It's more Event Horizon:

>>"Where we're going, we won't need eyes..."

Hell is real: we create our own best emprisonments.

Wild! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50307407

Time to take some risks I suppose. ;-)

Quark is not intended to be an upstanding role model.

The borg would say “resistance is futile.”

I think if one looks beneath the veneer there's far greater inequality than that. The typical human issues are regularly hit on in the show. I mentioned [1] one great example above in the episode Tapestry. But even more broadly than that consider lifestyle differences. Right now on Earth the lifestyle between a billionaire and an average person isn't all that different. They have nicer stuff and more influence, but we live lives that are still roughly the same. The endless hedonism people think they'd engage in if they had billions gets old fast.

But now imagine on the Star Trek universe the difference in lives between somebody in Starfleet and a regular 'peasant.' You have this class of people out there exploring the universe, making amazing discoveries, and pushing the boundaries of humanity in every way. And then you have the peasantry back on Earth doing Earthy things. The difference in these lives would be dramatically more stark than now a days, to the point that they may as well be two different species. Come to think of it, that could literally happen since Starfleet families would likely disproportionately beget Starfleet children and so on. And these differences in environment/family would create radically different classes.

In reality there would likely be major class protests, claims of nepotism, calls for Starfleet to be 'more inclusive', and so forth. In short order everything would start rapidly descending into disorder.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50332143

I think your first question is answered by your second. The main reason for a radically egalitarian Star Trek utopia to have money would be to allocate scarce resources. The shack and the 8-bedroom villa have very different supply and demand curves, so would have very different prices.

There are other problems that get glossed over in a Star Trek utopia, and there are other ways of allocating scarce resources than a market economy, but I don't think your objection really holds.

Fair questions.

But we answer those at the moment with equally inadequate answers: your parents owned the nice mansion, so you get it (though that also includes "so your older brother gets it" just to be really unfair). Also on the other end of the spectrum: your parents messed up your education and traumatised you, so no mansion for you.

It would be good to work out some system that could answer these questions on a better basis than that.

The winner of the “Mansion Games”!

You do the same as you do with Ren Faires and whatnot, by definition you're the lord or lady or knight and someone else is the peasant with a fascinating collection of skin diseases in soiled rags who gets to eat warm mud for dinner.

Wealthier societies have fewer babies - it is likely that earth has a lower population in the 24th century than today. So the resources are less limited, and technology solves other scarcity issues. Everybody gets a Ferrari. Also, humans have settled other planets, so you could always just move to one of those.

Of course, it’s science fiction, not reality. We’ve seen how communism works in the real world, so I’m fairly skeptical of the Star Trek future. 350 years doesn’t seem like enough time to fix all the things wrong with our society.

I am not going to comment in favour of one "ism" for another. Capitalism, Communism... etc. The more I see this it goes beyond our past attempts and understanding.

Its hard to tell what our future is. I don't think we can begin to understand it as its outside our thinking. We are conditioned inside an existing system. We can only see it from the early stages and we are torn between those that see the good and others the bad. In this case it's about :-

- universal basic income

- who owns what?

- etc

I am not suggesting these are ignorant comments. Far from it. The change is about our mindset. It won't be us that changes but the younger generations that gradually transitions. It certainly wont happen overnight. Its a COMPLICATED MESS! We still have Countries with different views, religions, etc.

One thing I've always said especially since the rise of AI in the last number of years is to "hold on tight because its going to be a bumpy ride!" - This could be small bumps or terrible bumps. We are talking about people struggling as well as big corporations!

Slow but surely, we are making a lot of things become redundant.

Look at Universal Basic Income. Will it be this easy? Likely not. Someone will suffer more than another. People are going protect themselves and lives could be lost. On another end, we have big companies that are giving us software for a charge which AI can now decompile and release for Free. AI is still young but you can see where its going. Not only could AI take human jobs away it can also destroy large businesses and their business model.

AI might be seen a "slop" at this time... but as a software developer myself I can see the direction we are heading. Eventually is won't be slop. It will simply be better than humans at solving problems. I am not just talking about code -- but healthcare, logistics, and other planetary preventions. It will become a powerful tool that can free humans to enjoying life to the fullest. Personally, that is my view... for others it is going to be a Terminator scenario or nothing will change at all (other than AI being a nice tool only)

The way I see things, beyond our lifetime, the idea of owning will disappear. This is a hard thing for people to grasp. Many today will think about the gaming industry and "you will own nothing and be happy" -- Yes, in this scenario we are still allowing large corps to control us. I am simply looking BEYOND large corps and our current mindset.

In order to get there (if we do make it) - there will be struggle ahead. I very doubt (assuming we keep advancing positively) that money will exist in the next 200 years. Hopefully sooner. I am sure some 'men behind the curtain' wont want that.

I thought this as well, then found myself in the situation of not needing to work and found that, after some period of hedonism, it became quite empty. I think in the past it was easier for more people to experience this. We had less 'stuff' but much larger families and lived in generally more social systems. Those mitigate a lot of the coercive extrinsic pressures to work. And I think this is why philosophy, especially personal philosophy trending towards self betterment, was so much more prevalent in the past.

Aspire to at least leave the world better than you found it, so it is a little better when you are gone.