time.

The original ST had plenty of conflict in it. The books and the show had plenty of this. I don't know how much backstory Roddenberry had beyond what was needed. The books helped fill in some things, but it still wasn't the utopia that was presented in parts of ST-TNG. It could be that over time Roddenberry just wanted to change things to the more idealistic concept as he got older. (shrug) I'm sure there's something out there that discusses it.

As for the panel, well, really! I think they were totally off the mark. I don't know enough about the panelists to know if they were all extremely liberal or had some sort of ideological axe to grind when it comes to the "man" keeping everyone else down. Slavery is bad, but let's face it, pretty much every culture has put another one down, or used slavery in some form or fashion. It's a human failing, not necessarily a cultural one.

 

[Condottiere]

Also, exactly which military crew would really tolerate a five year deployment?

 

[-Daniel-]

did anyone actually think that it was a well thought through idea or just some sh!t they thought they could sell to a network and make some money from?

Or just some cow paddies they put together for a silly panel they had to sit on at a silly nerd convention and they really didn't care what they were saying. :wink:

i mean, really?

what are we discussing?

really?

My guess, our reaction to both the idea a star spanning empire (Federation) could be based on slavery combined with the reaction to the melding of that idea (Planetary spanning slavery) with each of our individual understanding of what Star Trek's Federation was supposed to be. In other words normal subject matter for a forum based on Fictional worlds and empires with active folks who like to play with such thoughts and see where they take you. :wink: :lol:

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I hate to be overtly negative but most of the stuff here is as impossibly wrong as that ComiCon panel or that Friedman book (I read it too - pure drek).

Not everyone in New York or who goes to New York is a leftist. Leftist do not endorse slavery.

Some leftists don't, but Stalin, Lenin, Castro, and Mao all had uses for slave labor, they had labor camps.

Rodenberry himself was pretty far left, his wife supposedly describing him as a communist. I don't know about that but he certainly is to the left of the political spectrum as practiced in the US of the late 1960s. I'm not sure if Galadrion is trying to say the panel was being sarcastic?

For a left winger, I must say, Star Fleet is a fairly militaristic organization, they have armed starships to explore the galaxy, even NASA doesn't have that! Notice all the starship crewmembers have military rank, not everyone who flew in the NASA shuttle had military rank, even though shows such as "I Dream of Jeannie" gave the impression that NASA was a paramilitary organization where everyone walks through the corridors wearing dress blue Air Force Uniforms. The real NASA has people wearing suit and ties, or they are contractors, most aren't military people, that is more Russia!

Federation implies a STRONG central government. CONfederation is the weak one. It nearly impossible to tell what the Federation of Planets is, centralized or a confederation or what, due to all the different versions on the different shows and movies, as has been pointed out. The character of the government changes to suit the plot - it IS a show after all. Then again, the original show was written by a bunch of liberals (see the comment on Roddenberry above)

We then have the inconsistency that the Federation is not all "peace and flowers", you don't see too many "long haired hippie" types in Star Fleet, those that do appear in Star Trek are usually civilians. A Federation simply implies that their are multiple governments or a government of governments. The idea is that power is divided between the central government and the states and both are coequal, that is the meaning of the word Federation, though not all things that are called federation really are, just like not all things that are called "democratic" really are either. The label has some use in giving legitimacy to undemocratic regimes.

The writers have consistently used the United States of America, not as an "evil United States" but as the paragon of virtue, aside from all the money grubbing, at least the Original Series. It was less the model during the Next Generation.

Ever wonder why that is? The United States was transitioning from the John F. Kennedy patriotic brand of liberalism to the hippie version of questioning all government authority. the Original Star Trek was short-haired and pre-hippie, a few hippies did show up in the original series and they were trouble makers.

Ferengi where brought in, not as Picard's love nemesis (which is just weird) but as examples of unbridled capitalism, described as equivalent to 19th century Yankee traders. Who they exist in Star Trek economics is never explained (thankfully).

Which is strange when you consider that Star Trek was originally billed as "Wagon Train to the Stars" which is definitely 19th century. The starships in Star Trek are analogous to 19th century wooden sailing ships on the high seas, other shows such as Battlestar Galactica have a more 20th century depiction of Space Travel as they include fighters and space age versions of air craft carriers, but Star Trek didn't have that!

Epicenter is exactly right - that panel was dragooned into the convention, didn't know what to talk about so decided to stir everyone up. Its an old professor's trick, so the Berkley guy probably thought it up. Say something outrageous, and obviously wrong, and see if they can get the dumb kids to start talking so the panelists don't have to, or anyway just bat the ball back at them.
He's right about the writing getting slop..er.. more flexible as the years went on. Granted there was a ton of canon to support, which could otherwise hamper a good story.

 

[Condottiere]

Forced labour, either from political detainees or prison populations, could be termed as temporary slavery.

In North Korea, I believe it can last three generations, though I've only heard of escapees, not that anyone in disfavour ever got released.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Forced labour, either from political detainees or prison populations, could be termed as temporary slavery.

In North Korea, I believe it can last three generations, though I've only heard of escapees, not that anyone in disfavour ever got released.

I term it as non-market slaves. If North Korea wanted slave labor, it would make someone who was not a slave into one, people who work in other jobs that are compensated try not to do things that would end up getting them enslaved and sent to those labor camps. Traditional slavery of the south was the buying and selling of forced laborers, North Korea didn't do much of that, it made anyone it wanted into a slave, and those people living in North Korea that weren't in forced labor camps weren't much better off.

 

[Ataraxzy]

At NY Comic Con there was a panel on Star Trek. A panel consisted of "Trek" writer Chris Black; Manu Saadia, author of the book "Trekonomics"; Annalee Newitz, founding editor of the culture site io9; moderator Felix Salmon, of Fusion; Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist; and Brad DeLong, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

I don't know about the first two, but Newitz should have known better. Krugman and DeLong are neo-liberal economists, which is very far from being leftist. There's a basic confusion of words here, 'liberal' in the context of economics is actually very far to the right - think Hayek, Friedman, von Mises and the rest. The two economists are compassionate people (which is why I read their blogs, neo-liberals differ from the rest of the Right in not also following the example set by Thomas Malthus - a simplification, but an important one, I think), but their economics isn't really capable of delivering on a post-scarcity society like the Federation (to be fair, only Marx has really touched on what one would be like, and he got most of that wrong).

(and yes, there are 'resources' that are 'scarce' in a post-scarcity society, but post-scarcity doesn't mean ALL resources are effectively infinite, just the ones required for the continuation of human life, the basics - food, water, shelter, entertainment.)

 

[Condottiere]

Going by that logic, human labour could be viewed as a resource, and possibly a luxury by then.

A step down from slavery would be having a personal staff, like butlers, personal assistants and chauffeurs.