I'm a big fan of Star Trek. I may not know as much trivia about the show, its characters or the actors and actresses who played them as the biggest nerds do, but I have as much admiration as anyone for the backdrop that the writers created to explore human nature.
I do have one relatively large quibble on the other hand. I do not have a problem accepting the technological achievements of the time period. Warp drive, teleportation, phaser pistols and all the rest I can handle within the context of the Star Trek universe. What I cannot fathom on the other hand, and what seems too unrealistic to me, is the idea that they exist in a post-scarcity society in which money is no longer is necessary. "We solved poverty." is the line the comes to mind. Maybe so; maybe everyone in society has ample means. I can buy that with sufficient technological achievement. What I cannot buy is the idea that time, energy and materials are no longer scarce and that there is no longer a desire anywhere to make relative value judgments between any combination of goods or services. Getting 'beyond money' in my mind is tantamount to getting beyond heartache and disappointment. These are fundamental aspects of being human and living with other humans. Even in space drama, subverting fundamental human characteristics runs counter to one's story telling goals.
Thank God for the Ferengi! Deep Space Nine observed your points and came back to reality.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that "solving poverty" and "abolishing money" are not tied to one another. It seemed quite obvious - in the original as well as the Next - that goods and services still had value: many a favor on both shows were greased with gifts.
There is something to the notion that abundant energy could provide for a pseudo - utopian society where at least the basics of life are accounted for, but we know that the human condition requires more than just sustenance and security: it requires fellowship, challenge and fulfillment. These more esoteric issues were the focus of STx and the "abolishment of money" served more to avoid money/wealth topics than it did to define modern civilization.
I never really go into Deep Space Nine, but I'll take your word for it. I'm glad that perhaps someone realized how that portion of the story was missing. I agree it may have been as much of a plot device to simplify story lines as was was an idealistic view of the future, but in my mind there are just as easy work-arounds that are more realistic. For instance, when Kirk goes back to 1984 and can't pick up the bill, the lady (I forget her name) says, "I suppose you don't have money in the 23rd century either." Wouldn't it have been just as easy to say that future currency wouldn't be accepted or that it was electronic? Even the writers of Back To The Future had that figured out (Doc carried bills from different times).
DeleteThanks for you comments!