118

I've always wondered this ... I recall fleeting references to the lack of a money system in TNG (something about abandoning the quest for material wealth), but was it ever explained why and how and when that came about? Is there a canonical explanation? And, what motivates them in that case -- why go to work if you're not getting paid and obviously, don't need to be paid because there's no money to buy anything? Were all the main races moneyless?

  • 8
    It's the uniforms. No pockets, so you have to go cashless. :) – geoffc Jan 21 '11 at 1:59
  • 4
    Stardestroyer.net's "The Economics of Star Trek": stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html – user586 Jan 29 '11 at 8:22
  • 24
    @fennec: You can hardly expect objectivity from an essay found on a site dedicated entirely to proving that Star Wars is superior to Star Trek in every possible way. The simple truth is that all economic systems we are currently familiar with are based on dealing with the problem of the management of scarcity in basic resources, and Star Trek's replicator technology nullifies this fundamental problem. Whatever economic system the Federation uses is neither capitalist nor communist because both are now too irrelevant to take seriously. – Mason Wheeler Jul 8 '11 at 23:46
  • 3
    I think it would be very interesting to have a series or movie focus on life outside of Starfleet in the Federation. I suppose there have been several episodes that at least brushed against it, but they shy away from the hard economics of how materials and land are distributed in the Federation. Was Picard's vineyard on land that his ancestors owned for generations? I imagine they could have accumulated it when other people were leaving Earth for other worlds... land on Earth is going to increase in value until there are less people on it, either by cataclysm or colonization of other worlds. – pmiranda Feb 10 '12 at 15:46
  • 3
    @MasonWheeler "all economic systems...are based on...management of scarcity in basic resources". This is still true in the Federation, it's just that the replicators remove scarcity of physical items. The new scarcity is in unique creations, be they artworks or new hologram programs. The scarcity in the federation is one of manpower. You can duplicate a starship, but who is going to keep it from breaking while you are out exploring? Who designs the new generation of tech? Who keeps everything running? I now own 20 starships: who crews them, when my crew can create their own starships? – Mark Ripley Jan 1 '17 at 15:47

14 Answers 14

111

The best explanation comes from Picard in Star Trek: First Contact. He explains that in the future, humans have moved beyond the need to acquire goods and seek to better themselves.

Trip in ST:ENT also gives a good summary of how this came to be. After having made first contact with the Vulcans, humans realized that there was much more to the universe than themselves. Within 100 years, war and famine were resolved on Earth.

Also, Gene Roddenberry was most likely a communist. ;)

Addendum:

While Gene Roddenberry had a general idea of where he wanted to go with the Star Trek universe, most likely he did not feature commerce because he was interested in putting pure sci-fi stories on screen (think of some old episodes and how close they are to old pulp sci-fi). So in essence, (and to reconcile with Zypher's excellent answer), we could say that the Star Trek Universe is as much cashless/commerce-less as it is toilet-less (you never see the bathrooms). In other words, it's not.

However, (most) humans are not driven by the acquisition of goods. A look at some key moments of the timeline gives us a clue as to how this change comes about:

  • 2026-2053: World War III - 600 million dead, many governments destroyed. By that point, we can assume most people were more concerned with day-to-day survival in a somewhat nuclear wasteland.
  • 2063: Zefram Cochrane converts a nuclear missile into the first human-made warp-capable vessel, the Phoenix. Him going to warp speed attracts the attention of a nearby Vulcan ship, who come down and introduce themselves.
  • 2151: The experimental ship Enterprise begins exploring space beyond the Solar system, after a century of rebuilding humanity, during which famine and war are eradicated. All under the watchful eye of Vulcans.
  • 10
    Heck, when Scotty got a phaser running on the Constitution in "The Doomsday Machine", Kirk said "you just earned your pay for the week". As far as Picard's comments go, I liek to think of them as coming from the military version of the "ivory tower elitist" being somewhat out of touch with how things work "on the ground". Nothing necessarily BAD, just not in Picard's realm of expertise. – David Feb 8 '11 at 13:03
  • 5
    The funny thing is that Warp drive discovery, the basis of everything that followed, was completely monetary driven. Oh sweet irony! – Ryan May 24 '11 at 2:40
  • 9
    Found other references to money. In Encounter at Farpoint, Dr. Crusher wants to buy fabric and asks for it to be billed to her account on the Enterprise when it arrives (not the exact wording). – MPelletier Sep 14 '11 at 4:15
  • 3
    also there were independent freighter families, at least in ST:Enterprise. You can be sure that they weren't risking life and limb against priates for "the greater good". – Xantec Oct 5 '11 at 2:22
  • 6
    Roddenberry was definitely radically progressive. But I think that's what makes Star Trek so unique. It doesn't show the future as just the 20th/21st century with futuristic technology, or show some post-apocalyptic future like 90% of modern sci-fi. Roddenberry tries to project the cultural evolution of humanity over the next few centuries based on historical trends. And historically, societies become increasingly progressive: sexism/racism/homophobia->tolerance, plutocracies/oligarchies/monarchies->populism/egalitarianism, etc. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:15
81

There was definitely a money system in the Star Trek Universe. It was a credit based system (heck even the monetary unit was called a Federation Credit).

You especially saw this in the DS-9 series where it played a more prominent role (as well as the Ferengi) in the store. Even today we are moving to this type of system with debit and credit cards, although cash is still a valid form of currency. Also, you should keep in mind that most of these series where set on Military vessels where there is much less need to have money at all.

Even though they were in a time of post scarcity there was still uses for money - which are outlined in the above mentioned wikipedia article.

These uses boil down to:

  • A bartering tool between the United Federation of Planets and other governments
  • A means of internal budget allocation in the United Federation of Planets
  • A way for Federation citizens to barter for objects that cannot be replicated
  • 3
    Also, depending how seriously you take J.J.'s Trek as part of canon, ... in the bar in the beginning, Kirk tells the bartender "her [Uhura's] drink is on me". This implies that Kirk is going to pay for her drink, which implies currency of some sort, ergo, NOT a cashless society. – eidylon Sep 3 '11 at 18:55
  • 5
    It's a cashless society in all the ways that matter. Today we may use credit cards, but our society is still based around the accumulation of wealth. Whereas, the societies of the Federation aren't driven by capitalism. You still need an economic system for distributing resources, so credits are used as currency for trades and measuring the relative value of resources & services. But the credits each Feddy citizen is allotted is probably based on their needs (family size/number of dependants/where they live) rather than occupation/rank. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:23
  • 4
    Even in DS9, it was mentioned that money was used but not so much by the Federation. I'd have to hunt down the episode, but I do remember Sisko once holding over Quark's head the possibility of charging rent for his bar... with the implication that they hadn't been charging him all along. But there definitely was a Deep Space 9 economy, and Quark was an economic leader in that community. At the end of the series, it could be interpreted that the Ferengi Alliance is heading in the economic direction of the Federation's cashless economy. – neilfein Jul 17 '12 at 5:51
  • 1
    There is also the line in the Genesis introductory video in Star Trek 2, where Carol Marcus asks Starfleet to fund further research. Presumably this refers to some sort of resource allocation, as you say. – Paul D. Waite Feb 13 '15 at 22:57
60

"Star Trek's replicator technology nullifies....scarcity"

Not so. This conversation is a rite of passage for any Econ major. While many things would cease to be scarce, when you get down to brass tacks, a replicator is not nearly as disruptive as you might think.

First of all, the replicator needs power to operate, so everything associated with traditional energy generation has to still happen. Even if that is super-duper anti-matter power, someone is still having to design, create and manage that to some extent.

Second of all, someone has to be designing the intellectual property represented by the replicator patterns, ala Thingiverse. People might do small things for free, but something complicated like a phaser, for example, would require a significant outlay of time and effort, which are scarce.

Third of all, there are certain goods whose scarcity is utterly unaffected by all this, most of all real estate.

Fourth, all of human services which are non-manufacturing are still subject. Even if you can get a holographic doctor, what about artistic performances and works? Maybe robots come into play here, but as long as human beings are the customers, to a certain degree human beings are going to be providing the services. Historians? Teachers? Research scientists?

Fifth, clearly there are items which are beyond the scale of replication. DS9 was stuffed to the gills with cargo ships...presumably what the cargo ships are transporting is not replicatable, or at least not economically so.

Consider if you had a replicator right now, and could replicate any object. Irrespective of the market value of the object (replicating diamonds, for example), is there an object you could manufacture that could pay your rent / mortgage? Probably not.

The replicator would be a great boon and represent a tremendous increase in wealth for all society, but people would still have jobs, money and commerce.

It always seemed to me that it wasn't that the Federation had evolved beyond commerce, but that it was immensely, unimaginably wealthy. When you're immensely wealthy, you can pretend that you're beyond material concerns - when you're poor, it's clear to you that you're not.

  • 6
    This concept is just another step on a long curve of automation that began with the industrial revolution. When a product makes the leap from being producible by automated means, you see a drop off in both price and quality - BECAUSE the product is so much cheaper, people are willing to tolerate a lower level of quality. In some products, the quality level recovers to the level of hand-craftsmanship, but in others, it never has, not even all these years later. For those products, good enough is good enough - but that doesn't preclude a more limited demand for higher quality versions. – Chris B. Behrens Oct 28 '11 at 20:34
  • 16
    Replicators don't nullify scarcity of all things, obviously, but it nullifies scarcity of most things to the point where the average person wouldn't have a need to model their life around the accumulation of wealth. That may be hard for some people to understand right now, but even in our capitalist societies, there are many people who work for free. The only reason more people don't do this is because everything still costs money (food, housing, education, transportation etc.). But automation, replication, and cheap energy eliminates much of this. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:33
  • 10
    Your second point, at least, is null and void due to the open source movement, with things like Ubuntu (well, linux in general), Firefox, LibreOffice, and others. There will always be people around who are willing to work on large projects in their spare time. And likely even more of them around in a "bettering yourself" society like the Federation. – Izkata Jan 6 '13 at 7:26
  • 8
    Arthur C. Clarke said "in the future the unit of currency will be the kilowatt-hour". – Chris B. Behrens Apr 19 '13 at 3:56
  • 5
    4. Artists create because they want to - which is why you currently find a bunch of them on the streets. Historians/Teachers = computers. Research Scientists - see #2 above. 5. I can find no real reason for that except that the writers felt they needed to move cargo around. In this case those ships don't reflect the reality of the situation... Unless they are stuffed full of replicators... Going further: I wouldn't have a mortgage or rent if I replicated my own house. The bank wouldn't own it, I would. The whole idea of "ownership" would likely change radically. – NotMe Oct 8 '14 at 15:28
17

I find the nonexistence (or nearly so) of money in stark contrast to the principle characters favorite pastime - poker. Its hard to imagine poker being the same game if the chips are just meaningless markers.

The psychology of pocker requires that one have significant "skin in the game". If it's just some meaningless chips that will be lost, rather than a months pay if your bluff is called, it is a lot easier to feign confidence. Sure, they have a theoretical understanding of money, but that isn't the same thing as the understanding of money of someone who struggles to pay the rent.

  • 5
    The chips represented, if not money... what? Oh, the fanfic possibilities in that boggles the mind! ;) – neilfein Jan 21 '11 at 6:33
  • 1
    Even if they didn't carry wallets, there was money in the universe, so it wouldn't be a foreign concept to them. – Jonny Blaze Jan 21 '11 at 14:33
  • 4
    I remember a couple of times when there was talk about "losing a months pay" at the poker tables, at least for the junior officers games - mostly in passing though. – Zypher Jan 24 '11 at 21:18
  • 10
    I've always assumed that they represented replicator or energy rations. They're on an isolated starship that spends extended periods in deep space. The Enterprise is obviously designed to provide for the energy needs of all of its Starfleet and non-Starfleet passengers, but there's still a limited amount of energy available for holodecks, replicators, and the ship's critical components. So you'd need a way to ration the available energy for recreational use. That probably means everyone aboard is allotted the same amount of possibly transferable credits each month for energy usage. – Lèse majesté Nov 11 '11 at 17:45
  • 4
    I'm with @O.R.Mapper. Have none of you people just played basketball with your friends for fun? Most competitions don't involve monetary reward. Hell, I've done this exact thing: played poker without betting money. The chips are just to track who's winning. – Nerrolken Feb 19 '15 at 17:32
13

It is interesting to also note that in one of the movies (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home; aka the one with whales), Kirk states they have no use for money in the future.

11

Why: Because Gene Rodenberry wanted to show that the Federation was a better place than contemporary America, and that was one of the ways he chose to do it.

How: He wrote the scripts that way.

  • 7
    I think he's looking for an in-cannon explanation – Jonny Blaze Jan 21 '11 at 14:32
  • 14
    He may be looking for one, but that doesn't mean that he should get one. Most of these kind of questions don't have in-canon explanations that actually make sense, and this is no exception -- they're things that are in fiction as plot devices or as cool ideas, not as well though-out extrapolations. If Gene Roddenberry really knew how to run a moneyless society, he'd be collecting a Nobel prize for economics, not producing a TV show. – Mike Scott Jan 21 '11 at 15:12
  • 19
    As evidenced by the correct answers here, there is an in canon explanation. – Slick23 Jan 21 '11 at 15:50
  • 5
    +1 - Utopias are easy when you control the narrative – Chad Levy Nov 17 '11 at 4:27
10

I think what Gene meant was a "cashless society", in that all currency is virtual, rather than physical. Save for antiques still collected by collectors. Uhura had to buy her Tribble from Cyrano Jones with Federation Credits. Cyrano Jones was a merchant. Harcourt Fenton Mudd, was also into money. Ditto those miners that he delivered those mail-order brides to. Kirk also mentioned wealth in the Horta episode. Wealth was brought up again in that episode about the immortal that owned his own planet. Moving there though, cost him is immortality. There are lots of references to wealth, et cetera. Just no cash is ever shown until the Ferengi are brought into the equation. Oh let us not forget, that a Federation representative would need to visit that one planet to collect the Feds' piece of the action! The Ferengi's form of currency that they invented couldn't be replicated and thus counterfeited, namely that Gold-Pressed Latinum. EDIT: Remember when Captain Kirk talked to Scotty about "being fired" and "earning his pay" in that one episode? In one aspect, people that have a higher education, I suppose, would know about cash money anyway, as a part of their education. But if they aren't used to spending it, or seeing it, or having it, on a daily basis, why would they talk as if they still did? Also a point of interest, while the survivors of the Sleeper Ship Botany Bay didn't seem to have monetary concerns, the people from the Sleeper Ship Birdseye certainly did! Captain Picard had to inform the former rich man, than his bank accounts weren't accumulating any interest, the poor guy! I know that the episodes are in different centuries. My point here is, that after reading some more, I can see now that there are episodes that contradict each other on the point of whether or not money still exists in the 23rd Century and beyond.

8

I recall the concept of "transporter credits" (e.g. energy rationing) being brought up in one episode of DS9. Also, given that replicator technology essentially allows them to be a post-scarcity civilization, there is no need to purchase the basic necessities of human society - but that doesn't mean that the desire to do so is gone.

8

In our current society, money is a store of value which is independent from other material goods of value. From a highly macro perspective, its purpose is first and foremost to regulate access by individuals and other societal entities (like governments and corporations) to finite, valuable goods or services via a trade system. It is recognized by nearly all moral systems that you cannot simply take all you want; if everyone did that, the human race would have depleted Earth's resources a long time ago. The secondary purpose of currency is to store value in a portable form; a piece of paper with "100" written on it is far more portable and durable than most things $100 would buy.

However, money's not the only possible or even plausible system of regulating goods and services, or of storing value. Roddenberry proposed a system primarily based on goodwill; human thought had trancended beyond the petty need to garner wealth and instead had focused on bettering their species in the form of increased knowledge. That goodwill, in turn, leads to a "post-scarcity" economy; when the 7 billion people in this world no longer have to spend money on weapons to kill each other, a lot of time, money and talent becomes available to focus on improving life in general (medicine, food production, housing, climate, etc). In such a society, its members wouldn't have such primitive drives as greed.

Other systems have been implied in other series, especially in those where resources are scarcer than usual (Voyager) or where commerce with other races was more common than usual (DS9). Latinum (a material store of value similar to gold) and credits (some electronic store of value similar to the number representing your bank balance) are widely seen as a medium for trade while planetside or between races. Credits can also be seen at times as a synonym for "rations", as in "replicator credits" or "holodeck credits".

Obviously, other races in the Star Trek series are based on elements of human thought taken to their purest form, with commercial systems to match. The Vulcans value logic and reason so highly they repress all emotion to avoid polluting analysis and decision-making. In-canon, they were the main inspiration for humans to "evolve", and likely have similar abhorrence of greed and encouragement of "ideal communism" as we might call it. The Klingons go almost completely the other way; barbarians appealing to their baser instincts, kept from pure nihilism only by a strong sense of honor and family; it's generally implied that goods and services are generally produced, subsumed and disseminated from the top down in a Stalinist style. The Romulans are modeled on the Roman Empire; a highly political system of government that can only survive as long as it can conquer and exploit new worlds and peoples. The Ferengi, obviously, are the uber-capitalists; the free market is a deity in itself, and coinage is EVERYWHERE in their society. The Cardassians in TNG and DS9 became the "new Romulans" after the Romulans themselves were backed away from pure conquest to give them more complexity of character. The Dominion and their child races also have some Roman influence, but the Founders themselves borrow on the archetype of the super-being, so powerful that they have "outgrown" caring for the sufferings of lesser creatures. Much like the Klingons, the system is top-down; everything proceeds from the Founders. Sometimes, these opposing races bring out the darker nature of humans; for instance, the Federation resorts to germ warfare (a disease custom-designed to disable and kill Founders) in an effort to end the Dominion War.

7

I think it was just that they evolved beyond it, toward nobler purposes. Picard was always one to be explaining that.

4

Ease of energy access, and near-infinite resource creation.

Monetary economies are traditionally driven by rarity of resources and the energy required to acquire and use them. With money being an indirect means of converting one resource into another.

Through advanced technology energy is so cheap it cannot be metered, and it can be used to create resources through replication and other advanced manufacturing and mining technologies. With neither energy or resources being rare and having value, there is no need for money, no need for barter, no need for trade.

Anyone can have almost anything.

1

The initial answer by Chris B. Behrens is spot on. Replicators would reduce much of what we would call economic scarcity, but it still takes energy to produce it, and skilled labor to maintain/fix it. And land obviously is and always will be finite, hence scarce.

I believe the Star Trek economy allows for a high standard of living for all citizens, because food, clothing, and replicated industrial material for shelter would be cheap to produce, if not free. However, you still will have those who earn less for various reasons, and those who earn more due to some highly prized unique talent or ability. You would still have poverty, but not the dire kind that too often plagues the world today. There would be real estate booms and busts, created by the scarcity of living space coupled with the high demand for it. I imaging 70-80% of income would go to land and energy use, as everything else would be essentially free/insanely cheap.

What would not change, and will never change, is human nature.

  • 1
    This conflicts with what we know about the Star Trek economy. – Valorum Sep 29 '15 at 20:00
  • There's are a few problems with that answer. Epigenetics and neuroscience cleanly debunked 'human nature' argument. I would suggest watching lectures from both Dr. Robert Sapolski and Dr. Gabor Mate to gain a better understanding. As for replicators... no. You don't need them. What is needed is abundance in energy, food production, housing, clothing, medical care, education, clean water, clean air and transportation (among other things). Such abundance has already been produced on Earth now for decades and we have the ability to do far more with less. – Deks Nov 22 '16 at 0:12
  • Technology and resources were never our issues... our issues lie in the continuous use of an outdated socio-economic system that sees everything from cost efficiency point of view and profitability... not resources availability and what is achievable from a technological efficiency point of view while using latest science. I can assure you that food is already produced in massive abundance (enough to feed 10 billion people annually) - we just waste over 40% of it due to aesthetics and giving it to animals. Energy: Geothermal, solar and Wind - doable for decades in massive abundance. – Deks Nov 22 '16 at 0:17
  • @Deks Having never heard of Drs. Sapolski or Mate before, and not being acquainted with epigenetics or neuroscience, what lectures would you recommend? I Googled their names but have no idea where to go from there. Can you recommend any reading material? Genuinely curious because appeals to "human nature" always seem like a form of hand-waving to me. – J Doe Mar 13 '17 at 23:51
  • Certainly... you can start with this: youtube.com/watch?v=Uwhihv2T5FA I would suggest watching the whole thing, but if you want to get to the relevant bit with Sapolski and Mate, start from 9 min mark. Of course, there are other materials you can access online about both of these men... mainly on youtube as they posted their lectures. – Deks Apr 3 '17 at 0:41
0

For those who might not be aware of it... Gene Roddenberry attended several seminars made by Jacque Fresco on Cybernation (as it was called back then). Today, it's been renamed into 'The Venus Project'... and the core of this project is called Resource Based Economy.

Essentially, it describes a transition into a moneyless society where currency, trade and any form of servitude do not exist. And before you dismiss it as a fantasy, bear in mind that RBE is based on technological automation - namely robots, machines and algorithms do all the dirty work, while Humans are liberated to pursue higher things.

All Humans would also be exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving. The notions of property, governments, etc. no longer exist. Why? Well, when you live in a society that produces things on demand or has things ACCESSIBLE on demand, you have no need of ownership.

Our technology (in real world) surpassed this level around 40 years ago. It would take too long to go into all the intricate details, but suffice to say that Roddenberry based his idea of a moneyless Federation on Resource Based Economy.

Namely, you do not require infinite resources to have a post scarcity society. Look at it like this, Humanity today is producing enough crops to feed over 10 billion annually, and yet, a lot of this produce (over 40%) is discarded based solely on the fact that it's aesthetically unpleasing (otherwise there's nothing wrong with the food itself - its still nutritious/edible). Then, a lot of it goes to feed the animals (which is unnecessary because Human biology doesn't require animal protein to live or thrive - there's sufficient peer-review studies confirming this btw) and its effects on climate thanks to animal agriculture at large (producing enormous quantities of Methane that's even worse than CO2, and Methane emissions encompass a good chunk of climate change numbers).

At any rate, what you need to achieve post scarcity is abundance (or more than enough). And that we had the ability to do for decades. There is an enormous quantity of geothermal energy that can be harvested via 2 ways... volcanoes, and drilling deep in to the Earth (could have been done since the 1950-ies because we've been producing synthetic diamonds since then).

We also don't have issue with housing... there's more than enough to go around. In the USA alone, there's enough empty homes to house each homeless person about 6 times over. In the EU, there's enough housing to house each homeless individual 3 times over.

China built hundreds of new and empty cities in a span of mere 15 years.

We also have 3d printers that can build houses in about 24 hours, or half as much time.

Why did the Humans in Trek universe decide to go this route? Probably several factors: 1. WW3 - just look at what wars are doing to us in real life. 2. First Contact with the Vulcans.

I would surmise that Humanity decided it was time to clean up its act... and actually, it took them 50 years to eradicate war, poverty and diseases (per 2 statements coming from Deanna troi - once during TNG series and second time during First Contact movie - it was in the movie she actually stated the time frame).

Now, bear in mind that while the Federation does bear resemblence somewhat to RBE, it's not a fully realized RBE because it still has people in positions of power, leaders, prisons/'police', etc.

I would imagine that various vestiges of what exists in the current socio-economic system were retained for TNG because Roddenberry either didn't grasp the full concept of RBE and how it might work, or the writers simply wanted to keep things somewhat relateable - plus, Trek was a show made for American TV... showcased in a very much so Capitalist culture.

Plus, Trek had a lot of writers, many of which projected their ideas onto the Federation from current day (even though such things would simply not happen in such a society once you take into account epigenetics and neuroscience in play - but then again, many writers also didn't know about those things, and by rewatching a lot of TNG, I can see their ignorance showing - the information existed back then, though admittedly, it was probably harder to access due to lack of Internet at the time).

At any rate, the Federation in TNG represented a possible future where science and technology are used for the well-being of EVERYONE as well as protecting/preserving the planet, and where EVERYONE are exposed to relevant general education (becoming generalists), critical thinking (ability to question the information given to them, themselves, their own culture, background, etc.) and problem solving - such individuals would technically have 0 need for leaders or politics, and indeed as is dreadfully apparent from real life, politicians are NOT problem solvers (they are mainly trained in politics, not in the things Humanity and the planet need for survival, prosperity or sustainability).

Many people would argue that we do not have necessary knowledge or resources to solve our problems... but neither were a problem for a good portion of 100 years now - I can elaborate further and provide evidence for those who might be interested (from credible sources).

But bear in mind I'm using real life examples to showcase how the Federation could have accomplished what it did.

In actuality, what we saw in the 24th century Federation should have happened at least in the 23rd... by the 24th, it should have been far more hyper advanced, because scientific and technical progress occur at faster than exponential rates the more automation is being integrated and society becomes more technological and scientific as a result. Most people think in a linear fashion, and this is one of the reasons why it is a problem for them to think that we could easily transition into a moneyless society ourselves - they are stuck in the current mindset because it is the culture in which they grew up in and currently live in.

-3

The premise of the question is wrong. The Federation has a monetary system, but some writers imply there is none. This is a production flub influenced by idealism of a few writers that didn't pay attention to what was laid down in stories. The idea of "monetary-less" system originates in these flubs and then persists in the minds of "fans" because they are under the same sway of the idealism of the writers that wrote it. That is they believe that the world would be so much better without money and the Federation is supposed to be utopian (another wrong premise) so the two combine and presto, you have the idea that the Federation has no money even though it is shown multiple times to have money... and yet the Klingon Empire I assume everyone believes has money, but we've no reason to believe that because no money has ever been exchanged that are Klingon that I recall.

In other words... the answer is that it isn't, but "fans" continue to believe and push that it is.

  • 1
    If multiple writes make the same "mistake," doesn't that make it canon? – Rogue Jedi Jul 27 '16 at 1:21
  • @RogueJedi No. It means they're uninformed or are talking about something other than what we're talking about. For example, they could be talking about physical cash in some instances while others they could be making comparisons of, for example, the availability of food where food in general is free, but going to a resaurant is not or something like what we have today with the internet in several places where basic highspeed internet is free, but if you want faster it costs you. Also all the series display money usage in some way where as only a few episodes of TOS/TNG say otherwise. – Durakken Jul 27 '16 at 8:12

protected by Community Mar 14 at 23:20

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.