A world like Star Trek

[Defeatist Elitist]

No, I don't mean spaceships and phasers and transporters. Those things are totally awesome, but I'm not referring to any of them.

I am referring to the Earth that is present in Star Trek, one where every person was cared for. The one Picard constantly refers to, where every person in the world has full access to food, education, medical assistance, and all of their other needs.

My question is, do you think that we can currently do that? I'm not really asking if you think we should, but do you think that is a goal that can be accomplished with the level of advancement we have today?

If not, do you at least believe it would be possible to take care of every person living in a first world country?

I believe that both are possible, but the first would be much more difficult and would require massive changes to many things. The changes would likely be to the degree that some people would believe it to be morally wrong.

[Agro]

Honestly? I think that it's easily possible for everyone in the world to be taken care of. But that would only really be if everyone was as giving as Mother Theresa.

[quanta]

Hmmmm... Possible? maybe in a few of the richer countries currently. I dunno if it's desirable in and of itself if the target is reached the wrong way. I expect there will always be an uneven distribution even as overall standards rise. If everyone has healthcare, food, and shelter, they will desire more. What is considered needed will simply grow if we fill the original hole. Not that this is a bad thing, it's a good one. A little greed can provide a good impetus to keep moving forward.

I dunno, it's not something I think about strongly in terms of humans working as one huge group. I'd like to try to improve things for people myself, but I'm currently still just a student. I have a ways to go. And I really only want to to do it if it's something I enjoy and feel is important as well.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Hmmmm... Possible? maybe in a few of the richer countries currently. I dunno if it's desirable in and of itself if the target is reached the wrong way. I expect there will always be an uneven distribution even as overall standards rise. If everyone has healthcare, food, and shelter, they will desire more. What is considered needed will simply grow if we fill the original hole. Not that this is a bad thing, it's a good one. A little greed can provide a good impetus to keep moving forward.

I dunno, it's not something I think about strongly in terms of humans working as one huge group. I'd like to try to improve things for people myself, but I'm currently still just a student. I have a ways to go. And I really only want to to do it if it's something I enjoy and feel is important as well.

I would assume people would want more. My hope though is that people could hit the point where they are satisfied with the present, but still yearn for the future. That is, if people are happy as they are, but still would like to be better. Of course, most people will probably end up being at least a bit happy with their lives anyway.

Personally, I would like for things to improve, but I am, as a person, crippled by satisfaction with the world as it is. I am so happy with an ordinary life as it is now that I find it difficult to do anything divergent or try to improve myself, or the world.

So in a lot of ways I'd agree with you I guess.

EDIT: Also, I didn't so much mean completely even standards, but what I meant was that every person would be able to obtain food, water, shelter, medicine, etc, basically, everything they needed to live a safe and healthy life, regardless of their status in life. Whether they be the richest of people, or an insane meth head who sleeps in the street. There will obviously be disparity, simply by virtue of the thing.

Edited September 4, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Jyosua]

It is possible, but it would take a major re-allocation of funds from the rich to the poor in order to achieve the minimal amount of balance required for this to happen. Unfortunately, for the most part, the rich are greedy, and refuse to even have a small fraction of their funds taken away for just causes like this, simply because "They earned it, so it's theirs to keep". This is apparent from the many people that are against any social aspects of government and accuse people who believe in taxing the rich more than the poor, of being "socialists".

[quanta]

It is possible, but it would take a major re-allocation of funds from the rich to the poor in order to achieve the minimal amount of balance required for this to happen. Unfortunately, for the most part, the rich are greedy, and refuse to even have a small fraction of their funds taken away for just causes like this, simply because "They earned it, so it's theirs to keep". This is apparent from the many people that are against any social aspects of government and accuse people who believe in taxing the rich more than the poor, of being "socialists".

I highly doubt higher taxes are the main obstacle to achieving this. Dozens of countries have tried this scheme. It always fails horribly (and sometimes violently too). If you punish someone by confiscating a huge amount of their income, they can always work less, so you end up hardly netting anything additional (if you push the rates high enough, you can even net less money). It's known as the Laffer Curve. Although people often think it's because the rich will dodges taxes (some will), the fact of the matter is that if you confiscate a huge percentage of a person's earnings, they don't want to work as much (although they'll might try other end-runs around first). What do you do at that point? Force them to work the same amount of time so you can confiscate their money?

Government already consumes about 1/3 of U.S. GDP. They're not exactly lacking in revenue. The bottom 50% of earners in America already pay 0 net income tax IIRC. It strikes me as both naive and foolish to believe that the solution to poverty is to punish those who are generally the most productive, well-trained, and create the most jobs. And it gets really messy when you have to start drawing a line in the sand for who count as rich and who doesn't. Few people want to think they are among the rich, but the moment you pull in about 60,000 or 70,000 a year you are quite rich comparatively speaking.

Not to mention, that people are pretty much damn right that when you earn something for your labor, it indeed ought to be mostly yours to keep. Large-scale government redistribution often turns into a total boondoggle. I'd much rather Bill Gates was able to give away his money as he chose than some politicians or bureaucrats make decisions for him. His incentives are much stronger than the politicians' to actually make a positive difference. The politicians incentive is to do whatever it takes to win elections and win points for sticking it to the rich, greedy capitalists.

Providing everyone with food and shelter is probably within the reach of our current government (although the food might not be too good and the shelter will have other people in it as well). It's very rare for anyone to starve to death in America as it is now. Education is already mandatory and free (and also often crappy). But healthcare? Healthcare is expensive. And the way government healthcare has gone in Europe doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

[Fox]

But money doesn't exist in Star Trek.

[Agro]

Providing everyone with food and shelter is probably within the reach of our current government (although the food might not be too good and the shelter will have other people in it as well). It's very rare for anyone to starve to death in America as it is now. Education is already mandatory and free (and also often crappy). But healthcare? Healthcare is expensive. And the way government healthcare has gone in Europe doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Healthcare works in Australia, although Austrralia's taxes are fairly high, I think. Personally, I'm under the belief that if America were to spend a tenth of what it did on its military they'd be able to solve a lot of problems. I hope someone can point out otherwise.

[NinjaMonkey]

If money went the way of the dinosaur, then it would be possible.

But I can't see that happening for a long time (if ever).

Edited September 4, 2009 by NinjaMonkey

[quanta]

Healthcare works in Australia, although Austrralia's taxes are fairly high, I think. Personally, I'm under the belief that if America were to spend a tenth of what it did on its military they'd be able to solve a lot of problems. I hope someone can point out otherwise

Luckily for your hopes, you're incorrect. The U.S. government already spends more on medicare + medicaid than on defense. If you add social security in to that mix along with disability and such, defense spends roughly half as much as entitlements (after accounting for the Iraq war as well). And hey, that's not even adding private spending on healthcare into the mix. The idea that we have much more money to throw at the supposed problem is frankly laughable. The U.S.'s defense umbrella and military commitments cover far more countries than just itself, so it's not even like its defense spending is unreasonable. Other countries however are in the position of being able to gain from this in terms of the fact they don't need to pay anywhere near as much for defense since the U.S. will cover them; the U.S. gains by being the only military superpower remaining. Although how desirable this is is debatable (it's better than any current alternatives, but we don't exactly make more money this way).

Edited September 4, 2009 by quanta

[Dies Mori]

But money doesn't exist in Star Trek.

QFT; for all I know, Fox could have been mentioning this jokingly, yet removal of a global currency placing value on world affairs is possibly the integral point of allocating any sort of world to even vaguely resemble Star Trek, regardless of its inefficiency.

Also, leave that Albanian self-mortifier of a nun far apart from ethical/serious issues, her actions weren't even mildly applicable.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Hoxha Semblem