sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Damn all the cover up makeup in the world can't hide Brent Spiner's wrinkles
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ummm he’s 70 ... just sayin’Or his fat face. He got chunky.
Damn all the cover up makeup in the world can't hide Brent Spiner's wrinkles
Well the dude is 70 yrs old. They should have spent some extra cash and used de-aging CGI like they do in the movies. Even Picard looks like an old wrinkled raisin now, I guess time finally caught up with him too. Isn't he like 80 or some shit now?
Or his fat face. He got chunky.
Good de-aging CGI would be pretty expensive, unless you want him to look like the horrifying de-aged Xavier from the end of Wolverine Origins. Also, you're close. Patrick Stewart is 79.
Maybe they don't really own it but are allowed to live there and produce wine. Plus by then the federation has dozens of planets they own so real estate isn't likely at a premium.
The perks of being a decorated SF officer.Still have billions of people on earth. Pretty sure they don't have big estates for everyone who wants one, any more than we do today. This no money thing is one of the sillier Utopian fantasies in ST.
The perks of being a decorated SF officer.
No money is not such an utopia as many people think. Of course it's not possible for everyone to have a winery, but it is possible for everyone to have they needs met and a roof which would be considered upper middle class housing by today's standards, without money. But if you're an active contributor to society then you can get more than the standard issue housing.
I don't get it why people reject the idea so vehemently without even considering it. It has more to do with traditions and the fear of the unknown than actual impossibility.
So what happens when you decide to get rid of money/wealth, and 5% of the population owns 80% of the land? You stack the majority of the population in dense apartment buildings and a privileged few own most of the world in perpetuity?
Who the hell decides who is worth more? That just sounds like another form of currency, except put into the hands of people determining worth.
It's unworkable nonsense.
Works every time. Except you win the argument against yourself.
- Create a theory based on your own misinformation
- Say it's nonsense
- Think you've won an argument
This is too off topic to go into detail here, but in a post scarcity post money society nobody owns anything, especially not land. They are only temporary caretakers of the land they occupy.
Your 1-2-3 is known as a straw man argument. Point out the straw man, Don't just generically complain about straw man.
There was no straw man. I asked questions, you failed to answer them and instead tried to hand wave them away with misapplication of straw man.
The "nobody owns anything" philosophy you are describing is essentially communism, which has proved completely unworkable in practice.
In TNG, Clearly the Picards effectively own their vineyard which the family has apparently been living on for generations. There is still wealth, of the inherited land form, if nothing else.
As for TNG it is clearly not a blueprint for how an actual money less society would work. I just pointed out that a money less society is not an utopia. The money system is self defeating because it is predicated on infinite growth, which is impossible on a finite planet. We are running at a brick wall, and accelerating, and whoever wants to slow down are called communists immediately.
Star Trek: Picard | NYCC Trailer
premieres: Jan 23 2020 on CBS-AA
I wholeheartedly agree. The current batch of Star Trek writing is total garbage. The problem with making prequels is stepping on established canon. They probably should have started with moving the story line forward. It's good the story is finally moving forward, however, with the current batch of writing .... it's gonna be bad.I don't care for this.
One of the reasons I liked TNG was because of who his character was. I was excited when I heard he was coming back, but now I'm just rolling my eyes.
The idiots they out in charge of writing Star Trek shit these days just can't get out of their own way. They feel the need to make shit "their own" rather than stay within existing boundaries. Fuck that
If you want to make something your own, start your own goddamned series. There shouldn't not be any creative freedom at all in Star Trek.
I wholeheartedly agree. The current batch of Star Trek writing is total garbage. The problem with making prequels is stepping on established canon. They probably should have started with moving the story line forward. It's good the story is finally moving forward, however, with the current batch of writing .... it's gonna be bad.
Star Trek: Picard | NYCC Trailer
premieres: Jan 23 2020 on CBS-AA
And yet they were as good, if not better than all but 1 TNG movie (First Contact) and not worse than 1/2 of the TOS movies (that'd be 1,3 & 5), which is saying something, because, as I recall, one of the new movies being nothing more than an inferior remake of Wrath of Khan. Then again, so was TNG's Nemesis...but as I recall, it was even worse).The "new" Star Trek movies (the remakes) should have never happened. Period. They should have just skipped them entirely if they couldn't figure out a new storyline without jumping the shark by using a lame ass time travel event to rewrite the story.
I only know one show where that works and its precisely the premise of the entire show...and even there it doesn't always work as the show has lately become trash.
Then you're mistaken on the concept level. Every utopia is a fantasy. As an utopia is the best there can be. But there is no such thing as the ffnal version of anything. New technology and ideas will always crop up so there is always room to do better. Everything can be improved upon, therefore utopia = fantasy.It didn't say that a money less society was a utopia.
I said it was a Utopian fantasy. Which is pretty much the opposite.
As I've said I've never seen collective ownership in practice in any communist countries. They were all capitalist first.It's much like Communist fantasy of collective ownership.
I know you think it is nonsense, but that is your unwillingness to think outside the box talking.Fantasy = nonsense in this context.
Human nature is a scapegoat. It's a good excuse for the lazy and indifferent to say: "Let's not even try to change or better society cause of human nature"The problem with these fantasies, is that they fail to account for human nature.
No, but there will always be some form of currency as long as there is scarcity.There will always be currency of some form as long as there are humans.
You don't have to be trans-human to do away with the artificial scarcity that we have now.We may do away with in some far flung transhuman/posthuman future, but TNG was not a transhuman/posthuman story.
In the Star trek world? I have no idea. In the real world? I have no idea either. If I knew how to achieve and run a post "work for food" society I'd already be working on implementing it. Universal basic income seems like an obvious first step, but there is a lot of pushback cause "nobody should get anything for nothing!"And you never answered the question about who decides who get extra perks. As in "The perks of being a decorated SF officer"
Yes, they are payment, but I'd call them rewards. Except in that ideal post scarcity society you don't have to work for a living. And when I say post scarcity I only mean food, and housing, not literally everything. Wouldn't you say it's a better model where everyone automatically has their basic needs met, and only have to work if they want more than that? Of course you can'T take the people conditioned in today's society and drop them into such a scenario and expect it to work. As I've mentioned, you have to think outside the box. If we ever going to achieve anything similar it will be trough slow and gradual social and political changes.Perks sound an awful lot like payment.
Yes, they are payment, but I'd call them rewards. Except in that ideal post scarcity society you don't have to work for a living. And when I say post scarcity I only mean food, and housing, not literally everything. Wouldn't you say it's a better model where everyone automatically has their basic needs met, and only have to work if they want more than that? Of course you can'T take the people conditioned in today's society and drop them into such a scenario and expect it to work. As I've mentioned, you have to think outside the box. If we ever going to achieve anything similar it will be trough slow and gradual social and political changes.
If you don't own the rewards there is no wealth accumulated. As long as people can own things there will always be a concentration of wealth and therefore inequality. You get the reward, but if you loose your privileges or die it is not inherited by your relatives, but goes to the next person eligible for such a reward.That right there skewers the "no money/wealth" argument. Calling payments rewards/perks doesn't make mean you don't have currency, you just have another form of currency/wealth.
Also don't conflate something like Guaranteed Basic Income, with there being no money/wealth/currency. The former is potentially workable (possibly even required in a generation or two), while the latter removes incentives, commerce, trade, etc....
I could definitely see a future, where basic needs are met, and people work for extras. More people are free to pursue their passions in art, music, literature, architecture, etc... But they would still want to be rewarded/paid for their work.
Hell, look at today. Check any Multi-millionaire artist. Do they stop charging for their work, even when their basic needs are met 100 times over? Not on your life. They fight tooth and nail for every dime, even with multiple-millions (even hundreds of millions) in the bank.
Post-scarcity does NOT equate post-currency/commerce.
It didn't say that a money less society was a utopia.
I said it was a Utopian fantasy. Which is pretty much the opposite.
It's much like Communist fantasy of collective ownership.
Fantasy = nonsense in this context.
The problem with these fantasies, is that they fail to account for human nature.
There will always be currency of some form as long as there are humans.
We may do away with in some far flung transhuman/posthuman future, but TNG was not a transhuman/posthuman story.
And you never answered the question about who decides who get extra perks. As in "The perks of being a decorated SF officer"
Perks sound an awful lot like payment.
I think the federation does use money and even gives a stipend to starfleet officers. That's how you see Riker, Bashir and the others buying stuff or gambling--they couldn't do that if the feds didn't give them latinum.
If you don't own the rewards there is no wealth accumulated. As long as people can own things there will always be a concentration of wealth and therefore inequality. You get the reward, but if you loose your privileges or die it is not inherited by your relatives, but goes to the next person eligible for such a reward.
But they were generic shoot 'em ups with details from TOS salted into them. That's their problem. Detail your generic shoot 'em ups with some original thought and don't drag other properties into your movie which someone felt couldn't stand on its own.And yet they were as good, if not better than all but 1 TNG movie (First Contact) and not worse than 1/2 of the TOS movies (that'd be 1,3 & 5), which is saying something, because, as I recall, one of the new movies being nothing more than an inferior remake of Wrath of Khan. Then again, so was TNG's Nemesis...but as I recall, it was even worse).
That said, so far, this doesn't excite me. I get the impression that the other TNG characters are mostly guest roles and while I don't dislike that, it doesn't excite me either. But we'll see how it goes. I can't imagine that Patrick Stewart is going to allow a shit show to be made. If he does, it's on him. He's an Executive Producer and I have to believe that his contract gives him a lot of sway over the story (if not individual scripts).
As for UBI, it is absolutely necessary, but if you are automatically given an income, for just existing, why not just be given a house/food instead? Why the need for money?
A remnant of the old system? The least painful way of redistribution of previously accumulated wealth.would be that if the last direct heir dies their property is assimilated into the collectiveIt looks very much like the Vineyard-estate came to the Picards from their parents. So it was inherited.
A remnant of the old system? The least painful way of redistribution of previously accumulated wealth.would be that if the last direct heir dies their property is assimilated into the collective
But any value created using the earth's resources moving forward from a point wouldn't be owned by anyone.
You just give a bunch of money to people and hope that they spend it on the thing that it's meant for? There shouldn't be such a thing as prime units. I cannot re-iterate enough, in such a system even the worst housing would be as good as or better than what you consider an upper middle class home now.Getting money and being expected to buy food and housing with it enables the recipient to make choices about which food and which housing in a more transparent way. With assigned housing, a trade will develop for prime units, and probably associated corruption of the process to assign those units. It's easier and more fair to give everyone the same money and let each individual pick the tradeoffs that work for them.
You wanted a real world example of a system never implemented yet or what? Talk about moving the goal posts.Talk about making up your own pet theories.
You wanted a real world example of a system never implemented yet or what? Talk about moving the goal posts.
You act like a "theory" in itself is a bad thing. Everything is a theory, only practice / experiments can tell if it is a working theory or not.
You just give a bunch of money to people and hope that they spend it on the thing that it's meant for? There shouldn't be such a thing as prime units. I cannot re-iterate enough, in such a system even the worst housing would be as good as or better than what you consider an upper middle class home now.