Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

The Welfare State in a post-Scarcity EconomyFollow

#1 Feb 24 2015 at 3:56 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Okay, so it's really just an article about the Federation's economy in Star Trek, but that didn't sound like the kind of title that belonged here. Anyway, I've always been a bit fascinated by the thought of a post-scarcity society and I thought this was an interesting take, mostly because I'm a giant geek. Posting mostly because maybe one of you is also enough of a geek get a kick out of this.

Is the Star Trek Economy a Welfare State? wrote:
Yes and no.

When people critique a welfare state, what they're usually objecting to is the notion that people deserve certain basic resources from the state regardless of how much they contribute.

In the Star Trek universe, most basic resources on Earth are essentially unlimited and are therefore distributed free of any cost or trade. The Federation has enough clean sources of energy that it will never use it all up, and it can make food, water, clothing, etc. from energy. So people who don't work and just live off the free goods being provided aren't parasites because the resources they're using don't drain the state. They're not taking it from anyone; it's just free. This would sort of be like saying: Are American citizens who don't pay for the air they use parasites?

It's also clear that there is still an economy of sorts on Earth and certain things are not free, although they are also not available for monetary purchase. Some things have to be limited in nature, so they can't be available to everyone. This means that some kind of decision matrix must be applied regarding who gets them and who doesn't, so that whatever qualities the eventual recipient has that resulted in them being awarded the good is essentially what they “paid” for the good.

<click link to read more of article>
To be honest, that's not quite the interpretation of the Star Trek universe's economy that I came to. I always thought that, while necessities were freely available, luxuries were traded via a system of credits, which are mentioned a number of times. But an interesting look at it, nonetheless.
#2 Feb 24 2015 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
There has to be some kind of economy for them to trade with the Ferengi. That's about as much as I've thought about it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Feb 24 2015 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
#PrivatizeOxygen2015
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#4 Feb 24 2015 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I still haven't figured out why anyone ever leaves the holodeck in the first place. Unless of course, all those people already died off without reproducing or something.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5 Feb 24 2015 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Start Trek is retarded. Ian Banks' Culture novels do a pretty good job of grappling with this sort of thing.

Edited, Feb 24th 2015 6:34pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Feb 24 2015 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Start Trek is retarded. Ian Banks' Culture novels do a pretty good job of grappling with this sort of thing.


I tend to agree. The massively huge difference is really cultural (haha!), not just economic. The problem with Star Trek is that it presents us with a society that is allegedly post-scarcity, yet attempts to portray the people in said society in a way that we can related to. So they exhibit all the same behaviors that we expect, but if you stop and think about them, many would not really makes sense if the society was truly post-scarcity.

If you consider even the most conservative estimates of the energy requirements for a single starship in Star Trek to operate as they do, and the existence of replicator technology, the Federation *should* be post-scarcity. They don't go into details about where all the cheap, clean, and abundant energy comes from, but it's clear they have it, and thus should trivially be able to provide for even the most wild wants of its citizens (at least on any of the fully inhabited worlds). Hence, why the problem must be social. And despite simple one liners tossed in occasional about social changes that eliminate fighting over stuff anymore, it's clear from the various story arcs that this just isn't true. The people in the Federation clearly do want for things and can't have everything they want.

There are clear restrictions on what people get, for example. When Harry Kim falls into an alternate timeline where he never joined the Voyager crew, for example, it's made clear that despite being a Starfleet officer, he has replicator and transporter credit allowance that limit how much he can use for his own personal enjoyment. Again, if we assume the restriction isn't really about resources, then we must conclude that the people within the society haven't actually matured/evolved to the point where they can self limit. They still want stuff and would use the resources, not to the point of exhaustion (again, still assuming that isn't an issue) but to the point of annoying the heck out of everyone else. I've always gotten the sense that there are rules that exist basically to make people live together peacefully, which somewhat belies the claims that society has changed sufficiently so that everyone lives together and shares everything. If that was really the case, why place limits on anyone? They can only exist to prevent abuses, which means that abuses are common enough to justify the limits.


I honestly have fewer problems with the use of currency when dealing with other species. That's somewhat expected, although you'd also assume that any race capable of significant space travel would also be "rich" relative to what would be needed to provide for the measly in comparison needs of the population. So maybe also not making so much sense. As Smash says, the Culture novels handle this far better. Trade between species isn't about "things", but ideas, technology, influence, territory, etc. And of course, there are numerous less advanced species living within the domains of the more advanced one's territories which do have scarcity issues. Several of the books deal with this dilemma. Do you provide everything for them, and thus destroy their culture? Do you use them for your own amusement? Do you secretly attempt to guide their development until they can interact with you on a higher level? Some combination of the above?

Star Trek just kinda ignores all of this, and presents us with a future that looks a lot like today. But then, that's the point. The setting was not so much about presenting a far future that looked nothing like us, but presenting us today, but just a little tiny bit better. Heck. Probably half of the original series episodes were about addressing current day issues in this context. It was about putting a mirror up to us today. So it works, I guess. But is not remotely close to a decent example of what a post-scarcity society would look like.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Feb 24 2015 at 11:01 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
gbaji wrote:
They don't go into details about where all the cheap, clean, and abundant energy comes from,
They have fusion tech, so I always assumed that was a big part of it.
#8 Feb 24 2015 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They don't go into details about where all the cheap, clean, and abundant energy comes from,
They have fusion tech, so I always assumed that was a big part of it.
While they don't indeed "go into detail"...what Poldaran said. How could you suss that out, gbaji? It's like you never watched it or something. Or read a "Star Fleet Tech Manual".

You need to surrender your Nerd Card, buddy.Smiley: mad
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#9 Feb 25 2015 at 12:54 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They don't go into details about where all the cheap, clean, and abundant energy comes from,
They have fusion tech, so I always assumed that was a big part of it.
While they don't indeed "go into detail"...what Poldaran said. How could you suss that out, gbaji? It's like you never watched it or something. Or read a "Star Fleet Tech Manual".

You need to surrender your Nerd Card, buddy.Smiley: mad
I think we can give him a pass this once for being able to reference that Voyager episode. This once, at least. Smiley: tongue


Anyway, I had wanted to discuss further, but realized that I really should instead have been getting ready for work. Let me first state that I haven't read the Culture novels, though they are on my list to get to eventually.
gbaji wrote:
[There are clear restrictions on what people get, for example. When Harry Kim falls into an alternate timeline where he never joined the Voyager crew, for example, it's made clear that despite being a Starfleet officer, he has replicator and transporter credit allowance that limit how much he can use for his own personal enjoyment. Again, if we assume the restriction isn't really about resources, then we must conclude that the people within the society haven't actually matured/evolved to the point where they can self limit. They still want stuff and would use the resources, not to the point of exhaustion (again, still assuming that isn't an issue) but to the point of annoying the heck out of everyone else. I've always gotten the sense that there are rules that exist basically to make people live together peacefully, which somewhat belies the claims that society has changed sufficiently so that everyone lives together and shares everything. If that was really the case, why place limits on anyone? They can only exist to prevent abuses, which means that abuses are common enough to justify the limits.
Tom Paris references transporter credits at one point as well, though I had always assumed that they existed simply because there weren't enough facilities to meet unlimited demand and not enough skilled technicians to man the additional facilities that are needed.

Voyager itself used a system of replicator and holodeck credits due to their difficulty refueling. But I hadn't thought much about how society at large might use something similar. For holodecks, it would likely be due to the same facility problems I considered above, but with replicators it opens a whole new train of thought. As you said, abuses are likely common enough to justify rationing use. It makes sense. Our brains evolved over a large period of scarcity and were not made to function properly in a post-scarcity environment. Hell, we see issues with that now.

For a large part of American society, scarcity doesn't define us in relation to our basic needs. Yet, go to a buffet and watch. You'll see people gorging as though it's the first meal they've had in days and likely the last time they'll eat that week. And this is a daily occurrence for many, even outside of a buffet. We're just not, as a whole, capable of handling a consistent abundance of resources, even to the point of it being a detriment to our health. I doubt a couple hundred years would really make us any better at it.
#10 Feb 25 2015 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
They have fusion tech, so I always assumed that was a big part of it.
Only on the Delorean class ships.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Feb 25 2015 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Voyager itself used a system of replicator and holodeck credits due to their difficulty refueling. But I hadn't thought much about how society at large might use something similar. For holodecks, it would likely be due to the same facility problems I considered above, but with replicators it opens a whole new train of thought. As you said, abuses are likely common enough to justify rationing use.

So, fascism, then. The Federation is the final Reich? That show makes a lot more sense now. Still sucks, mind you.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Feb 25 2015 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
They have fusion tech, so I always assumed that was a big part of it.
Only on the Delorean class ships.
Jigga-watts, etc.
#13 Feb 25 2015 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They don't go into details about where all the cheap, clean, and abundant energy comes from,
They have fusion tech, so I always assumed that was a big part of it.
While they don't indeed "go into detail"...what Poldaran said. How could you suss that out, gbaji? It's like you never watched it or something. Or read a "Star Fleet Tech Manual".

You need to surrender your Nerd Card, buddy.Smiley: mad
I think we can give him a pass this once for being able to reference that Voyager episode. This once, at least. Smiley: tongue


Lol! I do have a "history of the Enterprise" Star Trek book. And the "Physics of Star Trek" book. But that's about it. Kinda fell out of that whole bit when I stopped actively collecting comic books (cause the same sources exist for both really). I do get that "fusion power" is the hand wave explanation, but that still leaves us with several question: What fuel do they use? How abundant is it? Where do they get it? The ships use antimatter as a fuel, because pound for pound (slug for slug?), it has the greatest energy potential. But that's fuel, not the source. It's an energy transfer medium, not the source of the energy itself. They have to make the antimatter somewhere. They have matter/energy conversion technology (which really makes "fusion" meaningless if you stop and think about it). Thus, recycling is very very efficient. Again, referencing Voyager (because that's the show that actually dealt with resource restrictions), they put every bit of waste back into the replicators and converted them back into energy for use later. Assuming this is relatively (very?) efficient, then the day to day stuff you'd need to provide for the crew (food, air, clothes, etc) would be extremely cheap. It's the energy spent actually moving the ship at FTL speeds that would eat up your reserves.

The ships also use a plasma power system to store and transfer energy around the ships, once generated via conversion from anti-matter (using the whole dilithium chamber magic of course!). When something blows up, or there's a power surge on a ship in Star Trek, it's usually some failure of the plasma conduits (which is, I assume, why random panels explode and not just because it's a cool effect to show us that something is happening). Presumably, the same plasma energy is funneled through some kind of coil system in the nacelles to allow for manipulation of a warp bubble to allow for travel (and changes in course) at warp speed. They also contrasted this form of energy to some other in a Voyager episode (where a society wiped themselves out by using an unstable form of energy). Again though, it's all basically techno-magic.

Ultimately though, I've never actually read anything about what they use to generate the power initially. Do they just mine high density elements and convert them either directly into usable energy or forms that can be used to create antimatter? What do they use? Gas giants? Do they siphon it from the stars in uninhabited systems (or inhabited ones. IIRC, the prequel to Star Trek 4 explained how the Whale species used tech to draw on the power from their own sun, but a half a million years ago a fleet of borg ships attacked them. They were able to destroy the fleet, but so weakened their own sun doing it that they made their own system uninhabitable, thus leading to them creating probes to seed life on other appropriate worlds, like Earth)? Do they operate massive zero point energy arrays? The problem IMO is that the creators and writers for Star Trek want very much to present this future as an environmentally friendly one. Telling folks that "yeah, we're still having to mine stuff to make power" deflates that balloon, so they seem to just avoid the topic. But it's not like there isn't a law in physics involved here. So unless they are tapping into some kind of extra dimensional power source, then they are eating up "non-renewable" sources to fuel their society (technically, they are in any case, just perhaps ones that we can't normally see or interact with). Such sources could still arguably be so vast as to make powering a fleet of ships easy, and providing for the day to day needs of any number of people even easier.

But yeah. Not really explained. At least not as far as I know. And no, "fusion power" isn't a real answer. To be fair the Culture books don't actually discuss this either, so I'm not knocking Star Trek for this. Just making an observation.


Quote:
Tom Paris references transporter credits at one point as well, though I had always assumed that they existed simply because there weren't enough facilities to meet unlimited demand and not enough skilled technicians to man the additional facilities that are needed.


Yeah. Voyager is a good starting point precisely because it's a small system, so scarcity is still possible. They're disconnected from the presumably vast power generating facilities of the Federation, and thus have to make due with whatever they can obtain with their one ship. Again though, given sufficiently efficient energy/matter conversion, then operating some kind of ram scoop and running through the outer layers of a gas giant or sun would be a way to harvest raw materials to convert to energy. Or they could presumably hang out in an asteroid field (hopefully one with lots of iron cores) and just transport them and transfer the energy into storage rather then rematerializing it. Depending on how you imagine such conversion tech working, there's a ton of ways to do this.

Quote:
Voyager itself used a system of replicator and holodeck credits due to their difficulty refueling. But I hadn't thought much about how society at large might use something similar. For holodecks, it would likely be due to the same facility problems I considered above, but with replicators it opens a whole new train of thought. As you said, abuses are likely common enough to justify rationing use. It makes sense. Our brains evolved over a large period of scarcity and were not made to function properly in a post-scarcity environment. ****, we see issues with that now.


Yup. Exactly where I was going. In the Culture novels, the society is very very old and the "humans" have evolved, both physically and sociologically. In Star Trek? Not even a little bit.

Edited, Feb 25th 2015 2:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Feb 25 2015 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Voyager itself used a system of replicator and holodeck credits due to their difficulty refueling. But I hadn't thought much about how society at large might use something similar. For holodecks, it would likely be due to the same facility problems I considered above, but with replicators it opens a whole new train of thought. As you said, abuses are likely common enough to justify rationing use.

So, fascism, then. The Federation is the final Reich? That show makes a lot more sense now. Still sucks, mind you.


As opposed to the Culture? While the humans are much more free of constraints than in Star Trek, they also built massive AI brains to basically run everything for them. And those AIs do actively make sure that the humans don't do anything truly harmful (most of the books revolve around what happens when this isn't the case, either by accident or design). One can make the argument that the AIs of the Culture basically keep the humans around as pets so that they don't feel bad about maybe just wiping them out. They aren't actually needed for anything other than maintaining the illusion that this is a society of biological beings (well, and making stories that are interesting to human readers, or course).

Yeah. I'm a cynic, but let's be real here. I enjoy the books, but the sociological evolution of the humans of the Culture almost certainly was the result of the AIs making them that way so that they'd be a "real society". Banks doesn't go into much specifics about why they do this. The AIs see themselves as the caretakers of the humans, but also don't make any bones about the fact that the humans are inferior to them in every way. Honestly, they're mostly just used as a means of interacting with other species on a biological level. Different? Heck yeah. Workable even. But the Culture is literally about 80 steps past fascism in terms of control and power. Can't even call it fascism, I guess. But that's because the humans don't even try to control their own destinies anymore. They allow the AIs to do everything for them. They just do whatever jobs they feel like doing, and live whatever lives of leisure they feel like living. Of course, the rare few who do want to do something important are allowed to do that by joining Special Circumstances in various ways. You could also say that the Culture doesn't have a scarcity of objectives either, and thus there are always enough people who'd choose to go on dangerous missions that might get them killed to fill the relatively small need for such things (and to make interesting stories).


You're correct that it does a much better job of discussing a post-scarcity society. Interestingly enough, it's a society that most of us might not actually want to live in. But then, we aren't as "advanced" as they are. Smiley: wink
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Feb 25 2015 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
To be fair the Culture books don't actually discuss this either, so I'm not knocking Star Trek for this.


Yeah, they do. They can generate and safely contain anti-matter or draw on the hyperspace+ energy grid. Obviously, it's sci-fi and relies on certain assumptions about how the universe works that probably aren't true, but it's not exactly glossed over. I challenge you to go fifty pages in Consider Phlebas without reading about grid fire.

You can't do it, it's impossible.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#16 Feb 25 2015 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Yeah. I'm a cynic, but let's be real here. I enjoy the books

If we're being real, it's pretty obvious you haven't read them. Wikipedia does have a pretty good summary though.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Feb 25 2015 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Quote:
To be fair the Culture books don't actually discuss this either, so I'm not knocking Star Trek for this.


Yeah, they do. They can generate and safely contain anti-matter or draw on the hyperspace+ energy grid. Obviously, it's sci-fi and relies on certain assumptions about how the universe works that probably aren't true, but it's not exactly glossed over. I challenge you to go fifty pages in Consider Phlebas without reading about grid fire.

You can't do it, it's impossible.


Yeah. I'd forgotten about that, except as a weapon of mass destruction. Ok. So most of the time, details like where materials come from, how energy is generated, etc, are just glossed over. One of the points of the Culture novels is that, unlike Star Trek, Banks doesn't really expend a lot of effort trying to make his science "real". At least the stuff the more advanced races use, anyway. It's just "so advanced and based on stuff you can't understand". Sorta. He's also really good at hand waving stuff as "no one knows, or maybe <insert species here> knows, but they're not saying".

Not knocking the Culture novels either. It's all good fun. Just saying that most science fiction tends to gloss over the "science" part of it. It's just not as noticeable in some settings because there's no attempt to make it seem like something near to us today. Star Trek, somewhat to its credit, at least attempts to present technology that could exist, maybe (ok, transporters are really problematic). But that also means that universe tends to be subject to more criticism in that regard.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Feb 25 2015 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah. I'm a cynic, but let's be real here. I enjoy the books

If we're being real, it's pretty obvious you haven't read them. Wikipedia does have a pretty good summary though.


Lol. You are nothing if not predictable. Notice, fellow readers, how he doesn't actually refute what I said, but just dismisses it by declaring that I must not have read the books. Classic avoidance technique.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Feb 25 2015 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Lol. You are nothing if not predictable. Notice, fellow readers, how he doesn't actually refute what I said, but just dismisses it by declaring that I must not have read the books.

There's nothing to refute, as I said, Wikipedia has a good summary, which it's clear you've read in lieu of the books. I don't really care, I'm just not sure what bizarre level of insecurity would cause someone to post things like
Quote:
Yeah. I'd forgotten about that
about a book it's clear they haven't read.

No dog in this fight, though, if you want to assert that you're just ****** at reading and understanding things, I'm sure you'll get no argument from anyone. It's important to me that you understand that it's wildly obvious that you haven't read these books, though.

It's more plausible that this is a computer security documentary.




Edited, Feb 25th 2015 9:43pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#20 Feb 25 2015 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Lol. You are nothing if not predictable. Notice, fellow readers, how he doesn't actually refute what I said, but just dismisses it by declaring that I must not have read the books.

There's nothing to refute, as I said, Wikipedia has a good summary, which it's clear you've read in lieu of the books. I don't really care, I'm just not sure what bizarre level of insecurity would cause someone to post things like
Quote:
Yeah. I'd forgotten about that
about a book it's clear they haven't read.


Um... Because I read the book like 20 years ago? WTF?

What level of insecurity drives someone to avoid discussion of a topic in the manner you're attempting? I said that the Culture represents a society that is extremely fascist (well beyond fascist, in fact). Instead of addressing that, you just claim I haven't read the books. That's an exceptionally weak defense mechanism Smash. Does it actually work on like, anyone?

Quote:
No dog in this fight, though, if you want to assert that you're just ****** at reading and understanding things, I'm sure you'll get no argument from anyone. It's important to me that you understand that it's wildly obvious that you haven't read these books, though.


And once again, I'll note that you haven't actually responded to what I said. You've just attacked me for saying it. Weak sauce man. Weak sauce.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Feb 25 2015 at 9:11 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
What level of insecurity drives someone to avoid discussion of a topic in the manner you're attempting? I said that the Culture represents a society that is extremely fascist (well beyond fascist, in fact). Instead of addressing that, you just claim I haven't read the books. That's an exceptionally weak defense mechanism Smash. Does it actually work on like, anyone?

What is it you think I'm arguing, exactly? The only point I was making was that it was *painfully* clear you haven't read these books.

And once again, I'll note that you haven't actually responded to what I said.

Correct. Not really interested in your opinion, honestly. You want to argue about books you've read a summary of...I guess? No idea why. I think the Culture is presented as intentionally totalitarian in a lot of ways. One of the themes of the series is "is it tyranny if you like all of the things the tyrants want of you?" Which is interesting. I don't view the Culture as some sort of Utopian socialist fantasy I hope the world evolves into, I just think Banks did a better job of addressing what that actually would be like than a ****** TV show did.

I think Stephenson in Diamond Age (another book you haven't read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age there you go, now you can pretend) does a better job of what the reality might look like with access to the bounty of a post scarcity world meted out by tribal allegiance and what said tribes would actually conflict over.

Edited, Feb 25th 2015 10:12pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Feb 25 2015 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What level of insecurity drives someone to avoid discussion of a topic in the manner you're attempting? I said that the Culture represents a society that is extremely fascist (well beyond fascist, in fact). Instead of addressing that, you just claim I haven't read the books. That's an exceptionally weak defense mechanism Smash. Does it actually work on like, anyone?

What is it you think I'm arguing, exactly? The only point I was making was that it was *painfully* clear you haven't read these books.


You're painfully incorrect then. How's that? Pointless game of name calling, isn't it?

As to what you're arguing? Let's see. You made a comment about Star Trek being fascist due to there being rules in place limiting what individuals could do with the otherwise unlimited resources available to them, shortly after also commenting that the Culture novels were a much better example of a sci fi setting involving post-scarcity societies. I then commented that the Culture represented an even more fascist society because people in said society were even more controlled by a much more powerful authority than anything present in the Star Trek universe.

Your next comment after that was to claim that I had obviously not read the books. Now, maybe you were purely responding to my comments about power sources in the Culture. Maybe. But given your past posting patterns, it's pretty clear that subjects like socio-economic-political alignments tend to trigger you far more than hypothetical made up power sources in fictional settings, so I'm going to go with the assumption that you got butt hurt at my assessment of the fascist nature of the Culture.

I could be wrong, but only you can know for sure and I'm reasonably certain you'd never be honest about it with anyone existing outside your own brain anyway, so what's the point. I only say this to explain my thought process and analysis of your behavior. You're not really that complex Smash.

Quote:
And once again, I'll note that you haven't actually responded to what I said.

Correct. Not really interested in your opinion, honestly.


Uh huh. Sure.


Quote:
I think the Culture is presented as intentionally totalitarian in a lot of ways. One of the themes of the series is "is it tyranny if you like all of the things the tyrants want of you?" Which is interesting. I don't view the Culture as some sort of Utopian socialist fantasy I hope the world evolves into, I just think Banks did a better job of addressing what that actually would be like than a ****** TV show did.


And yet, butt hurt. Strange.

I find it interesting how desperately you feel you must cling to the assumption that you are better read, more educated, or more knowledgeable about any topic that may come up, while at the same time doing everything you can to avoid actually doing anything to show that those things are true other than just name calling other people. I write a several paragraph post about my analysis of the Culture and your response is "you obviously haven't read the books".

Quote:
I think Stephenson in Diamond Age (another book you haven't read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age there you go, now you can pretend) does a better job of what the reality might look like with access to the bounty of a post scarcity world meted out by tribal allegiance and what said tribes would actually conflict over.


You're correct that I haven't read it. Honestly, I got about half way through Cryptonomicon years and years ago, realized it was about the most boring book I'd ever read, and haven't bothered with anything else he's written. His topics are interesting, but his writing style just puts me off. Hard to explain why, given that I've plowed through longer books about less interesting subject matters. I think it's because to me he takes too long to get to the point (yeah, funny, I know). He treats each idea he has like it's something masterful, and forgets that some of us have been discussing these very things for decades among the very geeks he hangs out with and learns about them from. Dunno. I don't have an issue with those who love his books (and I know a lot of people who do). I just personally don't enjoy them. Just seems like he's trying to hard, I guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Feb 25 2015 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
I think Stephenson's cognitive mysticism prevents him writing anything even vaguely convincing more than ten years in the future, but it was at least interesting. Full disclosure, I lost my copy at Euston and so never read the last 70-ish pages.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#24 Feb 25 2015 at 9:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
I think Stephenson's cognitive mysticism prevents him writing anything even vaguely convincing more than ten years in the future, but it was at least interesting. Full disclosure, I lost my copy at Euston and so never read the last 70-ish pages.


That may be it. He just seems to treat the latest science/tech buzzconcept like it's the most amazing thing that has ever been thought of, and elevates it to a level of near reverence. To me, it's like "yeah, that's interesting, but not *that* interesting". Of course, I'm a cynic. Literally the first thought that goes through my head when someone presents a new idea, especially tech related is "where's the cost/catch?". I look for flaws in ideas, so when writers gush over something, it strikes me more as naive than compelling.

Maybe it's just a life time spent waiting for those darn flying cars. Smiley: motz
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Feb 25 2015 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think it's because to me he takes too long to get to the point (yeah, funny, I know).
I admit I did laugh at this.

gbaji wrote:
He treats each idea he has like it's something masterful
...and laughed; then cried a little.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#26 Feb 26 2015 at 4:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I find it interesting how desperately you feel you must cling to the assumption that you are better read, more educated, or more knowledgeable about any topic that may come up,

Project, much? I've seen maybe 5 episodes of Star Trek in my life. You'll note that I didn't run to Wikipedia and read a summary so I could pretend I had. I don't think someone who has read a pulp sci-fi series is "well read." It's just *exceptionally clear to everyone* that you haven't read the Culture books.

Keep pretending, I guess? I've given up caring.


Of course, I'm a cynic. Literally the first thought that goes through my head when someone presents a new idea, especially tech related is "where's the cost/catch?". I look for flaws in ideas, so when writers gush over something, it strikes me more as naive than compelling


Nah, you just aren't bright enough to understand the subtext. I'm surprised you didn't pretend to have read it, but I guess that would be a lot of Wikipedia to hold in your mind and once and not get confused with each other.




Edited, Feb 26th 2015 5:27am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 402 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (402)