ST book on abolision of money?

"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us RemoveThis @thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:gapie.3184$Ri4.2537@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > 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.

And that is exactly how the replicator works as well. If E=mc2 then try to
figure out the energy required to recreate the mass of a simple empty glass.

Practically beyond reasonable supply.

The replicator must start with a raw material to lower the energy consuption
requirements to a reasonable level.

> > 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.

Yes it does. Ships can only bring a certain amount of goods to a planet -
which, by definition, is an isolated ecosystem without those external
shipments. If it takes a certain amount of materials to bring the goods to
the planets - duterium, antimatter, dilithium deterioration, support crew
with supplies and materials to keep them alive, the /crew's/ "reembursement"
(of whatever pattern) to do this job, wear on the ship reducing its service
life - then the goods and the shipments have /some/ kind of value due to the
society having to replace or reemburse / support / keep alive (in the case
of the crew) these factors.

The problem is that everyone is only thinking "money". Before the tokens of
"money" was created the objects themselves where their own value.

Everyone is thinking the "European" method of computing value - wealth and
money - while I am trying to suggest seeing the (ancient) method of viewing
the world as the "Native Americans" did - intrinsic value.

This is (mostly) how the Federation works - no money, but objects do have
"some" value to the society - they always will. If not everyone in the
Federation wouldn't care so much about maintaining them, preserving
resources and nature - nobody would care one whit. But they care highly,
are concerned for themselves, others and the environment as a whole. They
simply understand the intrinsic worth of everything even if they do not
assign a monetary "value" to it. A form of socialism in conjuction with the
better aspects of capitalism.

> > 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?

What I am saying is that you confuse material value as the only value
possible. Picard and his generation realize that "sentimental" value is
/still/ a value. The Federation's economy is based upon *many*
interpretations of "value", not just "monetary". They have moved beyond the
desire to judge every single thing in the universe only by the equivalent
worth of its monetary value. This is what Picard has tried to say a number
of times.

> 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.

No, I do not believe it does. You are not factoring in the social impact of
the complete supply line, you are only computing if money changes hands.

Let's take the aspect of a replicated meal, for example. 2 necessary
supplies - energy and raw replicating material.

"Energy is free"

No it is not, not in the absolute sense. Even if the generation, at this
point, is free it still took resources and manpower to build the fusion
reactor. It takes manpower to keep it operational. It has an effect on the
neighborhood that it is placed in, and most like - as today - some
neighborhoods do not wish to have a power plant in its area and therefore
the reactor must be placed in a different location, affecting availability
of its output. The distribution system must be maintained by people and
machines, and those machines require manufacturing, which is supervised by
humans...

it goes on and on.

"Raw replicating material"

Same thing. Someone must create the raw material, from scratch, from
mining, from growing, from manufacturing from other raw materials.
Manpower, machinery, time.

You are trying to factor an economy solely on the trade of monetary tokens.
There are dozens of other ways to compute an economy, thousands of
interlinking interdependencies to make just about anything in the world
work. That is the value of the objects of the Federation - that
interdependency.

"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:9Hpie.4277$Y36.919@trndny05...
> "Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us.TakeThisOut@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:gapie.3184$Ri4.2537@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > Now the replicator is a marvelous tool, but the replicator needs 2
items
> >
> > That's what the transporter does. And the replicator is based on
> > transporter technology.
>
> And that is exactly how the replicator works as well. If E=mc2 then try
to
> figure out the energy required to recreate the mass of a simple empty
glass.
>
> Practically beyond reasonable supply.

Not at all. Fusion reactors that are reasonably efficient could produce one
heck of a lot of energy. And the visual operation of the transporters look
like a transporter. Even if they do use some raw material, that raw
material just represents another form of energy, stored in a stable form.

When you consider that all of the sewage could be used for raw material, you
see that very little mass would actually get lost.


> >
> > An isolated ship without access to a supply chain does not represent the
> > economy of hundreds of planets, all equipped with FTL ships.
>
> Yes it does. Ships can only bring a certain amount of goods to a planet -
> which, by definition, is an isolated ecosystem without those external
> shipments.

You don't need to bring much of anything to a planet - because you have the
replicator. Information can be transmitted via sub-space. Even works of
art can be scanned and the results transmitted for replication at the other
end. The only thing you need to transport would be people and any supplies
that couldn't be replicated (which, as far as we know is only latinum and
dilithium).


>If it takes a certain amount of materials to bring the goods to
> the planets - duterium, antimatter, dilithium deterioration, support crew
> with supplies and materials to keep them alive, the /crew's/
"reembursement"
> (of whatever pattern) to do this job, wear on the ship reducing its
service
> life - then the goods and the shipments have /some/ kind of value due to
the
> society having to replace or reemburse / support / keep alive (in the case
> of the crew) these factors.

That's why only the only things with value are the things that can't be
replicated: dilithium (possibly, not clear in TNG's era), latinum (though
not of value to humans), and people.


>
> This is (mostly) how the Federation works - no money, but objects do have
> "some" value to the society - they always will. If not everyone in the
> Federation wouldn't care so much about maintaining them, preserving
> resources and nature - nobody would care one whit.

First, we have no evidence the Federation is so interested in preserving
resources and nature. We know they need some planets for strategic defense
reasons, that's different. And they may keep forests intact for aesthetic
reasons. But of the planets we've seen, there tend to be more with
park-like settings that are not natural at all.


>But they care highly,
> are concerned for themselves, others and the environment as a whole.

Where do you see evidence for this in the series? The only episode I can
think of that dealt with environmentalism was the one in the 6th or 7th
season of TNG, which dealt with the way warp drive was weakening...uh,
subspace? Something. That episode made it look like the Federation Science
Council didn't take this kind of "pollution" seriously, and the concerned
scientist/siblings (rolls eyes) had to become eco-terrorists to get taken
seriously.

>
> "Energy is free"
>
> No it is not, not in the absolute sense. Even if the generation, at this
> point, is free it still took resources and manpower to build the fusion
> reactor.

Manufacturing takes manpower? What a quaint notion. By the 24th century, I
somehow doubt that.

>It takes manpower to keep it operational.

I doubt that, too. If they put these things in little ships and isolated
outposts, I'd think they would have to run for at least 20 years without
maintenance, and to fail gracefully.

>It has an effect on the
> neighborhood that it is placed in, and most like - as today - some
> neighborhoods do not wish to have a power plant in its area and therefore
> the reactor must be placed in a different location, affecting availability
> of its output.

Fusion? Nope, no effect on the local neighborhood. Especially the
referenced micro-fusion reactors.


>The distribution system must be maintained by people and
> machines, and those machines require manufacturing, which is supervised by
> humans...
>

Another quaint nod to the 19th century way of industrializing. Really
unlikely. Besides, with the ability to store huge amounts of energy, and
the ability to build small micro-size reactors, there would be no need for a
distribution system. You really do keep thinking in terms of 20th century
tech.


>
> "Raw replicating material"
>
> Same thing. Someone must create the raw material, from scratch, from
> mining, from growing, from manufacturing from other raw materials.
> Manpower, machinery, time.

The universe is full of raw material. And most of the raw material you put
in ends up coming back as sewage and garbage. If using replicator
technology, it doesn't matter *what* you use for raw material.


>
> You are trying to factor an economy solely on the trade of monetary
tokens.
> There are dozens of other ways to compute an economy, thousands of
> interlinking interdependencies to make just about anything in the world
> work. That is the value of the objects of the Federation - that
> interdependency.
>

I see no such interdependency. No need to move goods between planets, no
barrier to energy being free and the raw material you speak of as close as
the nearest handful of dirt. I see only three things that have value in the
federation: people, opportunity, and freedom.


Bo Raxo