Ironically, this happens in the utopian case with Star Trek, which gets invoked as an example of a valid and functioning "post scarcity" society based on fabrication and automation, despite the technology in that series being essentially magic.
But I think first and foremost, Star Trek is being brought as an example of post-scarcity so often because it's pretty much the only story that presented such society and reached general audience. It's pretty much a lone beacon of hope in the sea of dystopia.
Still, I agree with your point. Star Trek is a nice dream, but not a good source of information for reasoning about reality.
I would say I'm more optimistic than you about post-scarcity. Bertrand Russell makes a case for the insanity of modern society by noting that during WWI half of British populace was sufficient to produce enough for all of Britain. Even if we allow for some margin of error in his statement, since that time productivity in the US has increased 4.5x since then.
To me the show is increasingly relevant. For example, it presents a clear answer to a popular criticism to UBI: what is to prevent everyone from staying home to play video games and leeching off society?
The optimistic answer is that once society can produce enough goods for everyone, the traditional value system of society (material wealth => proxy for contributions to society => virtue) loses meaning and will be overtaken by new ones (contributing to society => virtue).
I agree with most of your summary except the end. What if the problems in the US and around the developed world are more due to how society is organized rather than technological? I think the Star Trek value system is appealing and IMO something we ought to strive for.
I am (currently) in favour of UBI, though there are two things that I'm not sure about. One, what's to prevent prices immediately rising to eat the entire UBI, returning everything to status quo but with no welfare budget? Two, how to deal with migration from countries with no UBI to countries with UBI?
As for Star Trek itself (the TNG/DS9/VOY timeline, at least), I do consider it a good vision of what the world could be like. The question that's always in my mind is "how do we get there". I dream humanity can get to a post-scarcity era; the trick is surviving the transition.
In a competitive market (I can go to any grocery store I like) the prices are not set to what people have to pay but on what the other stores are selling for.
The offerings may depend on that - more caviar if folks have more spendable income. But that's called Standard of Living, and if it goes up well that's the whole purpose of UBI
It was more of "people have more money" -> "are able to pay more" -> "prices will raise to what market full of slightly richer people can bear". But I'm not arguing that, just asking about it. I don't have enough economic understanding to make predictions here.
Competition determines prices. Folks can spend money on lots of things. People can share an apartment if they are too expensive, which would drive the price down, and spend their money on other things. More money in circulation means more lending thus more development, which increases housing supply. And on and on.
Another problem is getting people to think "contributing to society is virtuous". It's possible that this idea may be at odds with human nature (similar to Soviet and Chinese implementation of communism).
Also a well-timed first contact with arrogant aliens, that made humans want to show their best side.
> Another problem is getting people to think "contributing to society is virtuous". It's possible that this idea may be at odds with human nature (similar to Soviet and Chinese implementation of communism).
I haven't studied this in any length, but with what little I read, my impression is that the core problem was that communism tried to do away with the concept of private property, and this concept turned out to be pretty much human nature. People want to have things to call their own, and want to see rewards proportional to their efforts. I don't feel like the concept of "contributing to society is virtuous" is at odds with human nature, it actually seems pretty aligned (after all, that's how societies form and grow). I'd love to read more about this. Any recommendations?
In the same way the colonies wanted to show their best side when the British showed up to civilize them?
Sorry.. this is a utopia, I forgot. Per ardua ad astra and whatnot. Must not be cynical. Must not be...
the only reason there was a utopia at all was a global holocaust reducing the population, widespread genetic manipulation and subliminal cultural reprogramming by a race of alien telepaths. The entire franchise is Federation propaganda. The universal translators are literal propaganda machines.
NO GET OUT CYNICISM YOU DONT EVEN FIT.
I'd say stop feeding the wrong wolf, but you seem to have a whole pack there, searching the forest of your mind for any positive thought to hunt down. You might want to call Wildlife Services on this one.