Why and how did the Star Trek Universe evolve to a cashless/commerce-less society?

Question

I've always wondered this ... I recall fleeting references to the lack of a money system in TNG (something about abandoning the quest for material wealth), but was it ever explained why and how and when that came about? Is there a canonical explanation? And, what motivates them in that case -- why go to work if you're not getting paid and obviously, don't need to be paid because there's no money to buy anything? Were all the main races moneyless?

Stardestroyer.net's "The Economics of Star Trek": http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html — , Jan 29 '11 at 08:22
@fennec: You can hardly expect objectivity from an essay found on a site dedicated entirely to proving that Star Wars is superior to Star Trek in every possible way. The simple truth is that all economic systems we are currently familiar with are based on dealing with the problem of the management of scarcity in basic resources, and Star Trek's replicator technology nullifies this fundamental problem. Whatever economic system the Federation uses is neither capitalist nor communist because both are now too irrelevant to take seriously. — Mason Wheeler, Jul 08 '11 at 23:46
I think it would be very interesting to have a series or movie focus on life outside of Starfleet in the Federation. I suppose there have been several episodes that at least brushed against it, but they shy away from the hard economics of how materials and land are distributed in the Federation. Was Picard's vineyard on land that his ancestors owned for generations? I imagine they could have accumulated it when other people were leaving Earth for other worlds... land on Earth is going to increase in value until there are less people on it, either by cataclysm or colonization of other worlds. — pmiranda, Feb 10 '12 at 15:46
It's the uniforms. No pockets, so you have to go cashless. :) — geoffc, Jan 21 '11 at 01:59
@MasonWheeler Of course it's not objective, and it has a fair bit of propaganda (after all, it's written as if by an imperial officer of the invading Empire :)). But his points still stand - there's no fault in those. And there's still plenty of scarcity in the Federation - the replicators are heavily used in Starfleet, but there's plenty of evidence that they're not all that common in Federation as a whole, and they still need raw materials. I expect they'd be most useful for making stuff like integrated circuits - tiny and difficult to manufacture. And you can't replicate a house. — Luaan, Oct 26 '16 at 15:07
@MasonWheeler "all economic systems...are based on...management of scarcity in basic resources". This is still true in the Federation, it's just that the replicators remove scarcity of physical items. The new scarcity is in unique creations, be they artworks or new hologram programs. The scarcity in the federation is one of manpower. You can duplicate a starship, but who is going to keep it from breaking while you are out exploring? Who designs the new generation of tech? Who keeps everything running? I now own 20 starships: who crews them, when my crew can create their own starships? — Mark Ripley, Jan 01 '17 at 15:47

score 119 · Accepted Answer · edited Jan 24 '20 at 16:19

119

The best explanation comes from Picard in Star Trek: First Contact. He explains that in the future, humans have moved beyond the need to acquire goods and seek to better themselves.

Trip in ST:ENT also gives a good summary of how this came to be. After having made first contact with the Vulcans, humans realized that there was much more to the universe than themselves. Within 100 years, war and famine were resolved on Earth.

Also, Gene Roddenberry was most likely a communist. ;)

While Gene Roddenberry had a general idea of where he wanted to go with the Star Trek universe, most likely he did not feature commerce because he was interested in putting pure sci-fi stories on screen (think of some old episodes and how close they are to old pulp sci-fi). So in essence, (and to reconcile with Zypher's excellent answer), we could say that the Star Trek Universe is as much cashless/commerce-less as it is toilet-less (you never see the bathrooms). In other words, it's not.

However, (most) humans are not driven by the acquisition of goods. A look at some key moments of the timeline gives us a clue as to how this change comes about:

2026-2053: World War III - 600 million dead, many governments destroyed. By that point, we can assume most people were more concerned with day-to-day survival in a somewhat nuclear wasteland.
2063: Zefram Cochrane converts a nuclear missile into the first human-made warp-capable vessel, the Phoenix. Him going to warp speed attracts the attention of a nearby Vulcan ship, who come down and introduce themselves.
2151: The experimental ship Enterprise begins exploring space beyond the Solar system, after a century of rebuilding humanity, during which famine and war are eradicated. All under the watchful eye of Vulcans.

edited Jan 24 '20 at 16:19

T.J.L.

5,451
4
29
51

answered Jan 21 '11 at 02:02

MPelletier

11,240
6
44
67

If you had to be a communist in the USA, the 60's would have been a good period to be so. – MPelletier Jan 21 '11 at 02:14
Zypher provides an excellent counterpoint, I would say. My DS9 is weak :( – MPelletier Jan 21 '11 at 04:40
15

Heck, when Scotty got a phaser running on the Constitution in "The Doomsday Machine", Kirk said "you just earned your pay for the week". As far as Picard's comments go, I liek to think of them as coming from the military version of the "ivory tower elitist" being somewhat out of touch with how things work "on the ground". Nothing necessarily BAD, just not in Picard's realm of expertise. – David Feb 08 '11 at 13:03
@David: I'd take Mudd as a prime example that not all humans are un-greedy in Star Trek and that there is, in fact, currency and that it matters to some. – MPelletier Feb 08 '11 at 15:12
6

The funny thing is that Warp drive discovery, the basis of everything that followed, was completely monetary driven. Oh sweet irony! – Ryan May 24 '11 at 02:40
13

Found other references to money. In Encounter at Farpoint, Dr. Crusher wants to buy fabric and asks for it to be billed to her account on the Enterprise when it arrives (not the exact wording). – MPelletier Sep 14 '11 at 04:15
1

and in encounters with Ferengi merchants, people readily use cash to pay various goods and services, so currency exists, even if it's not often used in trade between humans at least (most likely some form of electronic commerce takes care of most exchanges, something we're moving towards even now). – jwenting Sep 30 '11 at 08:24
5

also there were independent freighter families, at least in ST:Enterprise. You can be sure that they weren't risking life and limb against priates for "the greater good". – Xantec Oct 05 '11 at 02:22
7

Roddenberry was definitely radically progressive. But I think that's what makes Star Trek so unique. It doesn't show the future as just the 20th/21st century with futuristic technology, or show some post-apocalyptic future like 90% of modern sci-fi. Roddenberry tries to project the cultural evolution of humanity over the next few centuries based on historical trends. And historically, societies become increasingly progressive: sexism/racism/homophobia->tolerance, plutocracies/oligarchies/monarchies->populism/egalitarianism, etc. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:15
3

Technically, you did see a toilet...in ST V during the prison break. They're also on the blueprints for the starships :-) – Bart Silverstrim Jan 24 '12 at 20:50
1

There were no toilets on the first enterprise. There was ONE on the blue prints of the SECOND enterprise. – StarPilot Apr 19 '13 at 03:38
3

Gene wanted a bright future where humanity was in a good place. He felt that humans obsession with wealth is what caused most of its heartache and was a primary reason humanity hadn't come together to fix the world's problems and become super advanced. So for humans to advance, there had to be NO MONEY AT ALL. Later writers could not comprehend how people could then get things (like fabric) so currency always crept back in. He disapproved of such, but rarely stopped it or made the writers change their scripts. – StarPilot Apr 19 '13 at 03:41
2

I owe you 5 bars of gold plated latinum for that answer (I hope the irony of this comment is noticed in regard to the question.) – xXGrizZ Jan 25 '14 at 02:09
In TOS "Trouble with Tribbles" there is definitely commerce going on, the merchant guy is trying to sell tribbles! – Organic Marble Feb 14 '15 at 04:23
1

@Ryan This is actually well in line with the Marxist ideology Roddenberry obviously liked quite a bit - the "capitalist" destroying capitalism by developing The Ultimate Machine and thus allowing true socialism (later renamed to "communism") to take place (though the replicator is certainly a better fit for TUM than the warp drive; maybe it was one of the technologies acquired through trade with ETs?). The real irony is that Marx would call Roddenberry a utopian who has no business talking about true socialism, because no man can imagine socialism :P – Luaan Mar 20 '17 at 09:12
1

I think the attitude to commerce and money is more like: “Sweet! I accomplished this big feat for the Federation! Oh and I made some money too.....cool. Anyways, big feat!!!” Money has left humanity’s central focus as a controlling motivation behind self-improvement. – MissouriSpartan Jan 24 '20 at 17:06

score 85 · Answer 2 · edited Jan 28 '11 at 18:28

85

There was definitely a money system in the Star Trek Universe. It was a credit based system (heck even the monetary unit was called a Federation Credit).

You especially saw this in the DS-9 series where it played a more prominent role (as well as the Ferengi) in the store. Even today we are moving to this type of system with debit and credit cards, although cash is still a valid form of currency. Also, you should keep in mind that most of these series where set on Military vessels where there is much less need to have money at all.

Even though they were in a time of post scarcity there was still uses for money - which are outlined in the above mentioned wikipedia article.

These uses boil down to:

A bartering tool between the United Federation of Planets and other governments
A means of internal budget allocation in the United Federation of Planets
A way for Federation citizens to barter for objects that cannot be replicated

edited Jan 28 '11 at 18:28

Mark Rogers

23,037
19
108
160

answered Jan 21 '11 at 02:54

Zypher

1,744
12
10

4

Also, depending how seriously you take J.J.'s Trek as part of canon, ... in the bar in the beginning, Kirk tells the bartender "her [Uhura's] drink is on me". This implies that Kirk is going to pay for her drink, which implies currency of some sort, ergo, NOT a cashless society. – eidylon Sep 03 '11 at 18:55
5

It's a cashless society in all the ways that matter. Today we may use credit cards, but our society is still based around the accumulation of wealth. Whereas, the societies of the Federation aren't driven by capitalism. You still need an economic system for distributing resources, so credits are used as currency for trades and measuring the relative value of resources & services. But the credits each Feddy citizen is allotted is probably based on their needs (family size/number of dependants/where they live) rather than occupation/rank. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:23
4

Even in DS9, it was mentioned that money was used but not so much by the Federation. I'd have to hunt down the episode, but I do remember Sisko once holding over Quark's head the possibility of charging rent for his bar... with the implication that they hadn't been charging him all along. But there definitely was a Deep Space 9 economy, and Quark was an economic leader in that community. At the end of the series, it could be interpreted that the Ferengi Alliance is heading in the economic direction of the Federation's cashless economy. – Goodbye Stack Exchange Jul 17 '12 at 05:51
2

There is also the line in the Genesis introductory video in Star Trek 2, where Carol Marcus asks Starfleet to fund further research. Presumably this refers to some sort of resource allocation, as you say. – Paul D. Waite Feb 13 '15 at 22:57

score 65 · Answer 3 · answered Sep 02 '11 at 20:32

65

"Star Trek's replicator technology nullifies....scarcity"

Not so. This conversation is a rite of passage for any Econ major. While many things would cease to be scarce, when you get down to brass tacks, a replicator is not nearly as disruptive as you might think.

First of all, the replicator needs power to operate, so everything associated with traditional energy generation has to still happen. Even if that is super-duper anti-matter power, someone is still having to design, create and manage that to some extent.

Second of all, someone has to be designing the intellectual property represented by the replicator patterns, ala Thingiverse. People might do small things for free, but something complicated like a phaser, for example, would require a significant outlay of time and effort, which are scarce.

Third of all, there are certain goods whose scarcity is utterly unaffected by all this, most of all real estate.

Fourth, all of human services which are non-manufacturing are still subject. Even if you can get a holographic doctor, what about artistic performances and works? Maybe robots come into play here, but as long as human beings are the customers, to a certain degree human beings are going to be providing the services. Historians? Teachers? Research scientists?

Fifth, clearly there are items which are beyond the scale of replication. DS9 was stuffed to the gills with cargo ships...presumably what the cargo ships are transporting is not replicatable, or at least not economically so.

Consider if you had a replicator right now, and could replicate any object. Irrespective of the market value of the object (replicating diamonds, for example), is there an object you could manufacture that could pay your rent / mortgage? Probably not.

The replicator would be a great boon and represent a tremendous increase in wealth for all society, but people would still have jobs, money and commerce.

It always seemed to me that it wasn't that the Federation had evolved beyond commerce, but that it was immensely, unimaginably wealthy. When you're immensely wealthy, you can pretend that you're beyond material concerns - when you're poor, it's clear to you that you're not.

answered Sep 02 '11 at 20:32

Chris B. Behrens

25,226
21
102
155

2

Excellent answer, very well and clearly explained. – eidylon Sep 03 '11 at 18:57
1

"presumably what the cargo ships are transporting is not replicatable, or at least not economically so" - Right on. There are several things known to be completely unreplicatable - antimatter, for instance. Even for replicatable items, replication is often implied to yield an inferior product; it's passable, but replicated food or drink won't taste as good as the real stuff, and other replicated organic matter has detectable differences (it's unlikely a replicator could exactly reproduce an aged antique Stradivarius violin, although in one TNG episode it's implied violins are possible). – KeithS Oct 28 '11 at 18:03
So, even with replicators in existence, there will always be a market for the real thing; real musical instruments hand-beaten or hand-carved, real sporting equipment (especially collectibles like Sisko's baseball memorabilia), real Scotch or blood wine (Picard's family are vintners for example; if the replicated stuff could compare they wouldn't be bothering), real Kava roots, etc etc etc. – KeithS Oct 28 '11 at 18:12
7

This concept is just another step on a long curve of automation that began with the industrial revolution. When a product makes the leap from being producible by automated means, you see a drop off in both price and quality - BECAUSE the product is so much cheaper, people are willing to tolerate a lower level of quality. In some products, the quality level recovers to the level of hand-craftsmanship, but in others, it never has, not even all these years later. For those products, good enough is good enough - but that doesn't preclude a more limited demand for higher quality versions. – Chris B. Behrens Oct 28 '11 at 20:34
19

Replicators don't nullify scarcity of all things, obviously, but it nullifies scarcity of most things to the point where the average person wouldn't have a need to model their life around the accumulation of wealth. That may be hard for some people to understand right now, but even in our capitalist societies, there are many people who work for free. The only reason more people don't do this is because everything still costs money (food, housing, education, transportation etc.). But automation, replication, and cheap energy eliminates much of this. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:33
2

This is an exceptional, extra-cannon answer! Your third point is quite provocative: how does one come by better living spaces? Does everyone get a place on the beach or does it come through some other, non-monetary privilege? Your fourth point is good as well. While it's true that people are willing to work for more than money in the future (even now - look at open-source software), what about those only capable of doing more menial jobs, such as mining or construction (both exist in-universe)? What do they work for? – Chad Levy Nov 17 '11 at 04:37
1

+1 Excellent answer. Note that DS9's cargo ships may well have carried replicatable cargo; DS9 is a fringe outpost providing trade routes for several major non-Federation (and hence non-replicator-based) powers. – Tynam Dec 17 '11 at 01:10
1

So what you're saying is that with enough money, communism works? – Michael Brown Feb 06 '12 at 02:25
This is actually a Big Question in Economics, and a topic about which entire books, indeed, entire careers have been made. The short answer is no - natural experiments like East and West Germany and North and South Korea show that the problem with Communism is, per se, Communism and not any extrinsic factor. The long answer is that, given a certain amount of decentralizing and grafting with a free market system, like you see in China, you can, unfortunately, maintain the despotic nature of a Communist system for a long time, at the very least. – Chris B. Behrens Feb 06 '12 at 14:51
12

Your second point, at least, is null and void due to the open source movement, with things like Ubuntu (well, linux in general), Firefox, LibreOffice, and others. There will always be people around who are willing to work on large projects in their spare time. And likely even more of them around in a "bettering yourself" society like the Federation. – Izkata Jan 06 '13 at 07:26
2

Open source hasn't replaced all commercial software. And not all open source software is free. People will always have material problems, and solving those problems will always make it easier to do extended intellectual work. Having those problems solved means that the time doesn't have to be SPARE. – Chris B. Behrens Jan 06 '13 at 15:37
1

Energy is the primary unit of measure with replicators. It takes at least e = mc2 of energy to make an item, plus the intellectual property involved (the blueprint/info on how to build it). Star Trek's energy sources are the same as ours--- solar, nuclear, etc. They have to make their antimatter--- which wastes a great amount of energy--- and then use that as a STORAGE MEDIUM of energy (ie, fuel). Where do they get that antimatter? Various energy sources, such as solar, tidal, wind, nuclear (fission and fusion), geo-thermal, and other sources are all canon. – StarPilot Apr 19 '13 at 03:50
1

This means their economy is primarily energy unit based. A federal credit is equal to a certain amount of energy. The fact that it is also traded to non-federal entities just goes to show the utility of money. – StarPilot Apr 19 '13 at 03:51
9

Arthur C. Clarke said "in the future the unit of currency will be the kilowatt-hour". – Chris B. Behrens Apr 19 '13 at 03:56
3

"is there an object you could manufacture that could pay your rent / mortgage?" Sure, a house. If compared to today's "not the same, but kind of" analog in 3D printing, small houses can be assembled for roughly $5,000 USD (indeed, five thousand dollars). Let's play by your rules and assume only the cost changes; forgetting property tax/insurance/etc, $5,000 over 20 years at 5% interest is something like $30.50/mo. Even a 5-year loan is just over $92 a month. The problem with the 'Econ 101' argument is that it assumes too little social restructuring in the face of a paradigm shift. – Stick May 15 '14 at 14:57
But everyone else can manufacture the same house, so you're back in the same boat. That is, UNLESS the way that you manufacture houses is particularly valuable - you're an artisan homebuilder. – Chris B. Behrens May 15 '14 at 16:49
FWIW, gold-pressed latinum is canonically not able to be replicated, which is why the Ferrengi use it as currency. One of the novels had a roommate of Wesley find a way to bypass that restriction, triggering a response along the same level as if we found a way to mass-counterfeit paper money, but only temporarily (it was essentially "fairy gold" and transformed back) and as a book, it's non-canonical. – FuzzyBoots May 15 '14 at 18:20
3
Taking these one by one:
1. Design is done so that need not continue. Building additional sources is dependent upon need.
2. For brand new things, yes. However in a universe where all of your needs are taken care of a certain amount of people will research things just because it's interesting. IP no longer matters because, well, money is no longer needed. The only thing necessary might be maintaining attribution of the discovery.
3. There are around 200 billion solar systems in this galaxy. In universe, they can build facilities to live pretty much anywhere. Land is no longer scarce.
– NotMe Oct 08 '14 at 15:27
6
Artists create because they want to - which is why you currently find a bunch of them on the streets. Historians/Teachers = computers. Research Scientists - see #2 above.
I can find no real reason for that except that the writers felt they needed to move cargo around. In this case those ships don't reflect the reality of the situation... Unless they are stuffed full of replicators...

Going further: I wouldn't have a mortgage or rent if I replicated my own house. The bank wouldn't own it, I would. The whole idea of "ownership" would likely change radically.

NotMe

Oct 08 '14 at 15:28

1

Land, per se, is not scarce. Land that is close to desirable development is. Land, per se, is not scarce NOW. – Chris B. Behrens Feb 13 '15 at 22:04

1

@Izkata You're missing the point. Open source / free software isn't free. It's still scarce. It still needs labour. It still needs distribution. It still needs documentation, training. If one person decides to help with Firefox, he can't use the same time to also help with Linux. That's what scarcity means - you can't eat your cake twice. Just because the end product isn't sold for money doesn't make it free - it still means you didn't create something else instead, a typical case of opportunity costs. – Luaan Oct 26 '16 at 15:15

1

@StarPilot Not for Star Trek's replicators. They don't create matter at all - they reassemble it. That's why they still do agriculture and mining - they need the raw materials. And even in manufacturing, replicators aren't used everywhere by far - they're very prominent on Starfleet starships, but those same ships aren't replicated (though presumably, there are plenty of replicated parts they are constructed from, though not exclusively). And they're perfect for starships - better to carry raw materials you can shape to any replacement part than thousands of spare parts. – Luaan Oct 26 '16 at 15:18

@Luaan Note that the second point I was responding to was the simple-vs-complex difference. My examples are complex things the answer says are unlikely due to their complexity, compared to simple things. – Izkata Oct 26 '16 at 16:09

@Luaan Also see this question, which quotes from the TNG Writers' Technical Manual - replicators can do direct matter/energy conversion, but it's presumably less efficient than reusing existing matter. – Izkata Oct 26 '16 at 16:11

@Luaan, it is canon that they do create matter through energy conversion. Transporters scan, break down matter into atoms, convert the atoms to energy, "beam" that energy to the target location, convert that energy to matter, reassembling the "beamed" item atom by atom, rebonding the atoms it broke up, and end up with a near duplicate of the original item beamed. Replicators do part of this process: They take a given target pattern, pull energy off their source, create matter atom by atom, bond them into the correct patterns, and create a near perfect copy of the original target pattern. – StarPilot Nov 10 '16 at 11:20

@Luaan it was later they updated the technology that allowed replicators to "use raw material" to short cut the extreme energy of building each item purely from energy. This advance is credited to the Spock while he was serving as science officer during TOS. It was just one of his many little personal projects that he kept himself busy with while they were boldly going about the galaxy. – StarPilot Nov 10 '16 at 11:25

@StarPilot The truth is, it's a rather silly idea to make something from energy if you can make it from matter. Especially when you use antimatter reactors to "create" that energy - you're just wasting huge amounts of energy converting matter to energy to matter again, even using fusion and fission to convert iron to whatever you want would be more efficient. But you're right, there has been loads of changes between TOS and TNG in the capabilities of Earth and the Federation, as well as their economy, culture etc.; the two are very different universes. – Luaan Nov 10 '16 at 12:21

@Izkata: "There will always be people around who are willing to work on large projects in their spare time." True for some projects but not for all projects. Just try to open source your stopped up plumbing. Everyone want to be a game tester but fewer are willing to learn C to write them. There will always be tedious but needed projects that will require more of an incentive than love of that sort of work to be completed. Thus the need for money or some other form of payment so they are done. – Mark Ripley Jan 01 '17 at 16:02

@MarkRipley Not to mention that everyone thinks they want to be a game tester. The actual job is rather tedious and very hard. People want to play games, and there's certain appeal to playing a game before anyone else or playing different versions of the game as ideas are fleshed out and discarded. The recent "early access" phenomenon quite clearly shows the appeal can quickly disappear, despite the fact that many early access games seem to have a much higher quality than even some properly released titles :) – Luaan Mar 20 '17 at 09:29

Here's a fun bit about this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445938/jobs-prosperity-capitalism-should-focus-latter. – Chris B. Behrens Mar 23 '17 at 14:28

@Luaan You have to carry that material around on a starship or have the storage space available on a space station. That's why they usually just go straight for the energy to matter route in ST, in all generations of that universe. Because of limited space available. They effectively get more storage space by using replicators which only use energy. Remember, the smaller the ship, the smaller the warp field needed to move it. The smaller the warp field, the less energy it takes to create. – StarPilot May 12 '17 at 13:57

@Luaan Planetside facilities, on the other hand, will likely have large amounts of space available for storage. They are likely to use the less costly form of replication, drawing from raw material and using that in the process of recreating a desired target object. As for cargo ships moving goods--- items that aren't replicated would be considered "luxury" goods. Vegetables grown "naturally" in a garden and shipped to worlds that have limited local agriculture would be considered "luxury" over the same vegetables spat out in a replicator. Think organic versus industrial farming. – StarPilot May 12 '17 at 14:01

@StarPilot And that's where you're wrong. Matter is as condensed as energy gets under normal circumstances, and very easy to manipulate (just put it in a box). Federation spaceships use matter-antimatter reactors for power, which have a lower energy density than normal matter (since about half of the energy is lost as neutrinos), and their fuel is very volatile and hard to handle. The main problem you have with is having the right materials, but that's solved with the transmuting replicators anyway - you just use the most convenient form of matter and change it to whatever you need. – Luaan May 13 '17 at 07:22

The intellectual-property-cost argument is flawed, I believe. Once you have a working model, it will spread quickly and, if very good, become ubiquitous. In these circumstances, innovation will be slow, and standard, uniform models widespread. As for innovation, economic rewards are not as applicable in a post-scarcity economy, so presumably social rewards (reputation and/or status, for instance) would become the dominant motivators. And after all, once most needs are taken care of, what else are you going to do with your time? Born innovators gotta innovate. – WhatRoughBeast Mar 15 '19 at 02:11

score 17 · Answer 4 · edited May 24 '11 at 02:31

17

I find the nonexistence (or nearly so) of money in stark contrast to the principle characters favorite pastime - poker. Its hard to imagine poker being the same game if the chips are just meaningless markers.

The psychology of pocker requires that one have significant "skin in the game". If it's just some meaningless chips that will be lost, rather than a months pay if your bluff is called, it is a lot easier to feign confidence. Sure, they have a theoretical understanding of money, but that isn't the same thing as the understanding of money of someone who struggles to pay the rent.

edited May 24 '11 at 02:31

Goodbye Stack Exchange

7,280
2
45
56

answered Jan 21 '11 at 04:40

Omega Centauri

521
2
5

5

The chips represented, if not money... what? Oh, the fanfic possibilities in that boggles the mind! ;) – Goodbye Stack Exchange Jan 21 '11 at 06:33
1

Even if they didn't carry wallets, there was money in the universe, so it wouldn't be a foreign concept to them. – Jonny Blaze Jan 21 '11 at 14:33
4

I remember a couple of times when there was talk about "losing a months pay" at the poker tables, at least for the junior officers games - mostly in passing though. – Zypher Jan 24 '11 at 21:18
11

I've always assumed that they represented replicator or energy rations. They're on an isolated starship that spends extended periods in deep space. The Enterprise is obviously designed to provide for the energy needs of all of its Starfleet and non-Starfleet passengers, but there's still a limited amount of energy available for holodecks, replicators, and the ship's critical components. So you'd need a way to ration the available energy for recreational use. That probably means everyone aboard is allotted the same amount of possibly transferable credits each month for energy usage. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:45
1

The chips were obviously holodeck time. – flq Feb 01 '14 at 22:22
1

Wouldn't that imply that all gaming that does not result in money for your final score would be boring? While I do not play Poker, I personally strongly disagree, and I like playing a variety of other (both virtual and non-virtual) games. I greatly enjoy those, though playing for real money ruins the fun for me. – O. R. Mapper Aug 26 '14 at 13:07
4

I'm with @O.R.Mapper. Have none of you people just played basketball with your friends for fun? Most competitions don't involve monetary reward. Hell, I've done this exact thing: played poker without betting money. The chips are just to track who's winning. – Nerrolken Feb 19 '15 at 17:32
At least one episode made mention of a month's worth of some type of duty, cleaning possibly, but I can't remember what exactly. – Zibbobz Feb 19 '15 at 19:51
I've played poker using chips that weren't tied to money plenty of times. You're just playing for "points", like you'd play for in any other board game. It works fine until someone "buys" back in for nothing, ruining everything. – DCShannon Nov 21 '16 at 20:47
@DCShannon interestingly though, people plays poker a lot differently when real money isn't on the line. – Jan 11 '17 at 22:12

score 12 · Answer 5 · answered Jan 21 '11 at 06:58

12

Why: Because Gene Rodenberry wanted to show that the Federation was a better place than contemporary America, and that was one of the ways he chose to do it.

How: He wrote the scripts that way.

answered Jan 21 '11 at 06:58

Mike Scott

62,199
4
201
241

8

I think he's looking for an in-cannon explanation – Jonny Blaze Jan 21 '11 at 14:32
17

He may be looking for one, but that doesn't mean that he should get one. Most of these kind of questions don't have in-canon explanations that actually make sense, and this is no exception -- they're things that are in fiction as plot devices or as cool ideas, not as well though-out extrapolations. If Gene Roddenberry really knew how to run a moneyless society, he'd be collecting a Nobel prize for economics, not producing a TV show. – Mike Scott Jan 21 '11 at 15:12
20

As evidenced by the correct answers here, there is an in canon explanation. – Slick23 Jan 21 '11 at 15:50
6

+1 - Utopias are easy when you control the narrative – Chad Levy Nov 17 '11 at 04:27

score 12 · Answer 6 · edited Jan 04 '20 at 11:35

12

It is interesting to also note that in one of the movies (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home; aka the one with whales), Kirk states they have no use for money in the future.

edited Jan 04 '20 at 11:35

desertnaut

2,801
1
22
34

answered Feb 23 '11 at 14:28

Robert Brim

1,364
8
5

Jimmie Ray Giboney · Answer 7 · 2013-04-19T03:17:43.143

I think what Gene meant was a "cashless society", in that all currency is virtual, rather than physical. Save for antiques still collected by collectors. Uhura had to buy her Tribble from Cyrano Jones with Federation Credits. Cyrano Jones was a merchant. Harcourt Fenton Mudd, was also into money. Ditto those miners that he delivered those mail-order brides to. Kirk also mentioned wealth in the Horta episode. Wealth was brought up again in that episode about the immortal that owned his own planet. Moving there though, cost him is immortality. There are lots of references to wealth, et cetera. Just no cash is ever shown until the Ferengi are brought into the equation. Oh let us not forget, that a Federation representative would need to visit that one planet to collect the Feds' piece of the action! The Ferengi's form of currency that they invented couldn't be replicated and thus counterfeited, namely that Gold-Pressed Latinum. EDIT: Remember when Captain Kirk talked to Scotty about "being fired" and "earning his pay" in that one episode? In one aspect, people that have a higher education, I suppose, would know about cash money anyway, as a part of their education. But if they aren't used to spending it, or seeing it, or having it, on a daily basis, why would they talk as if they still did? Also a point of interest, while the survivors of the Sleeper Ship Botany Bay didn't seem to have monetary concerns, the people from the Sleeper Ship Birdseye certainly did! Captain Picard had to inform the former rich man, than his bank accounts weren't accumulating any interest, the poor guy! I know that the episodes are in different centuries. My point here is, that after reading some more, I can see now that there are episodes that contradict each other on the point of whether or not money still exists in the 23rd Century and beyond.

score 8 · Answer 8 · answered Feb 23 '11 at 21:52

I recall the concept of "transporter credits" (e.g. energy rationing) being brought up in one episode of DS9. Also, given that replicator technology essentially allows them to be a post-scarcity civilization, there is no need to purchase the basic necessities of human society - but that doesn't mean that the desire to do so is gone.

KeithS · Answer 9 · 2021-04-23T15:12:08.910

In our current society, money is a store of value which is independent from other material goods of value. From a highly macro perspective, its purpose is first and foremost to regulate access by individuals and other societal entities (like governments and corporations) to finite, valuable goods or services via a trade system. It is recognized by nearly all moral systems that you cannot simply take all you want; if everyone did that, the human race would have depleted Earth's resources a long time ago. The secondary purpose of currency is to store value in a portable form; a piece of paper with "100" written on it is far more portable and durable than most things $100 would buy.

However, money's not the only possible or even plausible system of regulating goods and services, or of storing value. Roddenberry proposed a system primarily based on goodwill; human thought had trancended beyond the petty need to garner wealth and instead had focused on bettering their species in the form of increased knowledge. That goodwill, in turn, leads to a "post-scarcity" economy; when the 7 billion people in this world no longer have to spend money on weapons to kill each other, a lot of time, money and talent becomes available to focus on improving life in general (medicine, food production, housing, climate, etc). In such a society, its members wouldn't have such primitive drives as greed.

Other systems have been implied in other series, especially in those where resources are scarcer than usual (Voyager) or where commerce with other races was more common than usual (DS9). Latinum (a material store of value similar to gold) and credits (some electronic store of value similar to the number representing your bank balance) are widely seen as a medium for trade while planetside or between races. Credits can also be seen at times as a synonym for "rations", as in "replicator credits" or "holodeck credits", regulating access to things that, while abundant, are still finite.

Obviously, other races in the Star Trek series are based on elements of human thought taken to their purest form, with commercial systems to match. The Vulcans value logic and reason so highly they repress all emotion to avoid polluting analysis and decision-making. In-canon, they were the main inspiration for humans to "evolve", and likely have similar abhorrence of greed and encouragement of "ideal communism" as we might call it.

The Klingons go almost completely the other way; barbarians appealing to their baser instincts, kept from pure totalitarian nihilism only by a strong sense of honor and family. It's generally implied that goods and services are generally produced, subsumed and disseminated from the top down in a Stalinist style, but with the strict honor code reining in the most egregious abuses of Stalin's Russia. Real-world, the Klingons were modeled on an amalgam of Asian cultures, primarily the Shogun Japanese and Communist Chinese.

The Romulans are modeled on the Roman Empire; a highly political system of government that can only survive as long as it can conquer and exploit new worlds and peoples. The Ferengi, obviously, are the uber-capitalists; the free market is a deity in itself, and coinage is EVERYWHERE in their society. The Cardassians in TNG and DS9 became the "new Romulans" after the Romulans themselves were backed away from pure conquest to give them more complexity of character.

The Dominion and their child races also have some Roman influence, but the Founders themselves borrow on the archetype of the super-being, so powerful that they have "outgrown" empathy for the sufferings of lesser creatures. Much like the Klingons, the system is top-down; everything proceeds from the Founders. Sometimes, these opposing races bring out the darker nature of humans; for instance, the Federation resorts to germ warfare (a disease custom-designed to disable and kill Founders) in an effort to end the Dominion War.

score 7 · Answer 10 · answered Jan 21 '11 at 02:01

7

I think it was just that they evolved beyond it, toward nobler purposes. Picard was always one to be explaining that.

answered Jan 21 '11 at 02:01

scotty

71
2

score 4 · Answer 11 · answered May 08 '14 at 20:35

Ease of energy access, and near-infinite resource creation.

Monetary economies are traditionally driven by rarity of resources and the energy required to acquire and use them. With money being an indirect means of converting one resource into another.

Through advanced technology energy is so cheap it cannot be metered, and it can be used to create resources through replication and other advanced manufacturing and mining technologies. With neither energy or resources being rare and having value, there is no need for money, no need for barter, no need for trade.

Anyone can have almost anything.

score 1 · Answer 12 · answered Nov 20 '16 at 20:25

For those who might not be aware of it... Gene Roddenberry attended several seminars made by Jacque Fresco on Cybernation (as it was called back then). Today, it's been renamed into 'The Venus Project'... and the core of this project is called Resource Based Economy.

Essentially, it describes a transition into a moneyless society where currency, trade and any form of servitude do not exist. And before you dismiss it as a fantasy, bear in mind that RBE is based on technological automation - namely robots, machines and algorithms do all the dirty work, while Humans are liberated to pursue higher things.

All Humans would also be exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving. The notions of property, governments, etc. no longer exist. Why? Well, when you live in a society that produces things on demand or has things ACCESSIBLE on demand, you have no need of ownership.

Our technology (in real world) surpassed this level around 40 years ago. It would take too long to go into all the intricate details, but suffice to say that Roddenberry based his idea of a moneyless Federation on Resource Based Economy.

Namely, you do not require infinite resources to have a post scarcity society. Look at it like this, Humanity today is producing enough crops to feed over 10 billion annually, and yet, a lot of this produce (over 40%) is discarded based solely on the fact that it's aesthetically unpleasing (otherwise there's nothing wrong with the food itself - its still nutritious/edible). Then, a lot of it goes to feed the animals (which is unnecessary because Human biology doesn't require animal protein to live or thrive - there's sufficient peer-review studies confirming this btw) and its effects on climate thanks to animal agriculture at large (producing enormous quantities of Methane that's even worse than CO2, and Methane emissions encompass a good chunk of climate change numbers).

At any rate, what you need to achieve post scarcity is abundance (or more than enough). And that we had the ability to do for decades. There is an enormous quantity of geothermal energy that can be harvested via 2 ways... volcanoes, and drilling deep in to the Earth (could have been done since the 1950-ies because we've been producing synthetic diamonds since then).

We also don't have issue with housing... there's more than enough to go around. In the USA alone, there's enough empty homes to house each homeless person about 6 times over. In the EU, there's enough housing to house each homeless individual 3 times over.

China built hundreds of new and empty cities in a span of mere 15 years.

We also have 3d printers that can build houses in about 24 hours, or half as much time.

Why did the Humans in Trek universe decide to go this route? Probably several factors: 1. WW3 - just look at what wars are doing to us in real life. 2. First Contact with the Vulcans.

I would surmise that Humanity decided it was time to clean up its act... and actually, it took them 50 years to eradicate war, poverty and diseases (per 2 statements coming from Deanna troi - once during TNG series and second time during First Contact movie - it was in the movie she actually stated the time frame).

Now, bear in mind that while the Federation does bear resemblence somewhat to RBE, it's not a fully realized RBE because it still has people in positions of power, leaders, prisons/'police', etc.

I would imagine that various vestiges of what exists in the current socio-economic system were retained for TNG because Roddenberry either didn't grasp the full concept of RBE and how it might work, or the writers simply wanted to keep things somewhat relateable - plus, Trek was a show made for American TV... showcased in a very much so Capitalist culture.

Plus, Trek had a lot of writers, many of which projected their ideas onto the Federation from current day (even though such things would simply not happen in such a society once you take into account epigenetics and neuroscience in play - but then again, many writers also didn't know about those things, and by rewatching a lot of TNG, I can see their ignorance showing - the information existed back then, though admittedly, it was probably harder to access due to lack of Internet at the time).

At any rate, the Federation in TNG represented a possible future where science and technology are used for the well-being of EVERYONE as well as protecting/preserving the planet, and where EVERYONE are exposed to relevant general education (becoming generalists), critical thinking (ability to question the information given to them, themselves, their own culture, background, etc.) and problem solving - such individuals would technically have 0 need for leaders or politics, and indeed as is dreadfully apparent from real life, politicians are NOT problem solvers (they are mainly trained in politics, not in the things Humanity and the planet need for survival, prosperity or sustainability).

Many people would argue that we do not have necessary knowledge or resources to solve our problems... but neither were a problem for a good portion of 100 years now - I can elaborate further and provide evidence for those who might be interested (from credible sources).

But bear in mind I'm using real life examples to showcase how the Federation could have accomplished what it did.

In actuality, what we saw in the 24th century Federation should have happened at least in the 23rd... by the 24th, it should have been far more hyper advanced, because scientific and technical progress occur at faster than exponential rates the more automation is being integrated and society becomes more technological and scientific as a result. Most people think in a linear fashion, and this is one of the reasons why it is a problem for them to think that we could easily transition into a moneyless society ourselves - they are stuck in the current mindset because it is the culture in which they grew up in and currently live in.

score 1 · Answer 13 · answered Feb 19 '15 at 17:21

1

The initial answer by Chris B. Behrens is spot on. Replicators would reduce much of what we would call economic scarcity, but it still takes energy to produce it, and skilled labor to maintain/fix it. And land obviously is and always will be finite, hence scarce.

I believe the Star Trek economy allows for a high standard of living for all citizens, because food, clothing, and replicated industrial material for shelter would be cheap to produce, if not free. However, you still will have those who earn less for various reasons, and those who earn more due to some highly prized unique talent or ability. You would still have poverty, but not the dire kind that too often plagues the world today. There would be real estate booms and busts, created by the scarcity of living space coupled with the high demand for it. I imaging 70-80% of income would go to land and energy use, as everything else would be essentially free/insanely cheap.

What would not change, and will never change, is human nature.

answered Feb 19 '15 at 17:21

Christopher

19
1

1

This conflicts with what we know about the Star Trek economy. – Valorum Sep 29 '15 at 20:00
There's are a few problems with that answer. Epigenetics and neuroscience cleanly debunked 'human nature' argument. I would suggest watching lectures from both Dr. Robert Sapolski and Dr. Gabor Mate to gain a better understanding.
As for replicators... no. You don't need them. What is needed is abundance in energy, food production, housing, clothing, medical care, education, clean water, clean air and transportation (among other things). Such abundance has already been produced on Earth now for decades and we have the ability to do far more with less.
– Deks Nov 22 '16 at 00:12
Technology and resources were never our issues... our issues lie in the continuous use of an outdated socio-economic system that sees everything from cost efficiency point of view and profitability... not resources availability and what is achievable from a technological efficiency point of view while using latest science.
I can assure you that food is already produced in massive abundance (enough to feed 10 billion people annually) - we just waste over 40% of it due to aesthetics and giving it to animals.

Energy: Geothermal, solar and Wind - doable for decades in massive abundance.
– Deks Nov 22 '16 at 00:17
@Deks Having never heard of Drs. Sapolski or Mate before, and not being acquainted with epigenetics or neuroscience, what lectures would you recommend? I Googled their names but have no idea where to go from there. Can you recommend any reading material? Genuinely curious because appeals to "human nature" always seem like a form of hand-waving to me. – J Doe Mar 13 '17 at 23:51
Certainly... you can start with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwhihv2T5FA
I would suggest watching the whole thing, but if you want to get to the relevant bit with Sapolski and Mate, start from 9 min mark.

Of course, there are other materials you can access online about both of these men... mainly on youtube as they posted their lectures.
– Deks Apr 03 '17 at 00:41

score 0 · Answer 14 · answered Jan 04 '20 at 05:12

It seems to have been with the introduction of replicators, at least in Kirk's time they still seemed to have a credit system. In one episode, he asks Spock how much Starfleet has invested in their training & of course Spock gives him an exact number. And they have commerce-shops, traders like Cyrano Jones, also a black market for things like banned Romulan Ale, and an underground latinum-based economy. We've also seen in DS9 especially that despite Picard's words in First Contact, greed hasn't disappeared from human nature.

Also with replicators there's no material scarcity, but as someone mentioned there may be a scarcity of originality, of creativity in coming up with new products.

Why and how did the Star Trek Universe evolve to a cashless/commerce-less society?

14 Answers14

Linked

Related