TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Implementing a Star Trek Economy

Implementing a global holistic Star Trek economy, here on Earth, that is based on the needs of mankind and not the acquisition of wealth. Where our incentives would lie in bettering ourselves and those around us. Where we would live beyond the need for money, politics, poverty, war, national border and social stratification.

Through technological abundance and automation of labor this is not just feasible, but rather easy to attain. And with an educated population the transition to such a society would be much smoother when the predicted economic collapse, which is seemingly looming upon us, breaks out.

With that, I hope for a healthy and fun discussion on this topic and sharing of many other great ideas that can help build a better future for us all. LLAP.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 1 2012: Problem I see is that it is a "ideal" or "utopian" concept. Will only work once all people...let me repeat that...ALL people...agree to set aside their personal wishes for the sake of everybody else. Is that achievable? Probably not without a transition period where some entity (government, like Starfleet Command or whatever) "forces" many people to adopt the concept. Expect a lot of rebellion during that transition. Maybe even enough rebellion to prevent the transition from ever happening to the "ideal" or "utopian" stage.

    Also, even if that "utopian" stage is reached, unless you have truly infinite resources available, restrictions on what each individual could "acquire" would need to be in place. I just couldn't be allowed to make as many things as I wanted to make in my (what was it called?) wall unit that starts with nothing and ends up giving me a 4-course meal anytime I wanted. Unless technology found a way to truly recycle EVERYTHING so there was an infinite supply of resources, supply and demand would still have to be in place.

    And don't give me a holodeck. I'd never leave it. ;-)

    (Above presented "tongue-in-cheek" in the spirit of a "fun" discussion as stated in Mat's topic post).
    • Sep 1 2012: I don't envision a Utopian society based on an ideal way of doing things, but an emergent society where we continuously update our systems to the best of our knowledge. This could be done by applying the scientific method for social concern, arriving at decision instead of making them.

      While I agree that the people will have a lot of trouble adapting to such a society and the potential for an army of "rebellion" fighting against it (especially those in power in this system), I don't see government forcing people to adopt the concept. If governments were put in a role to "lead" the people during a transition, it would be based on education, how to "survive" the transition and providing people with the necessities of life. Then it would be up to the people themselves to decide if they want to live in such a society. If the majority don't, it won't happen.

      Keep in mind, it doesn't take the whole world to agree on this and certainly not the whole world to build such a society. I believe that it only takes a single country to embrace such a system, make it work and show it to the rest of the world and other countries and the people within those countries will eventually demand such a system that will eventually create a ripple effect throughout the whole world, when people see the benefits of living in such a society.

      In terms of finite resources, during the transition, I think a reeducation of values and learning basic concepts such as dynamic equilibrium would make people more apt to move from their environment that perpetuated shallow-interest and competition to an environment that perpetuate common good and cooperation. However, there is more than enough resources to feed, clothe, shelter and make a high standard of living to everyone on the planet if we choose to allocate our resources based on human needs. Through technology we could easily design goods and products with the intent of recycling, eradicating waste, leaving an abundance of resources and material.
      • thumb
        Sep 2 2012: I was responding to the concept of the Star Trek society as posed in the question. Seems to me that concept would require a society that utilizes rational thinking by all members of the society. But Game Theory would describe that as a "Cooperative Game", and in that type of "game", irrational decisions can actually be more beneficial to the society.

        (selet Cooperative Games on the left for the spefic example)

        I always wonder when I see ideas presented by anyone who claims, "If we could just get all Human Beings to think rationally, we could solve all of our problems", if they are familiar with Game Theory at all. It is a very powerful discipline used in many, many areas (science, politics, economics, world affairs, psychology, etc) that indicates irrational thought (decision making) is in many cases the best decision when it comes to large groups of people if you are looking to achieve the most benefit across the entire group (society). Pure rational decision making can actually result in the group (society) being worse off in the end.

        In that regard, I agree with you that not all the members of the society would have to agree on everything. But there would still be discontent, dischord, etc within the society from the disagreement, so what has really changed from what exists today? Thus, I don't envision any Star Trek society ever happening...one where everybody is happy and content.

        I still want my holodeck for those times though, so I can go inside and fantasize about that perfect world.
    • thumb
      Sep 3 2012: OK

      How about a participatory global 'immune system', built with today's web tech, to aggregate and catalyze interest in resolving global crises?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.