James R. Rummel points out that in the Star Trek universe, there is no money:That always struck me as being exceedingly odd, particularly when I noticed that people were serving drinks in the space station saloons, and generally doing scut work. What motivated these people to get out of bed and work as servants every day, anyway? Where did the ambition to excel and become a starship captain come from? Why would anyone put on a red shirt and accompany the bridge crew as part of an away team?Don't think I let this bother me too much. It was just entertainment, after all, and I didn't think it would stand up to too much scrutiny. If it bothered me at all, I just figured that the science of psychology had advanced so far by the time the Star Trek society rolled around that people were conditioned from birth to give their best, even if they didn't get any direct reward from their efforts.And in a follow-up post, he expands upon this theme regarding the moral corruption that would result from a holodeck:What would it take to condition someone to the point that they wouldn't want to simply spend all their time in the holodeck, running Roman Orgy v1.0? The methods to alter a human's natural desires to the point that they would shun such fleshly delights in order to strive to contribute to society essentially would warp them into something that I wouldn't even recognize as human anymore.I left a comment to the effect of my usual interpretation of the economics of Star Trek: they were unrealistic, as they eliminated the first law of economics -- scarcity. Thanks to the replicator, there is virtually no need to manufacture anything. Although there were a few objects, such as latinum or yamok sauce, that could not be replicated, there was essentially nothing that your replicator could not provide for you -- including more replicators.Commentor Dove took me to task for this assessment:The higher and less obvious: patterns, designs, inventions. Dropping the cost of manufacturi...
