You're viewing a single thread.
I'm pretty sure by the end, even Roddenberry had come to accept that humans will never be so selfless as a species and the Starfleet he dreamt of could never exist. That's why his later stuff was more bleak. There's just absolutely no way that the money free world they describe is good for everyone
I believe there is a way. Nanotechnology helped along by artificial intelligence could conceivably bring material abundance to everyone. This would be a world dramatically reshaped. Humanity might not even qualify as the same species anymore.
Some people actually think that such a future is an inevitability; that it can't be stopped. Short of everybody dying in a fire of course.
I think the human race dying before we reach those dreams is far more likely
No sense worrying about it then. I know I don't.
My cynical perspective is that people will monetise that nanotechnology before long
What makes you think the powers that be would make this accessible to the poor?
There has never been a case where governments are able to hide technology from the people for more than a decade at a time in modern history. It might start out expensive, innovations usually do, but over time the expense drops, someone makes a quick buck selling to the masses, and all of a sudden money is meaningless.
Worst case scenario you may have to use your second amendment rights to acquire the technology for the masses, which is what it was designed for.
There’s just absolutely no way that the money free world they describe is good for everyone.
Can you elaborate, please? In a hypothetical future where money doesn't exist and technology has granted everyone the means and freedom to pursue their own interests (as long as those interests aren't harmful to others, of course), I'm having difficulty understanding why that wouldn't be amazing. Maybe not perfect, but vastly improved over what we're stuck with now.