this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
370 points (97.4% liked)
Programming
27857 readers
792 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Simultaneously they have created the part I wanted from Star Trek, while making the worst possible anti star trek a reality.
E.g.
I want to be able to ask a computer about history, art, codeing, well anything. And be able to clarify and question and put together new ideas.
But not by anyone owning that ability or profiting on the labor of others or causing environmental harm.
We got the cool computer but haven't achieved the post-scarcity part.
I don't think you can have one without the other.
Post-scarcity isn't actually possible. Not even in Star Trek this is true. Picard's family owns a vineyard in France filled with artifacts and antiques. Not everything is fungible. People will desire these non-fungible things. Not everyone that desires these things will be able to have them, because they aren't fungible. You can't have a billion people all owning vineyards in France. Some people won't get everything they want. There will always be scarcity.
Star Trek was made in the 1960's at the height of the cold war. They didn't want the show to be about how capitalism was superior to communism, or vice versa. So they side stepped the issue by saying in the future there's no scarcity, no money, and they live under some ideal future economic model. The show writers don't know what that ideal economic model is, so it's deliberately vague and inconsistent. And that's fine because the show isn't about economics.
It was wise of the writers of Star Trek to avoid trying to make predictions of that nature. 300 years ago, Wealth of Nations wasn't yet written, the field of economics didn't really exist. They believed shiny rocks had intrinsic value. They had some vibes about things like currency devaluation and inflation, but economics was still mostly about acquiring shiney rocks 300 years in the past. So what will economics be like 300 years in the future? None of us know, and certainly writers of a TV show don't know.
The writers of a TV show saying there will be no scarcity in the future just means they didn't want to discuss economics. It's not any kind of prediction about the future. There will always be scarcity.
There have been periods of human history within some groups that did have no needs scarcity. Shelter, food, water, all there. Replenishing faster than they could consume it.
Star Trek addresses needs scarcity to a large degree, instead of want scarcity. Of course, the TNG makes it a little more clear that they can make anything you want, which who knows if we get there.
A good example would be do you have somewhere to live? Need Scarcity met. Do you want a high floor overlooking the Nebula? Want Scarcity, not always possible.
Of course it could be argued that if you could go multiple times the speed of light in a infinite universe you are likely to find something that you want.
This is the case where if I were to replicate it, what would be the difference? Do you think if we got to that point we could intellectualize that the same molecules are the same molecules or not?
Which periods are these?
I'd say right now we have the necessary resources to provide for everyone's needs in the world. Providing for basic needs isn't a scarcity issue, it's a resource allocation issue. We aren't prioritizing providing for everyone's needs before providing for people's wants.
I'm lucky enough to live in a developed country, I have shelter, a fridge full of food, I turn a tap and I have potable water. It's all there for me. My needs are taken care of. I still think would be awesome if I owned a private island in a nice climate, with a big house on it and a pier with my own yacht I could sail around when I feel like it. But there's the problem, how do we determine who gets what they want? If I got the private island, yacht, etc. while you only had your basic needs met, would you consider that to be an equitable society?
Why does Picard get a vineyard in France while someone else has to be satisfied by whatever the replicator provides them?
TNG makes it clear that Picard values original artifacts. There's a scene where he assumes an artifact someone is giving him is replicated but then is told it's the original. He basically pisses his pants over it being a much too valuable of a gift. So no, in Star Trek people do place greater value on non-fungible items. You don't even think of this scene as unusual because of course people think that way.
Starfleet needed more starships to defend themselves from the Dominion. Do you consider that a need or a want? They don't have an infinite number of starships. Apparently building starships involved some kind of scarce resources.
Because they didn't have enough starships, a lot of people died. If we consider not being vaporized by a phaser to be a need, the Federation was not able to provide everyone's needs because of a scarcity of resources limited the number of starships they could produce.
Like I say, Star Trek is incredibly inconsistent about this. If an episode requires scarcity of resources so Nog can trade different things to different people in a fun episode, then those resources are scarce. If they need to use gold pressed latinum, they use currency. If someone asks "how does your economy work?" then suddenly "they don't use money, they don't need it because they have everything they want." And this is fine, if someone 300 years ago were to write some fiction about our time, it would probably be about people more Scrooge McDuck (who had a giant vault of shiny coins) rather than Elon Musk (who has no need for that because that's not how the economy works). Star Trek can't have a realistic economy, and it doesn't need it. We're just meant to assume it's broadly equitable, everything is fuzzy beyond that.
You can't replicate an infinite amount of land in France. You can't replicate an infinite number of private islands. People will value these things and they will be scarce. Why would Picard live on a vineyard in France instead of in a holodeck version of a vineyard if there was no value to the real thing?
Coastal peoples of California, Jamon of Japan, Puget sound Indians, Hawaiians, the Congo, and so on. Places where you have mild climate, hugely abundant food supply and easily worked materials.
You do, but I am assuming this all revolves around keeping a job or employing yourself somehow
I have had the discussion just like this "If I got the private island, yacht, etc. while you only had your basic needs met, would you consider that to be an equitable society?" with some people. Interestingly they often say, so? why would i want an island or a yacht? And if I did wouldn't I just go to the holodeck? Seems like a lot less to take care of.
Which brings us to this:
Do they? Or are we conditioned to feel that way?
But yes in the end Star Trek is just a fiction with themes at the core, not exact solutions or even realism when looked at closely.
Either way, my point was I want the computer with knowledge and not have that some how steal, hurt, take away from, get owned by, deprive anyone, or cause environmental damage. And my first thought about that part was post scarcity where no company would own any of this.