Quote:Original post by Sandman
One thing that always bothered me about the ST moneyless society was that it wasn't particularly realistic - the socioeconomic aspects of it were largely ignored, and it was just assumed to be some kind of utopian society. That, and the fact that it wasn't truly moneyless, at least in the later series where they had plot devices like gold-pressed latinum and replicator rations.

I think they nailed the utopian society aspect, but only because Roddenberry initially insisted on a world without interpersonal conflict (and drove his writers crazy as a result). If you assum the people's needs are met and they're culturally bland (in that nothing is offensive to anybody) then maybe it works, but in our conflict and acquisition driven society it would be hard to relate to.

Quote:
How for example, does trade work? Do traders simply donate their goods out the kindness of their heart? Do they barter for them? (bartering is a rather inefficient form of transaction) Or is trade entirely obsolete with the existence of replicators?

[lol] Let's not peer behind the veil TOO closely, now. Traveling hundreds (or even simply dozens) of light years to trade an item that is worth a fraction of the energy you must have expended to trade it?

Keeping this related to game design, I find it interesting that in both design and storytelling we find it difficult to imagine sustainable entertainment without conflict. We may be wired so that it is not possible.

Quote:
How would such a moneyless society interact with a moneyed society? If the currency can be replicated at will, wouldn't that have a terrible impact on the less advanced society's economy? If it cannot be replicated, then how do you work out any kind of exchange rate with goods that can be replicated at will without having an equally disastrous effect? Plus the fact that if replicators have such limits, then maybe they aren't sufficient to eliminate the need for currency after all...

Yes, in between shuttling ambassadors and getting shipwrecked, they never touch much on this stuff. Now the Federation is considered hugely ethical, so they might not make a decision to destroy the economy of another power, for instance. But the bad guys in their universe have similar or even better tech, so there's no explanation there.

Of course, if I were to do it, the replicator system, provided it relied on some inexhaustable energy source such as solar-created antimatter, would be an unstoppable technological force-- the equivalent of out of control Von Neuman machines. And all the conflict would be around who does or doesn't get this power. I think it would be VERY dramatic to capture the effects you're talking about (but, unfortunately, media creators-- even the geeks-- are notoriously anti-intellectual as soon as you step out of their domain of expertise).

Quote:
There's also the issue of productivity to address. How does the society motivate it's citizens to productivity? Or is it so productive already, it doesn't need to, content to let the vast majority slob around in holodecks while a few more adventurous people do useful stuff just for fun?

My bet is that 99% of the human race would be trying to find meaning in their lives were they freed from economic constraints-- and that leads to art, religion, service, exploration and a host of other very positive traits. It's only when you're something of an economic slave, sandwhiched between the oblivion of birth and death, utterly powerless to control your own fate, that I think you get an uncontrollable yen for sedation-- because you're trying to escape what you deem a meaningless existence. As we've industrialized and more people have found themselves at the mercy of sociopolitical forces they neither understand nor control, I think we've seen a washing out of the human spirit, with strident rebellions.

Quote:
None of this is to say that a moneyless society is impossible, but I think the deeper social ramifications of infinite supply are well worth considering if you're planning on developing such a world. This is the sort of thing that makes really interesting sci fi in my opinion.

There might be two fascinating ways to do this in games: The first would be a transition society, where all the rules and values were falling away (a world filled with fear and promise); the other would be as a "pure purpose" game, maybe with a goal of solving resource-resistant problems like hatred or xenophobia.

Neither, I think, would be an RPG. Maybe something like the adventure-flight-sim fusion of the old Spectrum Holobyte Star Trek games would work. But without constant killing and leveling (wrapped in a neat little story), I think most RPG players would reject it out of hand.

Quote:Original post by Stru
In a society with replicators the only currency is power, since everyone needs it to run their replicators. The replicators turn power into everything else, and you can't make power in a replicator (Unless you want to throw all the laws of physics out the window). You could have people use power credits or something. And the bank and power company will be pretty much the one and the same.

I read such an awesome line in a SF book recently, something like "and they're so backwards and primitive that they have such horros as banking, for God's sake!" [smile]

One thing we're not getting about ST citizens, which would fundamentally alter economics: Enlightened self-interest may be anathema to them, being considered neither enlightened nor in an individual's self-interest (as it creates destructive conflict).

If they're a stellar power, they're harvesting energy from suns, which pretty much drives that value down to nil (practically unlimited, near infinite sources). So no power-banks, though if they're antimatter based you might have distribution and processing as leverage sources. But still, if any group that saves up enough to replicate a few thousand solar panels pretty much frees itself from economic constraints.

Star Trek citizens would be subversive by our current scarcity-driven standards for one major reason: In a society where you're no longer valuable because of what you can keep from others (your labor / knowledge / skill), you must then be valuable based on some other factor-- or society must forget about value, and move to some other way of relating. Maybe you're value comes from selflessness, which by good old fashioned Western capitalism is probably downright evil. [lol] Just take open-source and the gift economy as examples.

That's a culture shift I bet few can relate to. [wink]