Scan barcode
sjlee's review against another edition
4.0
I am a fan of Star Trek and I love economics. This book was designed for people like me, and I really liked it.
Manu Saadia is a true, blue Star Trek fan. A small portion of the book is dedicated to Saadia's journey into the fandom and the impact it had on him growing up. What stuck with the author in particular was the optimism. The Federation, home to most of the humans, vulcans, and Starfleet, is a utopia of sorts. In Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine the initial premise Gene Roddenberry created was expanded upon. The Federation is a society without money, or the need to work. Everyone's basic needs are provided for and people are free to pursue their passions and potential.
Saadia suggests that the world of Star Trek actually holds together and is based upon real principles that exist within our own economic systems. Essentially, the Federation has gone through an exponential growth in productivity. This expansion has freed up tremendous amounts of human labour, but also drastically reduced the cost for all goods. At the heart of this revolution is the replicator. The replicator creates seemingly free materials. The shortage of food or other basics is now a thing of the past. Energy is near ubiquitous with fusion power now routine.
I have a handful of objections to Saadia's conclusions. There are still a number of goods that cannot be provided for in limitless amounts. Other Star Trek technologies, like the transporter, might make these shortages irrelevant though. Perhaps the most heartwarming message of the book is that the world Star Trek paints is not hopelessly utopian, but perhaps the ultimate destination of certain social and technological advancements. The author is clear, the world of the Federation is a series of choices and attitudes and cannot develop naturally. I highly recommend this book to those who are interested in Star Trek, post-scarcity economics, and economics in general.
Manu Saadia is a true, blue Star Trek fan. A small portion of the book is dedicated to Saadia's journey into the fandom and the impact it had on him growing up. What stuck with the author in particular was the optimism. The Federation, home to most of the humans, vulcans, and Starfleet, is a utopia of sorts. In Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine the initial premise Gene Roddenberry created was expanded upon. The Federation is a society without money, or the need to work. Everyone's basic needs are provided for and people are free to pursue their passions and potential.
Saadia suggests that the world of Star Trek actually holds together and is based upon real principles that exist within our own economic systems. Essentially, the Federation has gone through an exponential growth in productivity. This expansion has freed up tremendous amounts of human labour, but also drastically reduced the cost for all goods. At the heart of this revolution is the replicator. The replicator creates seemingly free materials. The shortage of food or other basics is now a thing of the past. Energy is near ubiquitous with fusion power now routine.
I have a handful of objections to Saadia's conclusions. There are still a number of goods that cannot be provided for in limitless amounts. Other Star Trek technologies, like the transporter, might make these shortages irrelevant though. Perhaps the most heartwarming message of the book is that the world Star Trek paints is not hopelessly utopian, but perhaps the ultimate destination of certain social and technological advancements. The author is clear, the world of the Federation is a series of choices and attitudes and cannot develop naturally. I highly recommend this book to those who are interested in Star Trek, post-scarcity economics, and economics in general.
bearunderthecypresses's review against another edition
4.0
Nice choice Mom! Thank you for the recommendation!
"Live long and prosper" thus alludes to another kind of prosperity, the kind that arises from the cultivation of the mind rather than from greed, that antiquated and vulgar practice. It is an active sentence. Instead of "long life and prosperity," it is a grammatical imperative directed at the recipient. Long life and prosperity do not befall you out of the heavens, they are not random outcomes from the lotteries of birth or of life. You must live long, and that is the condition. It does not mean that you will prosper: the "and" is not a logical conjunction. You may or may not succeed. Furthermore, the phrase points to the unfinished nature of the imperative. Spock's father, Ambassador Sarek, who has arguably lived very long and prospered beyond many of his Vulcan peers, is still served the greeting. The work and the challenge to go on living and to prosper are never concluded." (p. 241.)
"...free riding on public goods is much more of a threat to our continued welfare than the physical scarcity of raw materials. Public goods are always at risk of exhaustion because of their nonexcludable, nonrival nature. It would seem that in the absence of some form of regulation or contract, or any other agreed-upon system of pricing or rewards and penalties, free riding on public goods will inevitably occur. Designing and implementing regulation on such a scale is itself a very involved process whose ultimate success is far from guaranteed. In many ways, depressing as it may sound, in our world free riding is a feature, not a bug." (p.129.)
"I do not understand the motives of those who advocate space exploration as a way to unite the world, as a sort of cultural crusade for peace through engineering. They are noble. So, what if we first used our resources to lift a billion people out of poverty? How many Einsteins or von Neumanns could we get out of that? Heck, we don't even need Einsteins -- we just need thirty or forty million more engineers and programmers and medical scientists out of this one billion. That is 4 percent, tops. There is no telling what could be achieved with such an increase in raw human capital. The returns of knowledge grow and accumulate incommensurably fast." (p.218 - 219)
"Live long and prosper" thus alludes to another kind of prosperity, the kind that arises from the cultivation of the mind rather than from greed, that antiquated and vulgar practice. It is an active sentence. Instead of "long life and prosperity," it is a grammatical imperative directed at the recipient. Long life and prosperity do not befall you out of the heavens, they are not random outcomes from the lotteries of birth or of life. You must live long, and that is the condition. It does not mean that you will prosper: the "and" is not a logical conjunction. You may or may not succeed. Furthermore, the phrase points to the unfinished nature of the imperative. Spock's father, Ambassador Sarek, who has arguably lived very long and prospered beyond many of his Vulcan peers, is still served the greeting. The work and the challenge to go on living and to prosper are never concluded." (p. 241.)
"...free riding on public goods is much more of a threat to our continued welfare than the physical scarcity of raw materials. Public goods are always at risk of exhaustion because of their nonexcludable, nonrival nature. It would seem that in the absence of some form of regulation or contract, or any other agreed-upon system of pricing or rewards and penalties, free riding on public goods will inevitably occur. Designing and implementing regulation on such a scale is itself a very involved process whose ultimate success is far from guaranteed. In many ways, depressing as it may sound, in our world free riding is a feature, not a bug." (p.129.)
"I do not understand the motives of those who advocate space exploration as a way to unite the world, as a sort of cultural crusade for peace through engineering. They are noble. So, what if we first used our resources to lift a billion people out of poverty? How many Einsteins or von Neumanns could we get out of that? Heck, we don't even need Einsteins -- we just need thirty or forty million more engineers and programmers and medical scientists out of this one billion. That is 4 percent, tops. There is no telling what could be achieved with such an increase in raw human capital. The returns of knowledge grow and accumulate incommensurably fast." (p.218 - 219)
falinter's review against another edition
5.0
The author had quite a few inciteful things to say about the economics of star trek and what it means in relation to the real world. I enjoyed the comparisons. The authors extensive background in economics really helps ground science fiction ideals in real world theory. I would recommend this to anyone who thinks deeply about star trek and the lessons we can gleam from the show to aspire to recreate in the world we live in.
tuesdaymira's review
4.0
I ended up bringing this home from the library on a whim. I was at the library looking for books about climate change and environmental sustainability, and it happened to be the the day after the topic of how replicators influenced the star trek economy came up on my morning walk I take with my husband.
Little did I know, Trekonomics was actually going to provide serious insight into the economics of sustainability and scarcity and the history of science and science fiction. I ended up taking notes, putting a lot of books on my reading list.
One of the concepts that really stands out for me is "post-scarcity is a set of economic choices. Technological progress and economic growth cannot bring us utopia on their own. They are artifacts of society, the respond to people's needs and, sometimes, demands. We cannot ask machines to distribute economic resources equally on our behalf." and "for the foreseeable future, the starship is Earth."
That said, there are areas where I found the book lacking (perhaps as a result of the author's male centered worldview). One is that there is no discussion of what a post-money reputational economy would do to the birthrate or parenting. In an economy that runs on social recognition of achievements and uses the scientific community as a model, it seems like the workplace disadvantages that already exist for women having children or being the primary care provider for children would be exacerbated.
Another is also the statement "TNG was a workplace show without any hint of the usual workplace conflicts," which I find stunning because sexual harassment is a distressingly "usual workplace conflict" that absolutely on the bridge and decks of NCC 1701-D.
Read Harder 2019: #17 a business book
Little did I know, Trekonomics was actually going to provide serious insight into the economics of sustainability and scarcity and the history of science and science fiction. I ended up taking notes, putting a lot of books on my reading list.
One of the concepts that really stands out for me is "post-scarcity is a set of economic choices. Technological progress and economic growth cannot bring us utopia on their own. They are artifacts of society, the respond to people's needs and, sometimes, demands. We cannot ask machines to distribute economic resources equally on our behalf." and "for the foreseeable future, the starship is Earth."
That said, there are areas where I found the book lacking (perhaps as a result of the author's male centered worldview). One is that there is no discussion of what a post-money reputational economy would do to the birthrate or parenting. In an economy that runs on social recognition of achievements and uses the scientific community as a model, it seems like the workplace disadvantages that already exist for women having children or being the primary care provider for children would be exacerbated.
Another is also the statement "TNG was a workplace show without any hint of the usual workplace conflicts," which I find stunning because sexual harassment is a distressingly "usual workplace conflict" that absolutely on the bridge and decks of NCC 1701-D.
Read Harder 2019: #17 a business book
tachyondecay's review
3.0
Money is one of humanity’s most clever and enduring technologies. It is a brilliant way of transferring value across vast distances and decentralizing our economy. Barter makes sense on a hyperlocal, neighbourly scale, but you can’t run a vast industrial economy on it. As Niall Ferguson chronicles in his excellent The Ascent of Money, increases in numismatic sophistication were vital in increasing the range of trade and our abilities to innovate and provide services to citizens. So it seems a foregone conclusion that we are stuck with money, that we’ll never be rid of it. Yet Star Trek, particularly in its 24th century form, proposes to do just that, at least within the Federation. Trekonomics is Manu Saadia’s attempt to understand how (or even whether) this could work. This is not a deep examination of the workings of the Federation’s economy itself, so much as a meditation on how we might apply the ideas of trekonomics to our own policy-making. In so doing, Saadia follows in the footsteps of Trek itself, which is not about presenting viable predictions of the future of our species but telling stories about our species in the present.
Saadia’s timing could not be better. Obviously, the book is coming out during the fiftieth anniversary year of Star Trek. On a wider note, this book is quite pertinent to conversations happening around the world with regards to the economy and work. As automation, in the form of algorithms and robots, replaces many jobs once done by humans, and as an aging workforce retires slowly, younger people are left to wonder exactly what they’re meant to be doing when it comes to work. Holding down a career for life is not a realistic option for many of us. The world of work is changing, thanks both to changes in technology and policy. It behoves us, therefore, to examine our assumptions about capitalism and consider what alternatives might be available to us.
Trekonomics works because the Federation is a post-scarcity society. That is, everything that one might need to survive is available in abundance, at practically zero cost. The replicator is the poster child of post-scarcity and, of course, is a sufficient condition for a post-scarcity society. Saadia is quick to point to contemporary 3D printing as an example of proto-replicator technology (and no, he’s not saying we’ll inevitably have actual replicators, but 3D printing itself is pretty darn amazing). However, he makes a salient observation towards the end of the book that leaves us with a lot to think about: in Star Trek, the replicator comes last. It is the culmination of Federation progress. It’s not present in the 23rd century, where humanity is already well on its way to post-scarcity and the enlightenment that supposedly accompanies it. In other words, the replicator is sufficient but not necessary, and Saadia argues it is the result of other developments rather than the cause of those changes.
This is central to Saadia’s thesis: technology alone is not enough to tip us over into a money-less, post-scarcity utopia. Saadia does not put much store in the Singularity or the idea that technology is somehow inherently liberating or democratizing. He notes the massive potential of technologies like the Internet, but he points out that it is only a force for good if we make it so. He cites GPS and the Internet both as examples of positive externalities, public goods provided by the US government at not extra cost. GPS is an excellent example, because it’s something that has so quickly become embedded in our everyday actions. Yet the US government could easily just turn the system off.
Technology alone is not enough. Its advancement must be accompanied by progressive policies. In particular, Saadia points to eliminating poverty as a crucial step towards a trekonomics future. Poverty actually changes people’s behaviour. Saadia observes that there is a clear difference between the behaviour of the 23rd century Starfleet officers and the 24th century ones, with the latter all acting more like Spock—more rational, more civilized, more fair-minded. I happen to be watching an episode of TNG as I write this: “Force of Nature”, S07E09, which Saadia uses as the example of this. Picard and the crew are eminently rational, able to consider possibilities that undermine their beliefs in the harmlessness of the Enterprise’s mission of exploration, simply because it is their job to keep an open mind.
Saadia contends that as our technologies and policies improve our access to necessities like food, healthcare, and decrease our need to work, this will actually change our behaviour and outlook as a species. This might seem strange at first, because there is a very romantic notion that humans are humans are humans across all of time and space and that we somehow possess an intangible, indomitable spirit that will never be altered or crushed by our circumstance. But it has happened before. Our transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian societies, culminating in urbanization, has changed the way we think and act and operate. As Saadia puts it, “culture is our killer app.” It is itself a technology that we can innovate and iterate through policy and philosophy.
If I haven’t commented much on Saadia’s exposition of the economics of the Federation or other species, it’s simply because there isn’t much in here that is new to me. When you’ve watched Star Trek as much as I have, you’re pretty familiar with it from all angles. Saadia speaks of the shows in the cadence of a rugged fan like myself, off-handedly but accurately summarizing entire species’ contributions to the show or whole themes of episodes. If you choose to read this book for no reason more than that you like Trek, you still can’t go wrong. Saadia keeps the economic terms light; indeed, I suspect that anyone with the more-than-passing knowledge of economics that I possess would be able to offer a deeper critique of those aspects.
Still, Trekonomics is not meant to be expositional so much as aspirational. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the otherwise somewhat indulgent chapter on the science-fictional influences on Star Trek. Saadia uses Star Trek to point to how we can explicitly envision and shape our own future. This is an empowering idea, but it is not a foregone conclusion that we can make such a change. To be sure, even with advances in technology, it will be a long time before we can get rid of money. I think it’s very easy to be sceptical that we will ever reach that point, to be worried about free riders, etc., in such a system. But we need to recognize that this scepticism is an internalized artifact of growing up within capitalism. That doesn’t guarantee that we can successfully replace capitalism with something else—but given capitalism’s flaws, I don’t see that we have any other moral option than to try. Treknomics is a passionate, Trek-filled reminder that we are capable of doing better. If we want to.
Saadia’s timing could not be better. Obviously, the book is coming out during the fiftieth anniversary year of Star Trek. On a wider note, this book is quite pertinent to conversations happening around the world with regards to the economy and work. As automation, in the form of algorithms and robots, replaces many jobs once done by humans, and as an aging workforce retires slowly, younger people are left to wonder exactly what they’re meant to be doing when it comes to work. Holding down a career for life is not a realistic option for many of us. The world of work is changing, thanks both to changes in technology and policy. It behoves us, therefore, to examine our assumptions about capitalism and consider what alternatives might be available to us.
Trekonomics works because the Federation is a post-scarcity society. That is, everything that one might need to survive is available in abundance, at practically zero cost. The replicator is the poster child of post-scarcity and, of course, is a sufficient condition for a post-scarcity society. Saadia is quick to point to contemporary 3D printing as an example of proto-replicator technology (and no, he’s not saying we’ll inevitably have actual replicators, but 3D printing itself is pretty darn amazing). However, he makes a salient observation towards the end of the book that leaves us with a lot to think about: in Star Trek, the replicator comes last. It is the culmination of Federation progress. It’s not present in the 23rd century, where humanity is already well on its way to post-scarcity and the enlightenment that supposedly accompanies it. In other words, the replicator is sufficient but not necessary, and Saadia argues it is the result of other developments rather than the cause of those changes.
This is central to Saadia’s thesis: technology alone is not enough to tip us over into a money-less, post-scarcity utopia. Saadia does not put much store in the Singularity or the idea that technology is somehow inherently liberating or democratizing. He notes the massive potential of technologies like the Internet, but he points out that it is only a force for good if we make it so. He cites GPS and the Internet both as examples of positive externalities, public goods provided by the US government at not extra cost. GPS is an excellent example, because it’s something that has so quickly become embedded in our everyday actions. Yet the US government could easily just turn the system off.
Technology alone is not enough. Its advancement must be accompanied by progressive policies. In particular, Saadia points to eliminating poverty as a crucial step towards a trekonomics future. Poverty actually changes people’s behaviour. Saadia observes that there is a clear difference between the behaviour of the 23rd century Starfleet officers and the 24th century ones, with the latter all acting more like Spock—more rational, more civilized, more fair-minded. I happen to be watching an episode of TNG as I write this: “Force of Nature”, S07E09, which Saadia uses as the example of this. Picard and the crew are eminently rational, able to consider possibilities that undermine their beliefs in the harmlessness of the Enterprise’s mission of exploration, simply because it is their job to keep an open mind.
Saadia contends that as our technologies and policies improve our access to necessities like food, healthcare, and decrease our need to work, this will actually change our behaviour and outlook as a species. This might seem strange at first, because there is a very romantic notion that humans are humans are humans across all of time and space and that we somehow possess an intangible, indomitable spirit that will never be altered or crushed by our circumstance. But it has happened before. Our transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian societies, culminating in urbanization, has changed the way we think and act and operate. As Saadia puts it, “culture is our killer app.” It is itself a technology that we can innovate and iterate through policy and philosophy.
If I haven’t commented much on Saadia’s exposition of the economics of the Federation or other species, it’s simply because there isn’t much in here that is new to me. When you’ve watched Star Trek as much as I have, you’re pretty familiar with it from all angles. Saadia speaks of the shows in the cadence of a rugged fan like myself, off-handedly but accurately summarizing entire species’ contributions to the show or whole themes of episodes. If you choose to read this book for no reason more than that you like Trek, you still can’t go wrong. Saadia keeps the economic terms light; indeed, I suspect that anyone with the more-than-passing knowledge of economics that I possess would be able to offer a deeper critique of those aspects.
Still, Trekonomics is not meant to be expositional so much as aspirational. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the otherwise somewhat indulgent chapter on the science-fictional influences on Star Trek. Saadia uses Star Trek to point to how we can explicitly envision and shape our own future. This is an empowering idea, but it is not a foregone conclusion that we can make such a change. To be sure, even with advances in technology, it will be a long time before we can get rid of money. I think it’s very easy to be sceptical that we will ever reach that point, to be worried about free riders, etc., in such a system. But we need to recognize that this scepticism is an internalized artifact of growing up within capitalism. That doesn’t guarantee that we can successfully replace capitalism with something else—but given capitalism’s flaws, I don’t see that we have any other moral option than to try. Treknomics is a passionate, Trek-filled reminder that we are capable of doing better. If we want to.
harmony's review
3.0
For sure, Saadia is an econ nerd. The premise of this is something I've wondered about for years, so when I saw that someone had written a whole book about the economics of ST, I was over the moon. Finally someone can explain to me how they have no apparent money, yet boring bureaucratic tasks get done and some people gamble on DS9. And there are restaurants and shops? Why?
I can't say those things were definitively answered, unfortunately. Saadia posits that the gambling is a quaint custom, with the latinum handed out like an allowance so locally stationed officers can placate the locals. Businesses are run for pleasure and reputation. No one will hoard or try to exploit things like unique designs or limited batches of wine because why bother. Any job humans don't want, a computer or machine can and will do. And so on... It's not just our technology or economic system that would need to be overhauled for this to come about, but human nature itself! We're literally destroying the only environment in which we can live because people are so greedy and so hungry for power. Is there any place in the world where corruption doesn't exist? Why would that change?
Aside from those optimistic forecasts of shifting human nature, there's the economics. And boy is there a lot of that! Saadia delves deeply into economic theory, sometimes getting so wrapped up in the history or details of a concept that he seems to lose track of the fact that this is supposed to somehow relate back to Trek. There are also numerous asides, often whole sections worth, that delve into the history of the show/franchise in ways that don't connect to economics at all.
In all, this was a somewhat scattered attempt, and although lots of it was interesting, a big chunk wasn't, or wasn't on topic. Give it a shot if you're a big nerd like me, but if you're not already desperately curious, I don't recommend it.
I can't say those things were definitively answered, unfortunately. Saadia posits that the gambling is a quaint custom, with the latinum handed out like an allowance so locally stationed officers can placate the locals. Businesses are run for pleasure and reputation. No one will hoard or try to exploit things like unique designs or limited batches of wine because why bother. Any job humans don't want, a computer or machine can and will do. And so on... It's not just our technology or economic system that would need to be overhauled for this to come about, but human nature itself! We're literally destroying the only environment in which we can live because people are so greedy and so hungry for power. Is there any place in the world where corruption doesn't exist? Why would that change?
Aside from those optimistic forecasts of shifting human nature, there's the economics. And boy is there a lot of that! Saadia delves deeply into economic theory, sometimes getting so wrapped up in the history or details of a concept that he seems to lose track of the fact that this is supposed to somehow relate back to Trek. There are also numerous asides, often whole sections worth, that delve into the history of the show/franchise in ways that don't connect to economics at all.
In all, this was a somewhat scattered attempt, and although lots of it was interesting, a big chunk wasn't, or wasn't on topic. Give it a shot if you're a big nerd like me, but if you're not already desperately curious, I don't recommend it.
More...