Star Trek economics and politics

On the Econlib site, political philosophy graduate students and non-populist Editor Akiva Malamet has published two insightful new articles on economics and politics. Star Trek.

The first one is Star Trek: Just Short of Utopia. An excerpt is shown below.

Star Trek is often seen as utopian science fiction, but a closer look reveals that the world of the Federation is not as peaceful and inclusive as it appears. Continuing Gene Roddenberry’s dream of a future society free of prejudice and emphasizing inclusivity, social and legal equality, and a post-scarcity egalitarian economy, Trek has a strong moral compass and a progressive, even leftist It is well known for its values.

As a hardcore Trekkie with many similar endeavors, this is a world I appreciate and admire. However, a planetary union cannot truly resolve the deep differences and divergent interests between different beings. Rather, it cloaks them with cultural uniformity and, combined with an almost complete transcendence of material constraints, proposes a quasi-secular humanistic and even anti-religious philosophy. This allows the federation to avoid the kinds of conflicts that real differences in both beliefs and material endowments create. In contrast, the Ferengi, despite their many ethical and social flaws, have a sound economic perspective that allows them to successfully navigate difficult trade-offs and truly respect diversity. can. However, the discussion cannot end there. Ultimately, finding the balance of wisdom embodied in the Star Trek universe requires a synthesis that incorporates the moral ideals of the Federation and the pragmatism of the Ferengi.

The second, titled “Star Trek: Markets on the Edge,” takes a closer look at economic issues in the Trek universe.

In the Commonwealth, most goods and services are produced by reproduction. The need for division of labor production and trade is greatly reduced (although there is still demand for non-reproduction products of high quality craftsmanship)….). Thus, federations appear to have overcome many of the knowledge problems associated with satisfying dynamic, subjective preferences and efficiently allocating scarce resources to competing uses. It is a rich economy beyond even the dreams of most economists and science fiction writers. This is coupled with egalitarian values ​​and an arrogant assurance that the Commonwealth is populated by virtual saints interested only in self-realization and universal brotherhood.

But by contrast, outside (and sometimes inside!) the Federation’s utopian planetary core, people often fight over inadequate replicators, scarce machinery, food, medicine, and other resources. Supply ships are essential for transporting rare items to distant worlds and goods that cannot be duplicated, such as dilithium and rare medicines.

In particular, while a replicator can recreate almost anything, a replicator can themselves It cannot be easily reproduced. Trek will never tell you whether there is a cost to create a replicator. However, it is clear that replicators cannot be easily provided to everyone. Contrary to Jean-Luc Piccard’s assertion that “…the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives,” the Federation do not have Overcoming self-interest, greed, and other constraints of human nature. We have simply changed the transaction costs of disputes by leveraging technology that significantly reduces scarcity. When scarcity returns, conflicts over resources also arise.

Job assignments provide further support for the view that the Union relies on more advanced technology than the science fiction version of the New Soviets or Rawlsian ideal theory. It is unclear how the federation encourages people to take up less desirable jobs or jobs whose social importance is poorly understood.

As they say, read everything!

I made a similar point in a 2016 article about Star Trek’s handling of political and economic issues. Learn freedom. Like Malamet, I praised the franchise’s commitment to ethnic tolerance and diversity, but also expressed concern about the federation’s seeming intolerance of ideological diversity.

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry emphasized the virtues of tolerance and cooperation across racial, ethnic, and national boundaries.In his original 1960s series, the bridge crew company Such a diverse cast was rare at the time, including Asians, Russians (included at the height of the Cold War), and black Africans. The inclusion of a black female bridge officer was considered such an important step forward for racial equality that Dr. Martin Luther King persuaded Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt. Uhura, to join the show after she had considered quitting the show. persuaded him to stay.

Star Trek also featured the first interracial kiss on an American network TV show, and one of the first lesbian kisses in the 1990s.

The Commonwealth…seems to have successfully incorporated a wide range of cultures and lifestyles, offering a combination of material wealth and tolerance….

The uncritical acceptance of socialism may be a manifestation of the League’s more general problematic ideological homogeneity. There seems to be surprisingly little disagreement on ideological and religious issues, especially among human characters. With one notable exception (discussed below), very few human characters oppose the Federation’s official ideology, and those few characters are generally depicted as fools, villains, or both.

A federation is a racially and ethnically diverse group of people who think alike, at least on big issues. The creators of this series probably intended this as a sign that humanity would converge toward “truth” in the future. But it is also open to more sinister interpretations. Just as socialism tends to stifle independent economic initiative, it also undermines independent thought….

Even more than Malamet, I was troubled by Star Trek’s almost uncritical acceptance of socialism and its relative disregard for the value of economic incentives.

[A]At least from a libertarian perspective, Star Trek’s appealing ideological vision is undermined by its commitment to socialism.

The League is not only socialist in the hyperbolic sense that some conservatives like to denounce their leftists as socialists. The government’s near complete control of the economy and means of production is socialism in the literal sense of the word.

Especially depending on the era depicted, next generation, The government appears to control all major economic enterprises, and there appear to be no significant private enterprises controlled by humans in the federal territories. Starfleet characters such as Captain Picard boast that the Federation has no currency and that humans no longer engage in capitalist economic transactions motivated by material gain.

The problem here is not just that Star Trek embraces socialism, but that it does so without seriously considering the issue. For example, real-world socialist states almost always result in poverty, massive political repression, and death tolls in the tens of millions.

However, Star Trek gives no indication that this might be dangerous, nor does it explain how the Federation could have avoided it. The series’ producers seem largely unaware of the downsides of socialism, unlike many other political issues where they recognize that there are multiple legitimate points of view.

Elsewhere in our respective articles, Malamet and I explain why the existence of replicators and other incredibly advanced technologies does not alleviate the problems associated with socialism. Perhaps he and I may be the only commentators to draw attention to the significance of the fact that there is no way to duplicate replicators and therefore these devices turn out to be an important rarity in the world. Star Trek universe.

We also both emphasize how Deep Space 9 works. This is my favorite of the many pieces. Star Trek The series takes a more critical look than previous films and series, including the ideological and religious homogeneity of the Federation, as well as some aspects of its political economy.

Since publishing my work in 2016, there have been several new Star Trek series. discovery, Picardand strange new world. Malamet has largely ignored these new series. However, all three take a more critical view of the federation than previous franchise products. discovery and Picard Both have serious flaws and can sometimes become vast, disjointed messes.but strange new world Much better. It takes a highly critical view of some aspects of Federation ideology and society, particularly its hostility to genetic engineering. I hope to talk more about that in the future.

Skeptical readers may wonder why they should care about the politics and economics of a fictional world. The most obvious answer is “because it’s fun.” I gave some additional reasons in this 2011 article of his, emphasizing that science fiction and other aspects of popular culture can influence broader political discourse.