Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Candy art, Mar 12, 2007.
Who here think that the world would be great if we lived his vision?
Is is it even achievable?
no, we suck too much for it. Nice idea though.
Who the Hell is Gene Roddenberry? Is he the guy who made that tv show Andromeda?
Visonary behind Star Trek and Andromeda
People that do stuff because they like it / improve themselves instead of doing it for money? Haha, that's just stupid.
Of course it's stupid, to those who like aquiring material wealth just for the hell of it, because we all know that makes you a better person really doesn't it.
It's supposed to be based around events of a third world war that wipes out 2/3rds of the earths populace where after the first warp drive is developed which in turn makes the human race fed up of warmongering and more spiritually enlightened. In that situatution where you place people to of developed enough to not automatically be greedy arseholes and instead are far more empathetic then it's not hard to imagine why some people would consider adopting a system like that for the betterment of the whole.
There is one really good thing, great even, you could do away with all the bureaucracy, in gene's story of earth you need certain circumstances and technologies to make that kindof earth possible.
I'm more into Joss Whedon's vision than Roddenberry's.
I don't think people are naturally greedy arseholes, we're just brought up to be.
We do do things because we want to, and not for the money.
Money is only the fourth highest motivating factor for people seeking a new job.
Providing a viable alternative was available, nobody would do a job they hate just for the money. Not unless it served some higher purpose such as retiring at 30.
And who wants to do your plumbing? Who wants to pave a street in the scorching sun? And those are still the good jobs and jobs that someone always will have to do.
Ideas like this and communism are not just bad in practice, they're not "good ideas" either, because when an idea fails to take into account the most basic human characteristics, it's an awful idea. People are self centered assholes by nature, no one cares about the betterment of the whole (and don't say you do, because you're lying by just being behind your PC). But that's part of what makes us people, you can make a robot do the shittiest jobs for no pay and you won't hear a single complaint.
Oh, and almost no one does "what they want to do" and yes, everyone works for the money. That some enjoy their job is irrelevant, the only reason you took the job in the first place is because you needed money. If everyone was doing what they wanted, this world wouldn't go anywhere any more. Hardly anyone but artists would do any work.
Plumbers usually don't have the skills and abilities to do "better" jobs - compared to other similar options, it's a damn good job. Note the part about "viable alternatives".
Bull. I wouldn't do my job for free, but I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it either.
I work in recruitment, I think I would know why people leave jobs and what motivates them to take new ones. People will jump into a new role because the money's right, but I can guaran-damn-tee you they won't stay if they don't like the job.
I'm not exactly sure how communism became part of the discussion, either. Either way, if it was all about the money, I'd train as a stockbroker and work for Goldman Sachs. Ain't gonna happen.
It would be pretty awesome, but only if I got to be on the Enterprise
TNG era obviously
So, tell me, what moves people to come to you at all? Why do they even want a job? Because they must, right? And if the job is fun, that's a bonus, perhaps worth switching jobs for, but it's not the reason why they would work in the first place. On your next interview, offer them the option between a position at the company or a 365 day a year payed vacation. I wonder what results that would yield.
I'm not saying it's people wanting the most money possible, I wouldn't want a job as a broker either, but I am saying is that no one would do the either shitty or hard jobs if the reward is the same. Who is gonna spend 25 years of their life in school to become a surgeon? People do their shitty jobs now because it's their only option: society forces them to make money somehow. When that pressure is no longer there, do you really think people are going to work on making this world a better place (*queue hippy song*)?
And I mentioned communism because it's pretty much the same bullshit "equality" philosophy.
You've misread that.
He isn't saying "People don't like there jobs, they only work there to make money".
It's more along the lines of
"Yeah you can love this job, but if they pay you nothing...... you probably will go to a different job that you don't really like but they are paying you good solid money."
"If you are not making enough money to sustain a happy life style, you will probably quit and pick up another job that pays more money despite you not liking it as much but you will gain a happy life style".
Of course factors like how much you dislike the job and how happy you are with your current job come into play. He isn't saying they don't. However, money motiviates. Our society is based around positive reinforcement.
It's like many dogs:
-You can teach a dog a trick by giving it treats.
-Take those treats away and the dog will probably stop doing the trick.
-Give man some money for doing a job.
-Take that money away and the man will probably stop doing the job.
Not to say there arn't exceptions. Some dog's will still keep on doing the trick. Some people do volunteer work for things they really like on the side and have strong feelings for.
well imagine what it would be like exploring space,would that be a reward in it's self?
man...I hope NASA and other space programs advance so we can explore space....
I agree, Candyman, err... Candy Art. If I were able to explore space that would be enough reward for me.
It's not so much about exploring space, it's more about the comradery,the friendship of the best crew in the galaxy.
Kirk, Spook, John Puke Picard, WILLIAM RIKER BEARD EXTRAORDINARE and lovable Yoda.
Seriously though, i'm not sure when humans will be ready for a moneyless society. Perhaps when violent, primitive urges like murder, rape and necrophilia are removed from our genetic code by jurassic park scientists. When purely good human DNA is constructed, and such a being is raised in a culture in which the acquisition of material shit is of no consequence to social status or personal confidence. Where people don't have to wear super duper funky pants to feel at one with the universe.
In this world humans will live in blissful happiness until the war with the Romulans. A deceitful and intelligent race that seeks to destroy humanity and gain complete dominion over the alpha quadrant.
the future'll probably be more along the lines of Battlestar Galactica or Firefly/Serenity; bold new future, same problems.
**** pastel-shaded utopia - give me space cowboys!
People need money...you cannot survive without it in an industrialised society. It's as simple as that. How can you possibly use that as an argument for the downfall of society due to people doing things because of the money?
It doesn't change the fact that most people will take a more enjoyable work experience over higher pay. I could do exactly the same job in the City of London and earn shitloads more, but actually I really like the company I'm at.
Truth be told, however, if money wasn't a factor, I'd become a motorcycle courier instead. There's every chance I will do that, once I've established myself here so I'm in a good postition to return to this career later. But I expect to double the top-end earnings possible in that job in my very first year here, and moving forward there is no limit on potential earnings. Simply out of practicality, sense and securing my future, the money HAS to win in this case - but if it was 30k versus 40k, I'd rather be a courier.
I wouldn't want an easy job - but I expect to be rewarded and recognised for hard work and good results.
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at though...are you saying being a surgeon is a shitty job?
Not really sure how that relates to anything I said...
Then again it's an issue of practicality. If people need to earn enough money to sustain a happy lifestyle, how is that greed? Should people intentionally be unhappy? Isn't this whole argument based on attaining maximum happiness as opposed to maximum earnings?
From a personal perspective, my job is quite simply to make money and on principle I don't see why I should do that without taking a cut?
Or why, in fact, anyone should donate their services to a profit-making organisation?
Yes, my ultimate dream was always to become an astronaut/fighter pilot. But you'd still need to be paid! Both of those jobs are actually some of the most demanding things a person could ever do...hence why 99%+ of people are not capable of doing either.
Why would you want a moneyless society? That's actually a huge step backwards. Think about it - carefully.
The mere existence of money creates inequality, encourages others to exploit other people for a profit. Money creates the class split we have, it makes some people live to 90 why others die at 40. I think it's quite likely that an advanced society to ours, whether in the future, or already existing, will not be capitalist.
Money encourages many things. You can't just do away with money because some people abuse the system.
All men are not equal, that's a fact of life. Money didn't create it.
We don't have a "class split". It's in your head.
Some people are useless pieces of shit and some people are destined for success. The amount of money people earn reflects that, it doesn't dictate it.
If you're exploited for someone else's profit, it serves you right for being a moron. Smart people make sensible decisions about what to buy and who to work for.
Quite. Excuse me while I puke at the thought of the foam-padded, delusional "utopia"...
To be honest, I don't think I would aspire to move up in my field as much (or as fast) if I weren't motivated by money or the desire to better my living conditions.
Now, in the future, if everything is provided for you (a nice clean house in a clean neighborhood and all the accommodations you could want) then I'm not quite sure if I would be motivated or not...
Personally I find it hilariously ironic that people go on about the evils of aquiring material possessions - posting on a computer, which is easily a luxury item
It also really ****s me off that people go on about how shit humanity is - really grates on me, I disagree with it entirely.
You've touched on something good here...
The thing is, technological society requires currency, economy, large organisations, bureaucracy and the control that goes with it.
Our constant scientific progress, on-demand luxuries and technological prowess can only exist through people being experts in one particular field and lending their services to a big team.
If you want a nice clean house in a nice clean neighbourhood, a car, a PC and flights to Australia, you have to accept this way of life. People cannot be self-sufficient and be a part of the modern world.
We actually have a lot less freedom than people used to hundreds of years ago...but in an industrialised society it's a necessary sacrifice. Regimented, luxurious and comfortable or free, rough and short-lived - those are the options here in terms of our lives.
Large organisations and bureaucracy i agree with. But lets look at star trek. There is a piece of technology called a "replicator" it will create any piece of food or material posession based off a voice command.
If such a device were ever invented, it would overnight, destroy world economies and make the acquisition of material shit completely and utterly useless. Society whores would become irrelevant. What would people do with their lives? This technology is probably the entire basis for the star trek world. Nobody would need to do labourers jobs. Plumping, bricklaying..blah blah blah it would all be done by robots. What is powering all this? Either an extremely powerful new energy source or the perpetual motion machine was invented (**** you physics).
What would people do? Also look at the other technology, the holodeck. A 100% realistic simulation of anything you want. Sex with 90 virgins, walking on other planets, it's all there.
We aren't talking about the modern world. If technology evolves enough it just might pave the way for Rodenberrys vision of a society where people are all addicted to holodecks. Some might be journeying the stars....
I agree with Mr Fusion,
In Rodenberry's universe the energy sources that they use are fusion generators and controlled matter/antimatter reactions.
It would very much sideline alot of the present economy if replicators existed, for starters who the hell would want to go shopping anymore if we all had one of them, we wouldn't need to.
Hence why Gene's world is more focused on the bigger things such as space exploration, aquiring food and energy has become so abundant and easy because of advances in technology people don't have to focus anywhere near as much on the supply and demand for basic human needs. Gene Rodenberry's earth is a none material profit organisation, everyone pulls their resources together to help the communities in the federation.
Imo, it's the best way to survive as a species obviously. Bickering and fighting amongst ourselves over finite energy resources ultimately isn't going to help, it only serves to deepen the capitalistic trench we call a kleptocracey, oops I mean democracey.
I call bullshit.
Many of the brightest kids I've seen (yes, I've seen them myself) cannot afford to go to college, let alone a good college. If a few of them got the education their intelligence merited, they could e millionaires. I'm saying that they have the potential for success.
You can keep puking at what you call an idealist's utopia, but the fact is, every sentient creature can be a contributing member of society. The magnitude of the contribution may vary. I may be useful as a sweeper, you may be better as a dentist. but the fact is, capitalism does not recognize or do justice to this. Therefore we need a society which does not run on the archaic principles of barter (I'm talking about capitalism). We need an alternative. I do not have that alternative yet, but in time, money has to go because it does cause a very real split in socety.
Think in terms of developing countries, where a vast part of earth's populace lives. There capitalism cannot be applied rigidly, because rich people can easily continue getting rich, while poor people have to slog to become rich.
I agree, I also call bullshit on what passes for democracey these days. Any society where 51 percent of the population can decide for the other 49 percent is a pervertion of the very meaning of the word.
Also when DeusExMachina says money encourages many things, that's not really true, it's what money can get you that encourages people in this society. We all want 'stuff' some of us aimlessly, and I think herein lies the psychological problem, when we can all grow up to be more empathetic towards each other and get rid of present dellusional concepts of being better or more important than anyone else just because we have more 'stuff', then we will be ready to do away with status and actually, properly, without bureaocracey, work toghther without an insatiable need for personal aquisition, pyschological inferiority disorders would then start to become a thing of the past, and vice versa.
I think Mr. Fusion and repiv were right in both senses.
In today's society, we have a need for resources (food, living conditions, etc) which is provided by money.
However, if those needs were eliminated, then perhaps we would be motivated in a completely different sense. I say perhaps so strongly because who knows how humans in the long run will choose to live their life? Can you honestly say that if everything were provided easily for you your whole life, that you would aspire to better yourself and those around you? I can easily imagine a world full of lazy people who just do the bare minimum because theres no pressure or motivation to do anything with themselves.
Well, as we understand it currently the concept of a replicator is pure fantasy. You'd need all the energy created by a nuclear bomb just to make a sandwich.
However, the concept of robots doing people's jobs is a concern. It throws the whole balance of the workforce into disarray...but ultimately we'll just have to be smarter, more disciplined and more well educated.
Realistically speaking, such a society would guarantee our self-destruction. If such technology did exist, it would HAVE to be very heavily regulated...which may, like the "war on drugs", be a losing battle - and a much more devastating loss. Some paths are best left untravelled, no matter how tempting they may be...
The actual reality of such a scenario doesn't bear thinking about.
Why should someone else foot the bill for their education? I didn't go to university, and I'm never going to, yet, for some reason, I have to pay for other people to go to university instead. Half of them just because they can't be bothered to get a job or want the "experience". Wonderful.
I can also guarantee you that my decision not to go to university will in no way, shape or form have any bearing on whether I become a millionaire. Actually...it might - I could have gone to university and got indoctrinated into thinking that it's a good idea to get a well paid job in engineering or something. Thereby putting an instant cap on my possible lifetime earnings.
Success has more to do with character and personality than anything else.
Capitalism exactly recognises this - it also recognises that the magnitude of the reward should be commesurate with the magnitude of the contribution.
Britain, the most capitalist nation in Europe, does not have a "split in society", although ironically under a government that labels itself socialist, you apparently do. That speaks for itself, really. Not that the caste system would have anything to do with it at all...
Nobody can "easily" get rich. If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it.
Actually, it's the other way around. Some people have more 'stuff' because they're better or more important than others. Which is why they get paid more.
Money is resources. It represents the amount of resources you have access to. It exists purely because resources are finite, and if they were not the concept of money would quickly become utterly irrelevant.
That would indeed create a world full of lazy, complacent people - the stuff that fallen empires are made of.
It would be a world so different it's almost inconceivable tbh...
Gene Roddenberry is overrated.
"HAY GUYS I HAVE THIS GREAT IDEA THAT WILL BOWL YOUR MINDS
RACIST STEREOTYPES ARE BAD RIGHT? SO HERE IS MY PLAN: WE WILL CREATE AN INFERIOR RACE WHO ACTS STEREOTYPICALLY RACIST
WE WILL TEACH THE WORLD THAT THIS GODDAMN RACE IS SO INFERIOR TO CAPTAIN JAMES R. KIRK
MY NAME IS GENE RODDENBERRY
ALSO LET'S THROW IN SOME MORE LINES WHERE EVERYONE CALLS VULCANS RETARDED"
See now, you may think I'm exaggerating things a bit - until you realize that's an actual quote from the script.
That's hilarious, a revolutionary viewpoint. Gene Rodenberry had a fantastic concept of what we could be, and it's still extra ordinarily popular today, that's all that has to be said for the people who think we can accomplish those things. For those who don't and would prefer to own an island with a few slaves to do their bidding then by all means try.
You like to assume that since we don't agree with your view point, we are amoral and vicious.