ST book on abolision of money?

Snake wrote:
>
> You are greatly discounting what Picard has mentioned - the human
> determination to do something with themselves, to improve, to make a
> difference. I was desperate to get my moving, (somewhat) active life back.
> I still feel, to this day, that I had 1 complete month (27 days, really)
> completely stolen from me, never to be returned.

A neat point, but I think it only fills a certain context. Although most of the on-topic posts in this thread I found rather common-sense and pessimistic.

I think the environment we live in can be quite determining in how we conduct ourselves. In past millennium, our lives were about survival, very simple. In the past centuries it has shifted, so survival isn't much of an issue. Instead our lives range from being about accumulation and status to means of sensory pleasure or escapism. It's my "optimistic" belief this is just an after-effect of survival environment, one that could be almost expected.

So what happens when generations of us start growing up in an environment where status means little (relative to today) and everything ranging from survival to the ultimate sensory enjoyment is available without limitation? Perhaps they'll be another shift. Maybe.. hopefully.

Jason
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Jason Jackson" <@.> wrote in message news:lpZge.59311$HR1.6050@clgrps12...
> I think the environment we live in can be quite determining in how we
conduct ourselves. In past millennium, our lives were about survival, very
simple. In the past centuries it has shifted, so survival isn't much of an
issue. Instead our lives range from being about accumulation and status to
means of sensory pleasure or escapism. It's my "optimistic" belief this is
just an after-effect of survival environment, one that could be almost
expected.
>
> So what happens when generations of us start growing up in an environment
where status means little (relative to today) and everything ranging from
survival to the ultimate sensory enjoyment is available without limitation?
Perhaps they'll be another shift. Maybe.. hopefully.

I believe that is the entire point of Star Trek. Humanity will grow beyond
our current desires and views - which, in absolute terms, are shallow and
self-centered - to become a greater whole. It is the sense of optimism that
kept Star Trek going for 35 years.

I think this is also (a touch) of the issue regarding the current, ultimate
downfall of Trek. Berman's Trek, all too often, lacks that glowing
optimism. So much of Berman's Trek stories are dark, constantly struggling
characters just trying to live. We see that everyday in real life, who
wants to see it in "escapist" entertainment? We want Roddenberry's sense of
Grand Purpose, his sense of optimism that we will finally become as unified,
peaceful, intelligent and hopeful as we dream we can be.

Berman simply no longer gets Roddenberry's Great Vision, nor his unfailing
sense of hope.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

My opinion is that DS9 worked best when the characters were pissed off, so
it might not be such a bad thing.

"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY.RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:QM3he.97$_f7.82@trndny01...
> "Jason Jackson" <@.> wrote in message
> news:lpZge.59311$HR1.6050@clgrps12...
<snip>
> So much of Berman's Trek stories are dark, constantly struggling
> characters just trying to live.
<snip>
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

In article <2D6ie.4688$mt.1797@twister.nyc.rr.com>, D W Sr.
<don2250 RemoveThis @qvc.rr.com> wrote:

> You all mention that material things have lost their value due to the
> replicator.
> But...
> The replicator converts energy into matter so "energy" would be the
> commodity of the "Star Trek" future.
> That is assuming that that is not free also.
> Or, maybe size does matter...the big replicator to make bigger things would
> be worth an X # of smaller replicators.
> How you acquire that first replicator is anyone's guess.
> "Just my 2 cents", not replicator money, LOL.

It's a good thought. If energy is not freely available, then there
would be limits on a replicator-driven economy (although "economy" is
probably not the word that applies here). However, if energy were a
valuable commodity, then there would be parties competing for it, and
you would have exactly the same sort of contemporary capitalism that
Trek pretends doesn't exist in Trekland.

For my part, I don't think a money-free "economy" can exist for long
among other, competitive economies belonging to frontier cultures where
*everybody* is expanding their territory and economic power as fast as
they can. Even the Federation used "credits" in Trek Classic time, but
by Star Trek IV we're asked to believe that "money" was no longer used.
Now I think they gave Kirk that line in ST IV ("Do they still use
money?") to mean cash, which is a reasonable question to ask, and using
the word "cash" would have preserved the joke without ignoring common
sense. Instead, we've got the Federation as a literally communist
state swimming alongside many other cultures, most of which seem to be
capitalist. In such a case, I think the Federation would quickly be
picked clean.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

You all mention that material things have lost their value due to the
replicator.
But...
The replicator converts energy into matter so "energy" would be the
commodity of the "Star Trek" future.
That is assuming that that is not free also.
Or, maybe size does matter...the big replicator to make bigger things would
be worth an X # of smaller replicators.
How you acquire that first replicator is anyone's guess.
"Just my 2 cents", not replicator money, LOL.

"Dave" <df.DeleteThis@oxeo.com> wrote in message
news:5MydnTFILs_FMuLfRVn-3Q@speakeasy.net...
> I've always imagined ST a little like this. You see with out the need for
> material goods, some of us might venture to think that there would be no
> motivation or drive to do anything. Why should I get up and join starfleet
> for example if I have everything I've ever wanted with me already and
> without having to do anything?
> I've always thought that the federation works on a merit basis. Perhaps
> a full citizen (someone who was to join a SF academy, or served in some
> sort of forces or merchant space marines or whatever it is they have
> there) have special priveleges. It can't just be that simple, that
> everyone is exactly the same. I'm looking towards something more like a
> Starship troopers type of situation to a much lesser degree though as food
> and clothing all these essentials are now totally availible to anyone. But
> prime real estate, the latest space shuttles, vacation to Risa are all
> things that have to be earned...
>
> Thomas Håseth Johansen wrote:
>> "Summer" <susitucker.DeleteThis@bazoombas.org> wrote in message
>> news:281220031235225264%susitucker@bazoombas.org...
>>
>>>Additionally, I have often wondered how people on Earth function in the
>>>24th century without money. Do people work with no reward other than
>>>that it will benefit the common good? How do you acquire groceries?
>>>What about a house or clothing? Not to mention technology like private
>>>shuttles or even just a replicator in the kitchen. It's hard to believe
>>>that people would just be able to walk up to a replicator dealer and
>>>say "one please," and that's it. But then again, because they have
>>>replicator technology built into so many facets of their society, it
>>>does diminish the value of currency of any kind.
>>>
>>
>>
>> True.
>> Invention of Replicator Technology would change how we value things. The
>> only thing that would have true value in such a society would the
>> replicator-technology itself.
>>
>> Gold would have no value when everyone can replicate it. A painting might
>> (until someone scanned it into the replicator
>>
>> The "work" beign done by a person would be the only thing that would be
>> uniqe, and that could not be replicated, same with human creativity. In
>> such
>> a society, materialism would simply dissapear, since there would be no
>> point
>> to it; You would have everything you need/desire.
>>
>> Let's just hope that replicator-technology wouldn't be regulated/licensed
>> and only give to the elite few of society, but be free for all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <JG6Gb.17127$Pg1.15372@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bo
>>>Raxo <invasions_r_us.DeleteThis@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mr. Personality" <affable.DeleteThis@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:201220031019142452%affable@no.com.invalid...
>>>>
>>>>>This whole sorry mess goes back to that joke in Star Trek IV, when
>>
>> Kirk
>>
>>>>>asks if they still use "money." I think he meant cash, which is
>>>>>reasonable, but ever since then money has not been allowed in Trek,
>>>>>even though the Federation is an expansionist frontier culture
>>>>>surrounded by other expansionist frontier cultures that *do* use
>>
>> money.
>>
>>>>>You'll probably remember that, in the first Harry Mudd episode, Kirk
>>>>>offers to pay the miners in gold and/or other goods for their
>>
>> dilithium
>>
>>>>>crystals. Barter trade like this is fundamental to frontier
>>
>> economics.
>>
>>>>>Over time, though, the economics of Trek have grown even more stupid
>>>>>than its physics.
>>>>
>>>>Well said. It was even more ridiculous in the context of DS9 -
>>
>> supposedly
>>
>>>>humans didn't use money, and Quark was running a place with gambling.
>>
>> Given
>>
>>>>how endemic gambling is to human nature, don't you think some humans
>>
>> would
>>
>>>>have been wanting to participate?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Dr. Personality" <affable RemoveThis @no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:160520051900019390%affable@no.com.invalid...
> In article <2D6ie.4688$mt.1797@twister.nyc.rr.com>, D W Sr.
> <don2250 RemoveThis @qvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > You all mention that material things have lost their value due to the
> > replicator.
> > But...
> > The replicator converts energy into matter so "energy" would be the
> > commodity of the "Star Trek" future.
> > That is assuming that that is not free also.
> > Or, maybe size does matter...the big replicator to make bigger things
would
> > be worth an X # of smaller replicators.
> > How you acquire that first replicator is anyone's guess.
> > "Just my 2 cents", not replicator money, LOL.
>
> It's a good thought. If energy is not freely available, then there
> would be limits on a replicator-driven economy (although "economy" is
> probably not the word that applies here). However, if energy were a
> valuable commodity, then there would be parties competing for it, and
> you would have exactly the same sort of contemporary capitalism that
> Trek pretends doesn't exist in Trekland.
>

They obviously have fusion technology, including on small scale - TNG
references to microfusion reactors.

They obviously have the ability to store power efficiently, otherwise a
phaser the size of a cigarette pack wouldn't be able to vaporize a redshirt.
And that was back in TOS days, 90 years later in TNG it should be even
better.

So, power is essentially free, manufacturing (via the replicator) is
virtually free. Food is free. The necessities of life are free.

That means people are free to do what they want, instead of what they get
paid to do. You lose the capitalist system because the efficient allocation
of capital becomes meaningless.

People are free to write, paint, play guitar in a really bad garage band, go
to school, teach school...join Starfleet.

That isn't communism, because it isn't a centrally planned system. You
don't need to because, again, the efficient allocation of capital and other
resources is no longer necessary.

It is socialism, which probably scares you just as much. It's rather like
socialism without any tax bill (instead of, as today, a really huge tax
bill, as much as 40% of GNP). Socialism without the bill - that is a
utopia. Roddenberry was far more of a visionary than you give him credit
for.


Bo Raxo
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

In article <Brdie.2784$Ri4.2621@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bo
Raxo <invasions_r_us DeleteThis @thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:

> "Dr. Personality" <affable DeleteThis @no.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:160520051900019390%affable@no.com.invalid...
> > In article <2D6ie.4688$mt.1797@twister.nyc.rr.com>, D W Sr.
> > <don2250 DeleteThis @qvc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You all mention that material things have lost their value due to the
> > > replicator.
> > > But...
> > > The replicator converts energy into matter so "energy" would be the
> > > commodity of the "Star Trek" future.
> > > That is assuming that that is not free also.
> > > Or, maybe size does matter...the big replicator to make bigger things
> would
> > > be worth an X # of smaller replicators.
> > > How you acquire that first replicator is anyone's guess.
> > > "Just my 2 cents", not replicator money, LOL.
> >
> > It's a good thought. If energy is not freely available, then there
> > would be limits on a replicator-driven economy (although "economy" is
> > probably not the word that applies here). However, if energy were a
> > valuable commodity, then there would be parties competing for it, and
> > you would have exactly the same sort of contemporary capitalism that
> > Trek pretends doesn't exist in Trekland.
> >
>
> They obviously have fusion technology, including on small scale - TNG
> references to microfusion reactors.
>
> They obviously have the ability to store power efficiently, otherwise a
> phaser the size of a cigarette pack wouldn't be able to vaporize a redshirt.
> And that was back in TOS days, 90 years later in TNG it should be even
> better.
>
> So, power is essentially free, manufacturing (via the replicator) is
> virtually free. Food is free. The necessities of life are free.
>
> That means people are free to do what they want, instead of what they get
> paid to do. You lose the capitalist system because the efficient allocation
> of capital becomes meaningless.
>
> People are free to write, paint, play guitar in a really bad garage band, go
> to school, teach school...join Starfleet.
>
> That isn't communism, because it isn't a centrally planned system. You
> don't need to because, again, the efficient allocation of capital and other
> resources is no longer necessary.
>
> It is socialism, which probably scares you just as much. It's rather like
> socialism without any tax bill (instead of, as today, a really huge tax
> bill, as much as 40% of GNP). Socialism without the bill - that is a
> utopia. Roddenberry was far more of a visionary than you give him credit
> for.


You were making a fine argument until that last bit about what scares
me and what doesn't. You have no idea of what scares me.

Theer has to be some central planning. Either the replicators or the
goods made by the replicators have to be allocated somehow. Everybody
takes what he needs, but how do they get to it? Cargo transporters?
How does *that* work? Or does every family have its own replicator?
And if other cultures are still using money and trading for goods,
etc., then what measures have they taken to exclude economic pressure
from the Federation? In other words, how do these cultures deal with
citizens who don't see any point in working because right over there,
over the hill, is an advanced civilization that doesn't need money and
can make anything it likes in any quantity it needs. I don't think
such a utopia can exist alone. Either it gets eaten by jealous rivals,
or it sweeps away everything before it.

Roddenberry was a visionary to an extent. However, he was poor at
considering the consequences of his visions.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

Ok--Lets get down to the nitty-gritty.
The federation is a protection service.
How they maintain their operation or get their money is irrelevant.
The Federation under the guise of "of Planets",(what other planets),
protects human kind from being used as slaves or hosts or whatever.
The starship crew is out there so we don't lose our freedom to do "nothing"
or "everything".

Why?... I don't know. They are out there in a space ship and can go
wherever
they want. They can just go and not ever come back. They do not have to
always do what's
right...seeing as what you guys are implying is that there is nothing in it
for them...but euphoric satisfaction.
Or, that logic has triumphed once more.

There "IS" (money)--as suggested in other posts here.
Earth and the Federation are not the entire scope here.
i.e. Humans gambling with, and for, pressed latnum in DS9.
Why would Harry Mudd be trying to sell those women to the miners.
Why would they be mining in the first place.
What does the federation use to acquire dilithium...(protection).

Back to the replicators...they never replicate land, and or a planet.
So...the crew is looking for more planets to inhabit, maybe.
(the"of Planets" from above maybe)
Sure you can replicate money(currency) but not precious metals or
else latnum would not be worth anything DS9. They could just replicate
dilithium, but they don't.
Also in response to the energy being free...(another post)
In STV everything has been rationed for a reason.
It won't last forever.

Ah, that's all for now. Think about it (for a while) and then go to bed,
then forget it all, everything, it's sci-fi...for now anyway. LOL

"Dr. Personality" <affable.RemoveThis@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:160520051900019390%affable@no.com.invalid...
> In article <2D6ie.4688$mt.1797@twister.nyc.rr.com>, D W Sr.
> <don2250.RemoveThis@qvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> You all mention that material things have lost their value due to the
>> replicator.
>> But...
>> The replicator converts energy into matter so "energy" would be the
>> commodity of the "Star Trek" future.
>> That is assuming that that is not free also.
>> Or, maybe size does matter...the big replicator to make bigger things
>> would
>> be worth an X # of smaller replicators.
>> How you acquire that first replicator is anyone's guess.
>> "Just my 2 cents", not replicator money, LOL.
>
> It's a good thought. If energy is not freely available, then there
> would be limits on a replicator-driven economy (although "economy" is
> probably not the word that applies here). However, if energy were a
> valuable commodity, then there would be parties competing for it, and
> you would have exactly the same sort of contemporary capitalism that
> Trek pretends doesn't exist in Trekland.
>
> For my part, I don't think a money-free "economy" can exist for long
> among other, competitive economies belonging to frontier cultures where
> *everybody* is expanding their territory and economic power as fast as
> they can. Even the Federation used "credits" in Trek Classic time, but
> by Star Trek IV we're asked to believe that "money" was no longer used.
> Now I think they gave Kirk that line in ST IV ("Do they still use
> money?") to mean cash, which is a reasonable question to ask, and using
> the word "cash" would have preserved the joke without ignoring common
> sense. Instead, we've got the Federation as a literally communist
> state swimming alongside many other cultures, most of which seem to be
> capitalist. In such a case, I think the Federation would quickly be
> picked clean.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"D W Sr." <don2250 DeleteThis @qvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bufie.4751$mt.2944@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Ok--Lets get down to the nitty-gritty.
> The federation is a protection service.
> How they maintain their operation or get their money is irrelevant.
> The Federation under the guise of "of Planets",(what other planets),
> protects human kind from being used as slaves or hosts or whatever.
> The starship crew is out there so we don't lose our freedom to do
"nothing"
> or "everything".

>
> There "IS" (money)--as suggested in other posts here.
> Earth and the Federation are not the entire scope here.

There appears to be money in other societies, both inside and outside the
Federation. But by the TNG era not in human society.

> i.e. Humans gambling with, and for, pressed latnum in DS9.

When Jake wanted to buy that baseball card for his father, he couldn't.
Because hew-mons didn't bother with money.

> Why would Harry Mudd be trying to sell those women to the miners.

Perhaps the women gave him sexual favors in exchange for his help. There
are all forms of compensation....

> Why would they be mining in the first place.

Perhaps for the right to live on a highly desirable planet, such as Risa or
Wrigley's Pleasure Planet (double your fun!). As I said, there are all forms
of compensation.


> What does the federation use to acquire dilithium...(protection).
>

Miners, obviously. Backed up by military force. Again, you can allocate
things like prestige ("I'm a captain!" "I'm a professor at Starfleet
Academy!"), power ("I'm the admiral!"), etc. There are all forms of
compensation. Thinking only in monetary terms really ignores money's role
in an economy. It's a means, not an end.



> Back to the replicators...they never replicate land, and or a planet.

They terraform. Rather less instant...unless you use a Genesis device.
Then sure, you've replicated a planet.

> So...the crew is looking for more planets to inhabit, maybe.
> (the"of Planets" from above maybe)
> Sure you can replicate money(currency) but not precious metals or
> else latnum would not be worth anything DS9. They could just replicate
> dilithium, but they don't.

Actually dilithium seemed to be a problem in the era of TOS. In the era of
TNG and DS9 I don't recall them having such a problem in having enough,
looking for more, etc.

> Also in response to the energy being free...(another post)
> In STV everything has been rationed for a reason.
> It won't last forever.
>

Huh? I don't recall that. And I'm talking about the TNG era, which has the
much greater body of evidence that mone is abolished, thanks to Picard's
stuffy little speech to the re-animated business guy from Earth's late dark
ages.


> Ah, that's all for now. Think about it (for a while) and then go to bed,
> then forget it all, everything, it's sci-fi...for now anyway. LOL
>

It's not just sci-fi. It's Trek!


Bo Raxo
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

<snip>

Dr. W, Sr., you forgot one thing. Latinum in its natural state is NOT
metal. It's a clear viscous liquid that has to be "pressed" into gold.
And it doesn't take much of it to be VERY valuable, or Quark would not
have been impressed with the tiny amount of it that Morn regurgitated
into that glass in the DS9 ep where Morn faked his own death.

--
CaptJosh

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

In article <Admie.1639$WG.585@attbi_s22>, CaptJosh
<jbelanger RemoveThis @insightbb.com> wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Dr. W, Sr., you forgot one thing. Latinum in its natural state is NOT
> metal. It's a clear viscous liquid that has to be "pressed" into gold.
> And it doesn't take much of it to be VERY valuable, or Quark would not
> have been impressed with the tiny amount of it that Morn regurgitated
> into that glass in the DS9 ep where Morn faked his own death.

The pressing into gold is really not important to my point. The
latinum itself is what's valuable, probably because it can't be
replicated and is therefore trustworthy as a medium of exchange. If
the latinum is pressed into gold and effectively becomes metal that
way, fine. That makes it hard currency, which is a primitive way of
handling things, but it's very Ferengi-like. It's also money, of
course.

Why gold? Why not? Even on a planet where gold might not be rare, it
would still be prized for its beauty and utility, and gold is very easy
to work with. The only thing going against it is its unit weight.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

With respect, everyone is not putting the two and two's together. The
replicator is NOT "free", energy is NOT "free" in the Federation. The
replicator is not the end all solution to things, nor does it create
"everything"

"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us DeleteThis @thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:Brdie.2784$Ri4.2621@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> They obviously have fusion technology, including on small scale - TNG
> references to microfusion reactors.

Actually fusion reactors are very common - all Federation starships use
fusion reactors as secondary power sources, capable of (at least) running
the impulse engines and support systems of the ship. As they cannot create
coherent-focused plasma, of course, they are not capable of powering the
warp coils. Remember when Geordi pushes the fusion reactors, and in a
rotating fashion, uses them to increase the tow ability of Enterprise D.

> They obviously have the ability to store power efficiently, otherwise a
> phaser the size of a cigarette pack wouldn't be able to vaporize a
redshirt.
> And that was back in TOS days, 90 years later in TNG it should be even
> better.
>
> So, power is essentially free, manufacturing (via the replicator) is
> virtually free. Food is free. The necessities of life are free.

No, power is not "essentially free". For instance, let's take a starship.
The main power system is the warp core, made possible by the ability of
dilithium to focus and control the reaction of colliding matter &
antimatter. If one bothers to remember TOS "Mudd's Women" the miners were
"lithium miners" - Kirk needed to make a deal with the miners for "lithium"
to replace Enterprise's burned out ones. The miners were personally
concerned with their ability, via mining, to "make it rich".

In VOY, Janeway was concerned a few times about finding locations to acquire
more both duterium and antimatter, as Voyager's ability to hold quantities
is of course limited. In order to acquire these materials - the basic
reaction materials of the warp core - she had to /trade/.

Therefore, whether monetarily or intrinsically, energy has a value as
*something* needs to be traded to acquire more. We simply to do not see
these actions very often on Star Trek - but, if you keep your eyes out,
//they are there//.

Now the replicator is a marvelous tool, but the replicator needs 2 items to
work - *energy and the raw replicating material*. The replicator's
preferred method of operation does not create something from nothing, it
rearranges pre-existing molecular patterns into the new, desired form.
Janeway had to ration replicator use - which means it had a value to the
crew, intrinsically. They only had so much energy and acquiring more meant
they had to find a planet, and a people, with (at least) duterium or
antimatter - and be willing to trade. Trade for something Janeway had. The
big circle of value.

A replicator does not make everything "worthless". A replicator is not
perfect, cannot exactly duplicate on an atomoic level the exact properties
of an object. That makes the /original/ object inherently valuable due to
the true inabililty to recreate it. Note how Picard values the book he kept
in his Ready Room, searching for it carefully in the closing scenes of
"Generations" - the replicator should, /very/ easily, be able to replicate a
simple book. But the replicated object will *never* be the original,
hundreds of years old and therefore of intrinsic worth.
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money? 

"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:oUnie.6678$_f7.6637@trndny01...
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us.TakeThisOut@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:Brdie.2784$Ri4.2621@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > So, power is essentially free, manufacturing (via the replicator) is
> > virtually free. Food is free. The necessities of life are free.
>
> No, power is not "essentially free". For instance, let's take a starship.
> The main power system is the warp core, made possible by the ability of
> dilithium to focus and control the reaction of colliding matter &
> antimatter. If one bothers to remember TOS "Mudd's Women" the miners were
> "lithium miners" - Kirk needed to make a deal with the miners for
"lithium"
> to replace Enterprise's burned out ones. The miners were personally
> concerned with their ability, via mining, to "make it rich".

TOS, okay. I'm talking about TNG. And dilithium seems to be needed only for
warp engines. Not for ordinary fusion reactors. So warp speed is not free,
but I still maintain energy is free.

>
> In VOY, Janeway was concerned a few times about finding locations to
acquire
> more both duterium and antimatter, as Voyager's ability to hold quantities
> is of course limited. In order to acquire these materials - the basic
> reaction materials of the warp core - she had to /trade/.

Voyager was off on it's own. It's situation is hardly an example for how
the economy of the Federation works.

>
> Now the replicator is a marvelous tool, but the replicator needs 2 items
to
> work - *energy and the raw replicating material*.

Energe and matter are the same thing in different forms, and obviously in
TNG's era are interchangeable. Energy = mass times the square of the speed
of light. Energy on one side, matter on the other, and an equality sign in
the middle: they are the same item in different forms.

>The replicator's
> preferred method of operation does not create something from nothing, it
> rearranges pre-existing molecular patterns into the new, desired form.

That's what the transporter does. And the replicator is based on
transporter technology.

> Janeway had to ration replicator use - which means it had a value to the
> crew, intrinsically. They only had so much energy and acquiring more
meant
> they had to find a planet, and a people, with (at least) duterium or
> antimatter - and be willing to trade. Trade for something Janeway had.
The
> big circle of value.

An isolated ship without access to a supply chain does not represent the
economy of hundreds of planets, all equipped with FTL ships.


>
> A replicator does not make everything "worthless". A replicator is not
> perfect, cannot exactly duplicate on an atomoic level the exact properties
> of an object. That makes the /original/ object inherently valuable due to
> the true inabililty to recreate it. Note how Picard values the book he
kept
> in his Ready Room, searching for it carefully in the closing scenes of
> "Generations" - the replicator should, /very/ easily, be able to replicate
a
> simple book.
>But the replicated object will *never* be the original,
> hundreds of years old and therefore of intrinsic worth.
>

You confuse sentimental value with material value. The book might mean
something to Picard. But if I wanted a copy, and didn't know Picard from
Piscataway, would I care if I got that one or a replicated duplicate?

When you buy a book, do you go to the bookstore and carefully pick out which
particular copy you get? Of course not.

That's what the replicator does to all goods and foods: makes them a
commodity, with a, for all practical purposes, limitless supply at no cost.



Bo Raxo
 >> Stay informed about: ST book on abolision of money?