Asklemmy

43907 readers

1011 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

602

Dear Lemmy, why Star Trek?? (programming.dev)

submitted 11 months ago by actual_patience@programming.dev to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

414 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Every single large server in this federation has at least one Star Trek community. There is even an entire server dedicated to Star Trek.

Not only that, these communities are some of the most active I've ever seen. There is no other franchise I know of that dominates the federation as much as Star Trek does.

So, what's the correlation with Lemmy and Star Trek? Why not other sci-fi series? Please, are there any connections?? Is this all coincidental?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just gonna point out that by definition, a world that is post-scarcity is post-scarcity for all of its inhabitants. Your assertion that there are "less developed" nations that "don't get basic resources" means we are not post-scarcity.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's just one definition, no? You could interpret this part of the wiki like I did for example

Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met

and conclude that we're already in that world, like Star Trek is.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in > which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.[1][2]

Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services.[3] Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.[4][5][6][7]

It can mean that if you cherry-pick your clauses, but if you actually take the entire text into account, you are absolutely wrong. Tell me what "basic needs" are met cheaply or freely to the general population of the planet? And I mean all of us. From the children in Beverly Hills to the grandparents in Mozambique. Food, shelter, water. At a bare minimum, those three are available cheaply to everyone on the planet on a post-scarcity planet. We absolutely do not live on one of those at this point.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They could have easily have those ends met, but at the moment, they can't easily go get those basic needs fulfilled.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Like I said, just different ways of interpreting the definitions.

The wiki definition "people can easily have their basic survival needs met" is passive, which could mean either

your definition of the people themselves being able to "go get those basic needs fulfilled", or just

the world having more than enough resources and the technology to easily meet everyone's basic needs.

The latter is how I interpreted it. And that's our world, just hindered by our current political/economic system of capitalism.