Post-scarcity in some ways, perhaps. In many other ways, they're not.
Star Trek still had merchants who sold various wares. That would not be profitable if nothing was scarce.
They still had planets that lacked necessary medicine, requiring The Enterprise or some other ship to go on mercy missions to deliver the meds.
The Star Trek universe had pleasure planets which had highly desirable things that other planets did not.
There was clearly a shortage of starships and crew, as The Enterprise explored alone and not in a fleet, and couldn't just create a hundred others to help it when it was attacked by some alien enemy.
The Enterprise couldn't even use their on-ship replicators to make themselves some dilithium crystals (fuel) when they ran low.
Even Star Trek TNG didn't have a true post-scarcity economy.
At least 5 things were key parameters in their economy and were scarce:
- dilithium crystals, which were used to power ships, and thus also powered the replicators
- Enterprise class ships were definitely scarce/precious
- labour
- land, especially on Earth
- hand-made goods
STTNG didn't have a money economy. That doesn't mean they were post-scarcity.
The closest analogy on today's Earth would be the unmetered water connections that some towns have. Just because the water isn't metered doesn't mean that the water supply is unlimited.
The article actually acknowledges that point, stating that the Star Trek universe (and the Federation within it) is not really a post-scarcity society. There are lots of examples on the show indicating that scarcity, resource-allocation problems, and supply/demand crises still exist.
Ok sure but all those things are still subject to whatever artificial scarcity the market needs in order to survive, which is not the case in Star Trek.
The fact that there is no money in that world is not a byproduct, it is the whole thing. Whatever is scarce or not follows from that, not the other way around.
Granted, especially as you get later on, star trek is not the best at realizing its original conceit. But I choose to believe!
Yes, that's my point. In economics a scarce resource is a limited resource. Defining post-scarcity as an abundance of goods is a bad definition, unless the goods are truly unlimited. Neither us nor 24th century Star Trek has post-scarcity. Star Trek TNG has a post-capitalist, non-monetary economy, but it's not post-scarcity.
Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely
---
Post-scarcity does not require all goods/services to be infinitely abundant.
The core of the Star Trek post-scarcity is a) near-free energy, and b) ubiquitous access to matter replicators. The replicator is kind of magic, but not total impossibility, and rough approximations are within realm of conceivable "future technology".
But I think first and foremost, Star Trek is being brought as an example of post-scarcity so often because it's pretty much the only story that presented such society and reached general audience. It's pretty much a lone beacon of hope in the sea of dystopia.
Still, I agree with your point. Star Trek is a nice dream, but not a good source of information for reasoning about reality.
I take it when they say "Star Trek", they're actually talking about the United Federation of Planets, and Starfleet... with their supposedly "unlimited" resources.
Of course, they don't go into details otherwise they'd quickly realize that it's not really a post-scarcity economy. It might be a "post-scarcity" on a lot of resources that we currently find scarce, but not in the true definition. E.g. labor is scarce, property is scarce, and energy is scarce. Also, Remember they need a mined resource to power those giant warp-cores that make it seem like they have unlimited energy to "create" any resource.
Much like the laws of physics constrain us from creating a perpetual motion machine, they also constrain us from having a post-scarcity economy.
There's still remnants of scarcity in TNG. For example, technology and resources that can't be replicated and where trade is relevant still. And the amount of habitable planets suitable for colonization is also always somewhat limited. No clue how the Federation distributes "luxury" goods like naturally grown food or, famously, wine from Picard's family's vineyard.
Star Trek doesn't really show a post-scarcity society. See Kirk's apartment in SF. He's clearly got an apartment with a view of the bay around the 30th floor of some building. Others don't get the view or the 30th floor since the both are scarce.
So are positions like "being the captain".
Replicators might lift everyone out of poverty but the won't change how people feel about others using their creative works.
"Post-scarcity" doesn't mean nothing ever is scarce - that's impossible to achieve (simply because humans can invent new categories of things to want). "Post-scarcity" means all the things you need to survive, plus a good chunk of the things you'd reasonably want, are so cheap to make or in such abundance, that they become effectively free and unlimited. Thanks to fusion power and matter replicators, that is the case for humans in Star Trek universe.
The behavior of companies owning Star Trek IP stands in stark contrast with the values preached by the show. It's not just fictional post-scarcity vs. real-life market economy; the IP owners are aggressively and self-destructively greedy (much like the Ferengi of Star Trek). It's sad to watch, really - Star Trek has an extremely dedicated and creative fanbase that could be endlessly monetized if given a modicum of consideration. Instead, fan contributions are terminated with extreme prejudice.
Yes, I'm still sour about how they treated Stage9 - a fan recreation of the entire Enterprise-D in Unreal Engine. See [0], [1] for some visuals. CBS lawyers killed this, because of course they did. Would they lose money because of this project? Nope. Would they make money because of it? Sure, through renewed interest. They could've done a number of things, including officially subcontracting the developers and selling the work officially. But they didn't, they killed it. And they'll never produce anything that even comes close to this.
No such thing as a post-scarcity economy, even in the fictional universe of Star Trek. When you have replicators that can produce any food or clothing or small pieces of equipment you need, you end up bartering over planets, star systems, or wormholes [1].
Star Trek is very explicitly a post-scarcity society. There was an episode of Next Generation where they revive some Earthlings who had successfully frozen themselves in the 20th century.
One was a businessman who was excited to see how much the stock portfolio he had put together as a long term trust had fared. Picard had to gently explain to him wealth and money were no longer a thing.
The most important concept in that article is that of a gift economy. The economy provides people with their basic needs and allows them to do (just about) whatever they wish with their time. Some people will chose to produce goods in old fashioned ways, like fine wine produced by tradtional methods, and these goods would be given to others as gifts.
Such goods will always be scarce by definition, but they are all luxuries. An interesting case for this is looking at the markets that developed in POW camps during World War II and how they collapsed once the liberating armies arived with an abundance of goods.
"On 12th April, withthe arrival of elements of the 30th US. Infantry Division, the ushering in of an age ofplenty demonstrated the hypothesis that with infinite means economic organizationand activity would be redundant, as every want could be satisfied without effort." (Pg. 14 of the linked PDF)
Another thing to note is the shift in the means of production. If labor is basically unnecessary in the production of goods you get a shift in modes of production. I could see this happening in the near with the decentralized 3D printing of goods, combined with the massive energy of the sun and the shocking amounts of raw materials in the asteroids around the solar system.
This I think is a demonstration of Marx's biggest mistake. He thought the economic organization would shift without a change in the means of production. Unlike every other change in his economic theories.
Is it true post-scarcity like everyone has their own mostly automated Starship Enterprise / Battlestar / Star Destroyer?
I always get kind of agitated at the notion of post resource scarcity because if you took someone from 1000 years ago and dropped them into today they'd be amazed at how much everyone has. If everyone had 11th century desires but 21st century technology we'd be there. But we're definitely not. I sincerely doubt we ever will be.
But, said Mr. Saadia, a post-scarcity economy is actually far more within reach than the technological advances for which “Star Trek” is better known. Warp drive isn’t coming any time soon, if ever, he explained, but wealthy retirees today already live an essentially post-money existence, “traveling and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy.”
They acknowledge that the technology won't be there, but a post-scarcity economy might. I don't see how that could be possible without some of the technology in Star Trek, though. At a bare minimum, we would need to switch completely away from fossil fuels to an abundant/renewable, clean energy source, find a sustainable way to provide food, clean water, and shelter to everyone, and have universal healthcare at no cost to any individual. To accomplish any one of those without the level of technology seen in Star Trek seems like a stretch.
Star Trek economics are just plain bull shit, any society who has the ability to create food or other items by the expenditure of only energy has no need of much else. I remember a quote, if a race could materialize star ships they would not need too and this is where Star Trek's future always struck me wrong, where is the limit to replicators?
As to the point of are were on a post scarcity economy, well we might be in some Western cultures but it does indicate quite clearly that given nothing to do far too many people will excel at it, worse when they do do something it will be to eat. Society will need to adjust those who just take to find something to do with their time. It might not earn them money or much but they need an activity to avoid end up looking like an extra from Wall-e.
I always thought it's the agreed-upon explanation ;). I.e. Star Trek's post-scarcity society is enabled mostly thanks to the replicator technology. So food, clothing and basic construction materials are essentially free and unlimited. People do whatever they want - most civilians just go and live and further their passions; some do work for others (e.g. Sisko's dad and his restaurant), but they do this because they want to, not because they have to. Many join Starfleet, which basically offers people grand goals and adventure, and enforces structure and obedience based solely on non-monetary incentives.
Things like starships are pricey partially because they're huge (and thus reaching the limit of civilization's energy output) and partially because some things apparently just can't be replicated with their-era replicator technology.
Star Trek still had merchants who sold various wares. That would not be profitable if nothing was scarce.
They still had planets that lacked necessary medicine, requiring The Enterprise or some other ship to go on mercy missions to deliver the meds.
The Star Trek universe had pleasure planets which had highly desirable things that other planets did not.
There was clearly a shortage of starships and crew, as The Enterprise explored alone and not in a fleet, and couldn't just create a hundred others to help it when it was attacked by some alien enemy.
The Enterprise couldn't even use their on-ship replicators to make themselves some dilithium crystals (fuel) when they ran low.
reply