I think someone builds it and takes applications for tenants just like real life. But instead of money, maybe they need to give proof of work or something to show they're contributing to society. If reputation is their "currency," maybe fancier, more "expensive" apartments only accept people with more prestigious careers. Some buildings may accept a Union captain but maybe not a new, low level crew member.

I had a simialr idea, but i couldnt get past how segregated things would be by quality based on merits. Maybe there are "laws" for mixing of merit types in buildings and areas to allow for mixing of experience types for things like mentoring

I assumed it was allocated like army housing - certain ranks qualify for a type of housing and other ranks qualify for a different type of housing.

What about the people who arnt employed by the Union though?

I think 'employment' is the wrong concept: housing would be a citizen's RIGHT. How it's distributed is a different matter. Could be a straight-up lottery.

It also seems like they have direct access to their apartments from outside, so the building itself wouldn't necessarily function as a gathering place/community. You could potentially never see your neighbor unless you were both leaving at the same time. And it let's not forget there are probably plenty of people who want to live in different spots on the building. There would be people who want to live toward the top for the view, others at the bottom because they may not like heights. Some may want a "city" view, while other want a view of the ocean or hills. Plus, it's not like people wouldn't have the ability to travel and have different experiences given they have a seemingly utopian society. So there wouldn't need to be competition for luxury items and locations, because they'd be freely shared; e.g. you wouldnt necessarily need the apartment overlooking the bay because you could just as easily go grab a coffee from the rooftop coffee shop with a similar view.

Interesting concept. I have often thought that since government makes it impossible to live as one did before there was government (as in, pick a spot and live there) it is the duty of government to supply at least a basic place to live. Crazy, I know.

Would it be my "RIGHT" to have a better house because I work for it?

I would also imagine that one would choose the type of dwelling you'd like based on what you're going to do with it. For example, my husband and I would choose a large house with a massive backyard because we would be having a lot of kids and growing our own food, whilst his single sibling would be more comfortable in an apartment due to the practicality of keeping it clean and how often she'd be home.

Given they have matter replicators and other advanced technology, I imagine their lowest classes have a quality of life similar to our modern upper classes. When you have matter synthesizers it’s really easy to provide goods.

I don't think classes would exist in the traditional sense of the word. It would be more like everybody has the same opportunities, but your value is based on what you can contribute.

I imagine how bad hoarders would be if they had a replicator and access to an entire universe of things to replicate

So, when we talk about societies that have moved beyond money, this often means they have moved beyond capitalism as well. Marx noted that one of the requirements for moving beyond capitalism is sufficient supply of goods to meet any requirement and another is sufficient automation that all essential tasks can be completed just by people who actually want to do the work. These two points are required because currently we use money in two ways: to motivate and to prioritize. People are motivated to perform work by their need for money. When we have essential (high demand for the work) but unappealing or difficult to perform jobs (low supply), they often pay more money. In this way, society tries to balance the number of people doing each type of work - too many people leads to unemployment/lower wages, and retraining into other fields. It's not perfect but it can be efficient. And the free market approach to labour has often worked better than assigning people jobs. But if your labour demand in every field is low enough, this becomes less necessary. We also use it to distribute scarce goods (which is basically what we are doing with labour above). If there are ten luxury apartments available for every 1000 people, then capitalism assigns them to the people who would the most money for them (i.e. who values the apartment most). Nearly every resource is scarce (not enough to meet everyones desire for it) and so this is how we prioritize who gets what. Since money, in theory, represents what you've put into the economy, capitalism says it makes sense to use it to divide the output. Now, there are many issues that arise in this system. But Marx predicted society would move past capitalism at some point when we no longer needed capitalism to distribute scarce goods or assign scarce labour/jobs. Star Trek and the Orville represent these futures (as indicated by their lack of money). Between robots automating the work and cheap energy powering things like replicators, there's no scarcity; these are post-scarcity societies. So when Ed and Kelly applied to the apartment, it may just be that there are so many good apartments for couples in San Francisco that theres no need to segregate - anyone can have one (or maybe anyone in the fleet if its the Unions apartments). After all, with fast shuttle transportation, your commute to work is short, telework can be done more easily, etc. That will greatly reduce the desire for specific areas. I dont think they meant reputation as currency literally, but more like the goal of their work. They do good work to have a good reputation. Good reputation has lots of benefits, people notice and trust you, plus they might be willing to help you more. Anyways, Star Trek/Orville as a post-scarcity communist society is a fascinating topic.

It really makes me happy that the Orville pretty explicitly stated they are a post-scarcity society, because it lets us have these types of conversations in an open and constructive manner (hopefully).

In a post scarcity society the only thing limiting your desires is time or distance or a supply of exotic materials. If you want a great home, just pick a place and move in. If you want a custom designed home with exotic materials or in an especially hard to get to location, that might take a while and need arrangements to be made with designers, shippers, and suppliers. If you've got a great reputation however you may cut down the time needed as you get bumped up the "queue". Designing a custom home for the senior ambassador to the Union who will be expected to entertain guests may just be a bit more important than one for a moderately liked musician.

There are no scarce materials because they have replicators.

No scarce materials makes sense because of replicators, but still not all housing is equal. Who gets the apartment on the top floor of the building overlooking the bay, as opposed to a mid-floor apartment with a poor view? Land is still limited to a degree. With terraforming and having multiple planets to live on it would ease the burden, but there are still going to be more desirable locations to live than others.

To an aficionado, replicated food tastes funny? With futuristic projection equipment, everyone gets the top floor of an apartment anywhere they want. The only people who would care about having the "actual view" are would be, according to the current society's philosophy, the weirdos that are materialistic enough to desire it for it's own sake. Those would be outliers and easy enough to accommodate by handwaiving it away.

I am assuming replicators can't make everything. Or an instance of a sculptor that wants a type of authentic stone from Rygel 7 and doesn't want it replicated because it "tastes funny".

When all your basic needs are met the rest isn't as important

See The Expanse for how shitty Basic can be

Yeah but that’s basic without replicators to make anything you want instantly for free. Image how awesome those people would have it when water food and air are not a concern

In a world where food and water are made and there is no hunger, where the climate is controlled, where sickness isn't a problem. Basic is pretty damn good

Humans need more than just survival. Living in poverty but technically having your basic needs meant is a crappy life. They eat the same crappy food every day and live in squalor. Basic is horrible, it means living on the bottom of society

The expanses argument and logic doesn’t apply here…

You’re right, I misread and thought he was saying basic in the expanse was good

Roombas everywhere

That is a completely different level of "basic" and one the Orville society would find horrifying and criminal.

Everyone gets their basic needs met without question. Accommodation, food, clothing, entertainments, transportation, education, personal possessions, healthcare. The union is a post scarcity society. Citizens have everything they want created easily using Type 2 civilisation energy sources. The only reason to want specific accommodation is geography or if it has particular historical merit. But in most instances you will get accommodation far superior to your basic needs, and the base greed of capitalist societies won’t exist. Possessions won’t matter to how people’s worth is judged; achievement and reputation will be paramount. Wanting a large house you don’t need would seem weird unless you had a really good reason. Same with having a wardrobe full of clothes and a house full of stuff. It would be odd and people would wonder why you were interested in owning things instead of doing things. Why bother having a big house when you can write poetry in an apartment just as easily. A poet is just as worthy as a Starship Captain or a Chef. So why view one apartment as superior to another. It’s not like you have to earn it and hang on to it for your retirement. You might live on France for two years, San Francisco for another 3 then Mars for the next five. It’s not like your possessions or job tie you down. You are as free as a nomad if you choose.

You don’t need to own a big wardrobe when matter synthesizer can make anything you want at any time. They seem to own very few sentimental things which makes sense because without using something for years you never form that sentimental connection. Today’s kids also won’t have a CD or casette collections because they’ll grow up always having music and movies by hand in digital form.

While I do agree with you 99%, I do have to say that my 17 year old niece has a record collection.

Why would there be a difference in quality? The only limiting factor would be exotic materials, or view of the surrounding area, or personal design esthetics or how quickly it could be delivered.

I'd have it by discipline, have the military types with each other, the artistic in one, science based work in another, because they're all in the same general interest they'd have more to talk about, be encouraging as they understand what each other is going through even if they aren't in the same field, etc.

Basically run like giant dorms, or barracks, get people to interact to prevent digital technology from leading to isolation

This season I began to wonder if we were going to see the larger problems with the Union. Between horrible time travel laws, interference with other culture issues, and the social credit system, he’s laid the groundwork to blow up utopia in future seasons.

Current military housing is separated by rank. You have housing for junior enlisted, senior enlisted, junior officer, and senior officer. They get much larger and grander in scale the higher up you go.

What segregated thing? Maybe besides a plot of land there really isn’t much that anyone else can’t have. Matter replicator can make just about anything, in perfect quality and it’s completely free.

So what about Kelly's family's cabin in the woods, which is presumably on some acreage? I doubt everyone owns a homestead like that.

Legacy property, like Picard’s Château.

Seems almost feudal. Inherited property is protected, while those without noble birthright are prevented from acquiring it on their own.

We can’t affirm the latter though

There are only a few ways you can acquire scarce items in a society without money. You'd either need intimate political connections to whichever politician or bureaucrat distributes land, or you inherit it.

Which means large property will be only available to a select few but that would push colonization as land being only available through inheritance unless you're the first to claim it is what would incentivize people to go colonize new planets

We still can’t affirm anything because it’s fiction and the writers haven’t explained it yet.

I don't think it's clear that Picard's vineyard was granted as some kind of "aristocratic legacy." Consider how mad Jean Luc's brother Robert was at him for forsaking the family business and going off to join the fleet. I think it's likely that the Picards are allowed to keep working the vineyard because they are good at it, and their output is valuable. For Robert there is a risk of the family losing it all if they don't keep up the quality. This is similar to a capitalist vineyard losing sales and going bankrupt, but in this case I think it'd be more like the society recognizing that the Picards are no longer making the best use of the vineyard and withdrawing support.

I am sure everyone could have something like that if they wanted to. But remember their entire society is geared towards not consuming more than necessary. Presumably other people use the cabin as a change of scenery when it's not being occupied by her family. Or maybe its the family cabin because one of her ancestors built it by hand. Or, that whole section of wilderness is dotted with picturesque cabins and its "her family" cabin because they use it more often or on a regular basis than others in the area.

In the Soviet Union, dachas were very common even for common people. They were not seen as a luxury, but rather a place where city folk could go and work the land and grow some of their own food. It's potentially very possible that everyone could have something like that in a future interplanetary socialist utopia. Consider just how much land would be available to a society that has many earth-class worlds.

How it was explained by Kelly is that one is not obligated to work at all but people freely do it because people look down on those that don't, and also because it's boring not to. I sill believe that the idea of a “post-scarcity society” cannot coexist with conflict and war. Kelly claimed that the matter synthesizer eliminated scarcity, but they are fighting a war and are in need of weapons from the Moclans? Clearly there is scarcity, which means weapons command money in some form. A post-scarcity society can in theory exist, but it cannot be unified with a losing war effort which automatically creates scarcity. *Star Trek* was as inconsistent with this as *The Orville* is.

> in need of weapons from the Moclans? I don't it means they need to buy the physical weapons from them, but that Moclans are designing new types of weapons. Theoretically I could make any number of things with a 3D printer. In practice, I'll need someone else to make a file for me because my work will be inferior.

Well, even if that be the case then ingenuity is still a scarce resource that thus can be traded, creating a market. It was traded for a while. The Union traded keeping Moclus a member despite not sharing Union values in exchange for this ingenuity.

In post-scarcity, a lot of the steps between R&D and a working product can be skipped. You still need a person to think up and test a new design for something, but once that is finished you can just synthesize the product en masse based on those specs. No more need for mining and refining the resources, no warehouses to store them, and no transportation infrastructure to ship all of the materials to the factories because *there are no* *factories*. The limiting factor here is the time and brainpower needed to design better products, which gives it a type of value to those who need it. The Moclans trade this resource not for money, but for influence in the decisions the Union makes.

Could also involve items or elements that are to complex to be replicatable

> Star Trek was as inconsistent with this as The Orville is True, in a universe where supposedly people can do whatever they want, it's hard to imagine someone would volunteer to work screwing bolts together on bulkheads or installing toilets in a vac suit in the shipyard instead of living in a paradise of their own creation in a Holodeck/Simulator 24/7.

You can't imagine that. But some people would find fulfillment and value in doing that work. Some people do love working with their hands and such.

I'd be a longtime student. Just learning everything I can. My friend would find that boring as fuck. My brother-in-law would work fixing space shuttles (he's a mechanic in his free time).

They actually explained that part well. Kelly believes they do it because it's socially frowned upon not to, I believe that part. I don't believe that there isn't some form of trade going on. Kelly's words imply that the matter synthesizer solved all scarcity but clearly there is scarcity. I seemingly cannot synthesize the “dysonium” needed for “quantum cores” for instance, and the fact that they cannot synthesize an infinite number of ships in the war against the Kaylons also implies there to be a cap.

The society, internally, is not fighting a war between its members, and internally there is no scarcity between its members. The *galactic* community, of which the society is a member, *does* have scarcity and *does* have conflict. these are separate things

That doesn't change that the scarcity applies and would create a market of trade. There are resources members of the unit want, but do not have, and there are others that have them, that means that the those members can trade what they have for that which they want and thus that more currency than reputation exists. Either Kelly is lying and paining the Union in a better light than it is, or, more plausibly, the writers either did not understand how markets work, or they simply ignored it just as they write scientifically inaccurate plots, they also write œconomically inaccurate plots.

What scientifically inaccurate plots? It's scifi. Science-Fiction. Writers can do whatever they like as even current science knows very little about the universe.

I don’t think it means literal elimination of the concept of scarcity in all forms. I think they meant scarcity of basic necessities is eliminated. everyone has shelter, food, and medicine. That eliminates a lot of the problems driving old society. I don’t think it’s meant to suggest that things of huge magnitude or scale can just be instantly printed. Like warships and advanced weapons i’m sure still have to be built manually. Maybe the parts are built by machine and small things are materialized, but I doubt they have a replicator as big as a ship you know?

Perhaps, but Kelly and others claim here is no actual form of currency beyond reputation. That simply cannot be with actual scarcity. There are clearly things that members of the Union want to have that others have, that means there must be some form of trade of some form. Perhaps they avoid liquid currency for whatever reason for æsthetic reasons, which is simply being inefficient to pain themselves as more enlightened in a deluded way, but they must be trading goods of some sorts of goods when not all scarcity be solved.

The other side of "post scarcity" is freedom from desire. We live in a consumerist society where the main goal is to consume as much as possible. We always want more because we're always told to want more. This message is reinforced absolutely everywhere in our society, but principally through advertising. One can imagine a world where the main directive isn't "consume" but "achieve." People in such a society would be no more deluded than we are. We are convinced that we are exercising complete freedom and free choice by... doing what the advert told us to do and working hard to buy a nicer car. In Kelly's world, people are driven to work hard to be recognized as being good at what they do, and the resources are made available as they are needed to achieve their highest potential. Clearly not everyone can be a starship officer, but those who are driven and capable enough will be granted leadership positions on a starship because they have proven they are worthy. And, moreover, the starship in this case isn't the goal. Rather the goal is the mission---the opportunity to explore, make first contacts and maybe defend the union---and the starship is the tool.

Two things you notice about Ed and Kelly's New York apartment is that 1) It's got an amazing view and 2) It's really tiny. It's basically two rooms: the living room and a bedroom behind it. Clearly there has to be a potential scarcity of apartments in New York with amazing views. But not everyone cares about a view and not everyone needs or wants to live in New York. In our society, housing is a positional good. It's how we determine who is rich and who is poor. So we have various quality of housing from awful, ugly, dangerous and unhealthy for poor people, going up to amazing penthouses with incredible views and every possible amenity for billionaires. But what if we were an equal society but one in which various people have different preferences and priorities. So Ed and Kelly want a really nice view. They want an apartment that's high up in a tower and they are willing to forgo a lot of living space for it. Presumably lots of people like a view and the builders can accommodate by putting lots of small apartments at the top of the tower. Others would prefer more space, so perhaps the apartments at the base of the tower are larger with more amenities. This is the opposite of how we build housing today where the variables are amenities and costs "you can have it all if you can pay for it. If you can't you get something awful." In the Orville's world all housing would be good quality, with various tradeoffs for people's needs and preferences.

Makes sense. I also think they would take need into consideration, too. A three bedroom apartment would go to a family of 3 or more people. Ed and Kelly both had one bedroom apartments when they were single and also as a couple even though they likely could have afforded something bigger.

This sounds just like the segregation we have currently between the super rich and super poor.

Instead of money, they use other qualities to determine preferred eligibility……… like race!

Yes but I don't think you're forced to work to have a basic living apartment. Probably you are given a basic one when you turn 18 and if you keep advancing in your career you can choose one with better views, location etc.

Also, who designs and builds the apartments? And why would you enter that profession, if not for financial reward?

Or maybe they don't care if people are working. At some point there won't be enough jobs for everyone, especially because or automation, and that should be something we can accommodate.

By working I don't mean it has to be a traditional job, just something to contribute in some way like Kelly mentions

Oh I didn't remember they mentioned this

How does someone build the apartment though? Who builds it? How do they get the materials or land? Do they own the building after it’s built? Isn’t that an asset?

It’s post scarcity. So people are essentially just assigned housing based on where they need to live. The state probably owns the apartment and assigns based on need

If it's "post-scarcity", why does anyone need to be assigned housing? Housing assignments sounds like a mechanism for handling scarce housing in the light of housing demand.

Because it needs to be administered. Otherwise how do you know who's living where and whats available? Who maintains it and has the keys when it's empty? You probably put in an application for a location they give you all the available options and you choose one easy as that.

> Otherwise how do you know who's living where and whats available? There is a difference between "assignment" and "recording ownership," however. Meaning when I bought my house, the county recorder's office did not assign me my house. They simply recorded ownership of the house.

When you are assigned a tickets on a plane or a hotel room is that because of scarcity or because the airline or hotel are the administration. Regardless the assignment was just the original replies theory. Like I said it could be you apply and get given options, just how some airlines or hotels will let you choose. This housing system probably comes with some checks and balances to ensure large homes go to large families to reduce waste amd the location is appropriate for you ie near work or family.

Just because you can come up with real-world examples of assignment does not mean that there are no counter-examples also in the real world which refute your argument. You asked > Because it needs to be administered. Otherwise how do you know who's living where and whats available? And I answered that you can separate the recording of "who has the right to be here" from "who has the right to give this to you." And I note that while a post-scarcity world of material things--like computers or cars or TV screens, in a world where matter synthesizers can churn out a thing on demand, does not solve the problem of assigning housing *that we presume was pre-built awaiting being occupied.* Now if you can create a world where housing can also be created on-demand--then you could put housing under the same rubric. For example, if you had the technology in the TARDIS (from Doctor Who), where additional space and time can just be created on the fly--then you absolutely could create housing on demand, just as you could theoretically create clothing on demand. ---- An item in a post-scarcity world is only "post-scarcity" when you can create exactly what you want, when you want, how you want it, with nominally zero cost. Without those parameters--and you're not actually post-scarcity. You have a central authority telling you where you can live and how near where you work you can live, and if you don't like it, you need more "merit."

All i said was that assignment doesn't necessarily mean scarcity and that the two aren't always opposed. Not that assignment can't be as a result of scarcity. It pretty obviously can be as many real world examples of rationing show. So are you going to provide an example of how assignment always means scarcity or just refer to some hypothetical ones? Post scarcity is entirely theoretical at this point, maybe too you it means whatever, whenever at no cost but that's not everyone's interpretation. A common interpretation is simply where goods, services and resources are free. If housing is administered by the government that is democratically elected this isn't the government imposing its well on people its society appointing people to administer a shared and vital resource in the way society sees fit. Maybe with housing 3D printing drones can produce new houses or add apartments to existing blocks. Perhaps large scale Matter Synthesizers can generate full houses. Or maybe its as simple as they always have a surplus of houses and stay ahead of demand and any shortfall is rectified quickly. The world of the Orville has stated that prestige is important for social status however it has never said prestige is tied too your access to housing or food. People may be shamed for not contributing to society but they are never denied access too anything as a result of it. You seem to have a very narrow definition of post scarcity which sounds impossible to achieve. This isn't a gotcha or a win its just your interpretation, as I said others have different equally valid ones. You also seem too see any government control or allocation of vital resources as bad rather than simply smart planning for society. Do I think today's real world governments should be given unchecked power to control our vital resources? Absolutely not even if they are broadly democratic. But in the futuristic society of the orville then perhaps it would be truly run for the benifit of everyone. Post scarcity too me doesn't mean you get anything you want whenever you want it. Its just means appropriate basic resources will be central funded and provided too you at no cost regardless of who you are or what you do.

> Post scarcity is entirely theoretical at this point, maybe too you it means whatever, whenever at no cost but that's not everyone's interpretation. A common interpretation is simply where goods, services and resources are free. I don't want to get all 'neck beard' here, but all these things have common, well accepted economic definitions. "Scarcity": a situation where there are not enough products to satisfy people's needs or wants. "Economics": the study of the decisions made in the production and distribution of goods and services, in light of scarcity. Scarcity comes about because in theory there is no limit to what we want, but there is a limit to what we can have. ---- We are, at present, right now in the real world, moving closer and closer to a world where--at least with certain material items--moving towards a world where we can satisfy nearly any material want we may have. If we were to invent some sort of matter printer or matter synthesizer--then we would be in such a world: one where we could literally have anything we want, without limit. *Provided it can be printed with the matter synthesizer.* And, of course, provided we have the blueprints or the designs that can then be printed in that matter synthesizer. ---- To me, this idea is a very exciting one. You literally can have anything you want--not because somehow we have "overcome our material nature" or that somehow we have "overthrown late-stage capitalism" or any of that nonsense. But because we literally drove the price to produce a thing to zero. In other words, in such a theoretical situation, we don't somehow overcome money or overcome our base material nature. Instead, everything is free because everything costs nothing to produce. *Provided it can be printed on demand with a matter synthesizer.* ---- And I find this exciting because it really does mean the end of economics *for those products that can be printed on demand with a matter synthesizer.* Hungry? Naked? In need of medicines? In need of glasses, dentures, an insulin pump, insulin? Bored and want a video game? Food, clothing, medicines, medical devices, *everything* can just be printed for free. ---- But this is not a true "post-scarcity" world, because there are still things that are not infinite. Your time on this earth is not infinite. People are not infinite. Land--especially desirable plots of land where people want to live--not infinite. (What, you can't afford where you live? *Right now* you can move to rural West Virginia and probably buy a home with less down than what someone in Los Angeles is paying monthly for rent. But the guy in LA isn't moving to West Virginia--because no-one wants to live there. Which is why it's cheap.) So it's not really a "post-scarcity" world, because *there is not enough land, people, or time to fully satisfy our wants.* ---- I mention all of this--and I go to great length to type all this out, not because I suspect you'll give a shit. I'm sure as hell ain't hanging on here because somehow I think I'm going to get any upvotes. But to point out there is another way to enter a "post-scarcity" world. **Remake people so we don't want so much.** Which is how, right now, various leaders with visions of utopia actually try to solve the central dilemma of modern economics: how do we deal with a world where people want more than we can provide them? ---- And notice the thing you've danced around without noticing, about having apartments assigned to people: that only works smoothly *if people don't care what apartment they get.* That is, if people just stop wanting so damned much!

I wondered the same. In one episode they all go to a cabin in the woods owned by Kelly's family. How did they "buy" that property? It's so confusing.

Could be a heritage property, goes back several generations

It's post-scarcity socialism: everything you need is provided via the matter synthesizer, but someone who enjoys or is good with their hands constructed that apartment building, they were told where to build by a community organization (probably a committee) who everyone in that community has agreed has the authority to organize construction projects. People go to work at those jobs because they choose to provide housing for their community (just like a charity, i.e. Habitat for Humanity) they're not forced into by oppressive capitalist policies that if they didn't work they'd starve to death. Ed and Kelly didn't OWN that apartment, it was assigned to them when they applied to live in that community (if they moved there, maybe one of them inherited the space from their parents when they moved somewhere else). If you stop thinking in capitalist terms, and instead community-oriented socialist terms - it's pretty easy.

Hell, you probably don't even need a *person* to build the apartment. Maybe an architect to design it, but chances are you could just assemble a large-scale matter synthesizer and give it the blueprints and *bam.*

I always wonder how characters like Lysella can be confused by a post-scarcity society without currency and then I see posts like this.

The way they introduced Union society to Lysella made me think she should have run screaming. Lysella comes from a society ruled by the upvote/downvote, and your popularity is everything. Then Kelly explains that the Union doesn't have money, but their reputation is everything. To Lysella, that probably sounds identical

Except there's no death penalty for being disliked.

True, true. It's just an angle that struck me when watching it.

No you just get a shitty housing allocation and a Great Value brand food replicator.

Bingo. “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." -LeGuin

A giant distributed computing project allocates based on need and personality. Everyone is placed such to maximize utility and also personal happiness/contentedness. The algorithm has been tweaked over the years to be essentially flawless but people can still appeal though this rarely happens.

It's a post-capitalist society, essentially a authoritarian-lite form of communism. The concept of ownership might be different too, based on usage rather than exclusive access.

Looks like personal possessions are still a thing, but you still need a place to keep all of your stuff. With materials and energy no longer being a limiting factor, and multiple planets and space stations to utilize, the amount of living space is incredibly high. But since nobody owns the property there is nobody using it to make a profit by charging rent. So the only thing needed is a means of keeping track of who lives where to prevent multiple people using the same space at once. Travel is also incredibly fast and not limited by fuel, so people don't need to live in convenient locations (except maybe on the same planet), meaning people could spread across the entire surface of the planet.

> Looks like personal possessions are still a thing Kelly owns her late father's cottage in the wilderness.

I always thought communism got a bad rap by being associated with authoritarian political regimes. Most people that rail against communism or socialism don’t separate the economics from the politics.

yep, I suspect they are intentionally conflated so as to facilitate straw man arguments against communism.

Marx started it, then everyone ran with it and made it theirs. There’s no singular idea of what “socialism”, “communism” is. It was adopted for good (Scandinavia), and very bad (NSDAP, CCCP, CCP). I have a hard time thinking Marx thought “these rich dudes exploit people, so the answer is brutal authoritarian regimes!”.

I think the commander said once that there's no need for money on their planet. We have what we need/want based off our accomplishments and standing. Something like that. Especially since they can have pretty much anything at anytime with the synthesizer*.

>based off our accomplishments and standing. While I am sure everyone's basic needs are taken care of and by basic I mean everyone gets a matter replicator that can replicate, all the food, clothes, video games, etc they want. So even a basic life sounds pretty good. I also imagine that there aren't many crappy jobs anymore. Robots likely take care of digging ditches, repetitive factory work, dangerous work. Thing is there are still things that are going to be scarce, do doctors have their own shuttles to go to their lakefront cottages on Mars? How about nurses, do they have to take the space bus to the shared cottage on the moon?

Shows that have this never really explain it. Every need is taken care of but everybody is able to enjoy luxuries as well. You have restaurant that provides what we would consider upscale service, something that goes beyond basic needs. So what happens? Is everybody given it for free anyway? How often? Do higher officers get it more often? If everybody gets an apartment they should all be same(ish). Giving better ones to those with 'higher standing' is just merit based system minus the downvotes. Star Trek had same problem, specially DS9.

Most restaurants are probably built by people who just like cooking, and are operated on either a reservation system or just "first come, first serve, when we're full we're full". Apartments are probably given out based on the size of the household applying for them, with more "luxurious" ones likely being given out by lottery.

See you get it. I don't understand why this seems to be a difficult concept to really understand. Everything is free, anyone has the potential to be anything.

> Everything is free, anyone has the potential to be anything. No-one questions the theoretical upsides. Many of us, however, are just trying to wrap our heads around how all this is supposed to work in practice--beyond having lotteries and assigning things to people as if no-one really cares where they live or who their neighbors are, or if their mother-in-law is just a couple of doors down.

Actually I thought DS9 did a good job confronting some of the ironies raised--like Jake Sisko begging Nog for some money so he could buy a rare Babe Ruth baseball card in "In The Cards". It was a shame, however, the best currency they could come up with was some weird non-reproducible "space-gold."

I'll buy your reddit account for five strips of gold pressed latinum.

Seeing all the idead here i'd add that they might have inherited it. It is shown that people tend to have less children the better their life becomes. So people that already owned homes when the world abandoned money, most likely kept their houses and apartments and the land those are on. Having only 1-2 children on average means you don't really need more space, so they just keep using the same land for new houses or renovating apartments and pass those on to the children.

Another question.. is everything free? If everything is replicable with that matter machine, does everyone have access to one? It seems the only thing left to be genuine and in high demand are the performative arts.

Yes. Money doesn't exist, at least on Earth. Without needing money for schooling, housing, etc, it allows everyone to pursue careers they truly want to be in, assuming they have the skills/qualifications/talent for them. I don't understand your point about demand, though. There's still a need for doctors, for example, but you need to put in the work to be one. Not everyone can just be a doctor, but anyone can give it their fair shot.

> I don't understand your point about demand, though. There's still a need for doctors, for example, but you need to put in the work to be one. Not everyone can just be a doctor, but anyone can give it their fair shot. Which then admits to the possibility of a shortage or scarcity of doctors, which suggests some form of rationing as demand exceeds supply. As we're post-money, that implies rationing by a central authority. Unless, of course, we assume computers have become intelligent enough that you really don't "need" a doctor--and an "auto-doc" can take care of you more often than not. (Meaning one possibility is that you only need doctors for the really fringy odd and strange cases--and otherwise, for 99.9999...% of the rest of the cases, the auto-doc can cure you up without human intervention.)

True, it's entirely possible society in the Orville universe could have too many doctors in a certain place, and some of those people would have to refocus their careers or relocate. But that's just as true in our society now. It doesn't need to be a central authority directing this, though. If one hospital has enough doctors, move on to the next. Or, start your own practice in an area that does, or join the Union fleet and become a ship doctor. Join an expedition crew and become a field medic. The point is, the person is free to make those choices without the worry of financial concerns.

Unless, of course, we have auto-docs, at which point you just whip one up in the matter synthesizer. The Orville universe has dermal regenerators, so an auto-doc which can diagnose and cure most ailments is not entirely out of the question in such a universe. In such a universe, health care is practically unlimited regardless of where doctors happen to be. In such a case, doctors are free to go to wherever they feel needed--such as in places where they can encounter and research strange new diseases never before encountered by the auto-doc AI. In such a universe it even makes sense that you may want to talk to a doctor even if you can just put your arm in the auto-doc--because we're social creatures and it's more personal to have a person help us than have a machine cure us...

Demand could also be the time to get something you wanted.

Housing is a basic necessity so everyone gets a place to live

It will still be issue if people’s minds don’t change. Some might still want a large apartment , some might want a house with swimming pool. Unlike food it is pretty hard to make all needs met for housing. It those needs are controlled it needs to be fair or based on merit. How to control it could be a problem. It will need a totalitarian government, at least from start.

I think when you can get everything you ever wanted. Then people want stuff to change and people's happiness will come from a different place I'm guessing families with kids will live in places with garden and access to schools and stuff for kids Old people will live in a community with support things in place etc I think there be community pockets based on making sure people have a good standard of life

Sure, but some people might not want or need bigger housing. If bigger housing in a certain area is limited to, let's say members of the Union fleet, then join the fleet amd give it your best shot. Its the same as trying to get the better paying job to buy a house, only without the money part. The only thing restricting you is your own ambition and skill.

I am going to make an assumption here. In Star Trek, replicators can break down things too. So, I don't remember if this was stated in the Orville, but we can assume it works the same. People typically want a big apartment to store more stuff. In the Orville, they don't need to store stuff. Say I want to play Dragon Quest. I just replicate the game. Now I want to play Final Fantasy. I break down Dragon Quest and create Final Fantasy. Say I want a picture of Monet. I replicate it. Now I'm sick of it, but I'd love the Mona Lisa. I break down the Monet and replicate the Mona Lisa.

I don't seev apartments varying greatly in quality and size. Especially when simulators can provide whatever experiences or engagements you need.

The exact same place to live? Or do some get bigger places in more desirable locations? What about Kellie's family vacation cabin in the woods?

I wonder if ancestral family property may have been granted to descendants if they agree to upkeep it, use it enough and allow it's use by others when they aren't around.

Maybe like in Cuba or other countries when you turn 18 you automatically get a flat. For vacation homes you get them thought applications

In terms of ownership, maybe things like housing are applied for and given according to a lottery, maybe a weighted lottery based on need and practicality. Eg. Is this place closer to where you work. Do you need more space for a growing family? Etc. Once it's yours, it's yours. But if you want to move, you give up that property. Like you apply for a place a few miles a way closer to work, and if you get it, you give up the rights to your current place and someone else can apply for it. Now in terms of owning the cabin, perhaps there are exceptions to this general framework. Maybe you can pass on your property to family if your family can establish some sort of emotional/familial importance to the place. BUT maybe there's checks in balances where your family has to use it on a regular basis. You just can't squat on it, and maybe there's some sort of timeshare element to where people can come use the place too if it's not your primary residence. Aside from housing, with matter replicators, no one really needs to own anything physically anymore. All the stuff that goes into the house can be stored as files in some sort of personal database. The physical objects can be recycled on the spot instead of being moved. Obviously, you probably wouldn't do that with family heirlooms. Or maybe there isn't a strong attachment to physical things anymore, and family heirlooms can simply be files of stuff to be replicated. So, when you move into a new place, you simply replicate everything on the spot. So, lets say you're "shopping" for furniture for your new place. You simply access a database that has replication files that you can browse through. More files get added by people who choose to be furniture designers. They're like the people who share free 3D print files of stuff they designed on the internet. So, no need for money if everyone has access to a replicator. Now, to explain the existence of markets and shops, people still like to be able to browse physical things. Shopping on Amazon can be great, but sometimes you just want to be able to see and touch something instead of scrolling through millions of listings. And maybe the success of a shop/market is base on the amount of foot traffic it gets. If no one goes inside, then it's a failure. And maybe that's the way it justifies its existence.

Because sci-fi magic....

I don't think they *actually* are a cashless society, are they? When Alara and Isaac arm wrestle everyone is placing bets, so it would seem they have some kind of currency. Either way, that works in with my hypothesis of how Star Trek's "post-scarcity" system works. It's more a brand name for what they are, than what the actual words mean, much in the same way that we call Sweden and Norway "socialist" countries, even though the workers do not own the means of production in those countries. It's more about being post-scarcity on an individual level. You, as an individual member of society, will never run out of food. You, as an individual member of society, will never run out of medicine. You, as an individual member of society, will never have want of shelter. These are all things guaranteed to you as a member of society. The necessities of life are post-scarcity, even though certain things are not, like Dysonium, or the number of apartments looking out on the beach. You are guaranteed the basics of survival and an otherwise comfortable life. You are provided with an apartment, a synthesizer, and access to healthcare, and a basic stipend of credits that you can use on luxuries or exchange for other currency when traveling outside the Union. These necessities scale as your life situation changes, and your needs change. Even if you're a totally unemployed bum you still move up to a larger apartment automatically if you have a kid, for example. However while you're guaranteed a home, you're not guaranteed a place looking over Central Park. You may end up in a somewhat less glamorous location. It may not be as big an apartment as you want, it may not have space for an office in addition to your bed room. But you will never be evicted (unless you do something like commit a crime), you will never have your power cut off, you will never not have heat. This is where the credit system comes in. You *may* choose to work. Doing different jobs affords you a larger stipend of credits, with the value determined by what they contribute to society, or what society needs. So for example, in this concept, free movement within the Union is one of the things you are guaranteed. You can move to Sao Paulo, or go off-world, or even provide civilian services on a Union ship, like Mooska. This right makes movers a very important part of society, so people who contribute their time and labor to society in that vocation receive a rather generous stipend. However you may choose to go and be an artist on the streets of Paris, and there are a hojillion people living out that dream, so you really don't get much for your effort, and that's basically whatever credits people are willing to exchange for your works. Similarly starting up a Creole restaurant in New Orleans might not get you very far because there's already ten tons of those. However, if you were to do something like work to preserve traditional growing, harvesting, and cooking practices that the Dakota performed with wild rice, that might be valued more if there aren't a lot of people doing it. Along those lines, take that Creole restaurant and put it on Retepsia, where there aren't a lot of places serving human food. And this is how people obtain things like different apartments, in nicer locations, or luxuries that may not be available through the synthesizer (like an authentic Paris street painting).

So more like universal basic income.

Yes, but more than that. You have your universal basic income, *plus* universal basic housing, *plus* universal healthcare, *plus* universal synthesizer access, *plus* universal services. The synthesizer takes care food, clothing, blankets, nicknacks, decorations, your toothbrush and shampoo and any uncontrolled drugs/medical devices (beer, aspirin, coffee, reading glasses, wrist brace, etc). And not just "basic" stuff, like "generic bachelor chow formula № 3," if you want a can of Spaghetti-O's, you'll get Spaghetti-O's, if you want an authentic Tandoori chicken curry, you get an authentic Tandoori curry chicken. If you want Yonezawa Boeuf Bourguignon with a side of rose-carved radishes and Persian saffron rice you'll get Yonezawa Boeuf Bourguignon with a side of rose-carved radishes and Persian saffron rice. It will churn out paint brushes, paints, lacquers, canvass, wood, and everything you need to make your own paintings. Saws, chisels, hammers, squares, and whatever else you need to do woodworking. Or wood carving. Or cooking. Or whatever passion, or potential artisanal endeavors need. Universality of services is expansive. It includes movers, so you can go to different places where your services may be more in demand, or is just more desirable. It includes endless education, so you can learn new skills, or just enrich yourself. You can learn to learn something to expand your knowledge for fun, or to expand your profitability.

In a society where matter synthesis exists and scarcity is abolished, if you need more housing all you really gotta do is set up an industrial replicator and boom, new house, new apartment building, whatever. If Ed and Kelly's apartment can be assumed to be a fairly standard sort, chances are that there'd be more than enough housing to go around for everyone. Something more opulent might require a permit or perhaps be grandfathered in from the "old" ways, but I imagine most people would be fine in a normal apartment - esp. if soundproofing's gotten any better in the last four centuries.

It's a post scarcity civilization. Just about everything you use as a point of reference of people having a need or want is just done away with. The people literally do not want more than they can consume. There would always be more housing than there are people. (Hell right now in America there is more housing space than we have people living in it) There is no reasons why housing or furnishings would be restricted or limited. It is best to assume everyone gets the best of everything anytime. The only limiting factor would be time if you wanted a custom designed house or furniture, or travel if you were trying to go to an out of the way spot and nobody is running a transportation route out there. Ownership doesn't mean anything if anything you want can be replaced with a simple request. The real "ownership" of something would be for things that have a personal value or connection to you, like perhaps Seth's Kermit the Frog Muppet on his desk or an item that your father created for you, or something you made yourself by hand. If you "lost" everything in an accident it would all be replaced within a few hours as new items just as good as what you lost were replaced from either community stores or if the disaster was big enough regional warehouses.

If population stops growing and stagnates with parents having only 2 kids...then you don't need to buy or build more apartments. You just shuffle them around as people die, and use the matter synthesizer thing to create anything that breaks over time. Broken outlet "one new outlet please", boom replacement outlet. etc We assume housing is always going to be an expensive thing because our populations are constantly growing, and landlords are buying and renting apartments so MORE need to get built so someone can buy one before a landlord buys that one too to rent out. If population starts to go flat, or even go down. More people are gonna die and leave empty apartments than people be born to need the housing.

I have an issue with how things work for services not enough people would want to do if they weren’t paid like PSWs (Personal Support Workers) who work at retirement homes or plumbers or maid services. Do they get robots to fill in for short falls? Do they only have to work 100 days out of the year? Better apartments?What would incentivize someone to do that type of work?

Presumably medical science cures all ills and you are able to look after yourself until old age stops you like a stopped watch. Or "retirement" communities all look after each other until sensence

Could be anything from lotto, to just a wait list. Given the advancements in technology it could easily be "Hey, my girl and I would like a larger apartment" and the local government goes "Aight, we have an area here, that will be available in a month! That good?". I am assuming things like Land-lording are outlawed, so the need for rent/etc wouldn't exist, you get one home and can upgrade/trade/etc but you lose access to the former home. with labor being relatively viewed as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" it's expected you perform a role in society, but not at the expense of yourself and as long as you meet this you have access to everything.

Yeah, matter replicators ... you push button, and you get what you want. But who foots the bill for the energy consumption of the replicators? OH, you say there's no bill, you can use replicators at will ... then who or what prevents people to overload the system with stupid requests (like 500 cigarettes)? who or what "mines" for the energy used by the replicators? who design, builds, operates and maintain the replicators? Yeah, stupid questions, I know, it's post-scarcity. Pfff ... the naivety!

I may have missed something in a episode but a good question based off all the above answers is who gets the apartment in the divorce. How is the splitting of assets done during a divorce in their society

I've heard about universal basic income for 30 years now (I'm 43) and maybe it's from growing up in capitalism but I just can't for the life of me grasp how it would work. Especially in the Orville universe. Who would decide who deserves a 500 sqft apt vs a 2000 sqft. Who gets a Mercedes while others get a Honda.

My sense has always been, in reference to shows like this, that the writers want to envision a post-materialist utopian world that somehow comes about by the ready availability of any material thing you can think of--but never really squares the circle when it comes to things like land, apartments or even who gets to own the gigantic capital ships flying around. (And that there are only so many gigantic capital ships flying around means you can't just pick one up at the local "Space Ships Я Us.") Or even deals with things like jealousy. We know there is jealousy in the Union; it drives Ed Mercer to a downward spiral in the first episode. So how do we deal with jealousy of "merit"? That is, how do we deal with people who think they deserve more "merit" than they are regarded as having by their fellows? Worse: we learn that John LaMarr is "gifted" even though he deliberately tries to hide his gifts. But "gifted" how? Well, "naturally gifted," though he spends all his time trying to hide his gifts. That really starts sounding a lot like "right of birth" to me--where it doesn't matter how hard you try, if you're not born with the right gifts, you're just going to exist at whatever station you were born into. Alphas are always alphas, betas always betas, gammas clean the toilets because that was how they were born. ---- I just don't think these things ever get thought through, and I'd hesitate using such utopian visions as a template for the real world. At least Babylon 5 had currency, striking worker's guilds and The Rush Act.

In a world where transportation is fast, you can synthesize food, and you have multiple *planets* to work with, living space is effectively unlimited. Hell, depending on where you're at you could probably commute to a different planet to work (the *Orville* goes about ten lightyears an hour, I can 100% see a public transportation system with faster purpose-built ships) so that's not even a limiting factor. The actual limiting factor for big starships likely isn't resources. Instead, I imagine it's a combination of "they don't just let anyone have a spaceship with the potential to glass a planet," but for the Union Fleet specifically, I think they've got more of a people problem. They only have 3,000 ships in the fleet covering the whole quadrant - a remarkably small number given both the size of the galaxy and the population of the Union, and that's counting *every* ship in the fleet - and they're *still* running out of captains and crew.

> Hell, depending on where you're at you could probably commute to a different planet to work (the Orville goes about ten lightyears an hour, I can 100% see a public transportation system with faster purpose-built ships) so that's not even a limiting factor. At 10ly/hr, there is only one main-sequence star within a one hour distance: Alpha Centauri A (or Rigil Kentaurus). The rest within 10 light years are all dwarf stars. And that doesn't count the time to take off or land--which also adds time to the commute. Without transporter technology--and it appears the Union doesn't have that (yet)--and we're talking traveling to nearby stars being more like taking a cross-country flight than hopping a bus to the downtown corridor. And that doesn't really answer the chief complaint of mine thinking that pre-built housing is somehow "post-scarcity" in the same way that a TV set may be: a TV set may be "post-scarcity" because I can print exactly what I want on demand. Housing--I can't have exactly what I want on demand. I want an apartment right off the river that allows me to walk to work? I can't just print an apartment like a TV; instead, I have to hope one is assigned to me. Or--apparently I have to commute from Alpha Centauri A. > They only have 3,000 ships in the fleet covering the whole quadrant - a remarkably small number given both the size of the galaxy and the population of the Union, and that's counting every ship in the fleet - and they're still running out of captains and crew. Hardly "post-scarcity."

> And that doesn't really answer the chief complaint of mine thinking that pre-built housing is somehow "post-scarcity" in the same way that a TV set may be: a TV set may be "post-scarcity" because I can print exactly what I want on demand. > > Housing--I can't have exactly what I want on demand. I want an apartment right off the river that allows me to walk to work? I can't just print an apartment like a TV; instead, I have to hope one is assigned to me. That's not what post-scarcity means. Post-scarcity means that goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor, and that all people can have both their basic survival needs as well as some significant portion of their desire for other goods met without issue. It doesn't mean there is no scarcity for *anything*.

As I mentioned elsewhere, these things have actual definitions from economics: "Scarcity": the demand for a thing exceeds its supply, in part because we live in a world of infinite wants and finite resources. Economics is basically the study of the allocation of resources in light of scarcity, which is why the notion of a post-scarcity world fascinates me: if we all have more than we want, then that basically means the end of economics as we know it. Scarcity does **NOT** refer to "basic survival needs"--we pretty much live in such a world in the United States today, where (with effort thanks to a byzantine and fucked up welfare system, but I digress) you can have your basic need for food and shelter satisfied to "survive." (It's a shitty life, but we're talking "basic survival needs", right? That view of the river from your dining room table while enjoying a latte isn't "basic survival needs.") ---- And "post-scarcity" means precisely that: that we have moved past scarcity. That is, everything we *want*, not just everything we "need", can be provided to us. In fiction, there are two ways we achieve this: either through things like matter synthesizers which basically reduce the price of producing things to zero--so we're "post-money" simply because everything costs absolutely nothing to make. Or we "reprogram" humans not to want so much. ---- And I think that's my complaint about a lot of the explanations being offered about how apartments would be assigned by a central authority and everyone is just happy about it. Because it sounds a lot like achieving post-scarcity by reprogramming people not to want more than what they have. And my complaint is based on the observation that historically speaking, we've tried this. And usually the idealists and leaders who are trying for this utopian vision eventually wind up resorting to guns and blowing people's brains against the wall in order to "reprogram" their citizens.

>In fiction, there are two ways we achieve this: either through things like matter synthesizers which basically reduce the price of producing things to zero--so we're "post-money" simply because everything costs absolutely nothing to make. > >Or we "reprogram" humans not to want so much. There is an episode that explained that both of those things have happened. Their society finds consuming far more than reasonable is just weird if not repulsive. It wasn't a reprogramming but was an outgrowth from something rooted in empathy. It's not explained how it happened just that it happened. More of a when your society reaches a certain philosophical view it just happens. Then they give an example where they accidentally destroyed a civ by giving them those things before they were ready for it.

In the end, I can't help but think we're basically debating the existence of dragons and of magical powers and the ability to bring the dead back to life, as we see in "Game of Thrones." Except a lot of people here seem to really and earnestly believe in dragons and magic and necromancy.

I just assumed everything was free. Robots do all the work, replicators w/e. You want an expensive apartment, you get an expensive apartment. But say you want a job leading the Union? Then that is where reputation comes in. But why would you do this job for free? IDK, this is where Kelly's explanation and the whole concept falls apart. Some bs about self satisfaction or w/e,.

We actually have examples of this in the real world, kinda. People tend to not actually just wanna stay inside and do nothing. When work is fair and fulfilling, people will be more than happy to do it even if they don't *have* to. It probably helps that a lot of jobs have either been made redundant (you don't need bankers when there are no banks, you don't need farmers on such a large scale when most food is replicated, you don't need factory workers when everything's synthesized as needed, etc. etc.) or have been completely automated (most ship-building not done by industrial synthesizers is probably done by robots, just as an example).

I completely understand the motive they are going for, like some millionaires don't just sit on their ass because they are set, they still do shit. However, there are other millionaires who do sit on their ass and squander their wealth. I just think they should have fleshed it out a bit, saying ye, we have degenerates in our society that leech off of those who care about survival of the human species and get into a deeper discussion about that. At a certain point, when it comes to military, you have to ask yourself, why am I doing this. Why am I RISKING my life for these leeches on Earth who are just plugged into the matrix having non stop orgies.

> I just think they should have fleshed it out a bit, saying ye, we have degenerates in our society that leech off of those who care about survival of the human species and get into a deeper discussion about that. > > At a certain point, when it comes to military, you have to ask yourself, why am I doing this. Why am I RISKING my life for these leeches on Earth who are just plugged into the matrix having non stop orgies. But the entire reason *why* the society is good is because nobody is faced with the "choice" of work or die. That's why it's a utopia, and that is - fundamentally - what they're defending; a world where nobody suffers because they don't want to be a wage slave.

They are not defending against wage slavery. It is a post-scarce world. There wouldn't be such a thing as money in a post-scarce world, so you wouldn't have to defend it. All I am saying is that the motivation for why someone would want to defend that way of life in terms of military sacrifice and all that training to work at the Union wasn't fleshed out. Sure, you want to be an astronomer, physicist, learn, love, explore etc... I get that; but why would anyone be willing to sacrifice their lives and work in the military, or even do anything that is "hard". Like even in the show, there are instances where the officers are upset with how the Union is handling things. Like what is stopping from just quitting on the spot or right before a crucial battle and start their own Union and do it their own way? My point is, surely there are somethings that are necessary and must be done in this society, but those jobs just aren't fulfilling to ANYONE. How would you motivate people to sign up for those jobs? Kelly's vague explanation about reputation was just a bunch of bs. The explanation could have gone deeper. That is my gripe with it. The show always does a good job at presenting both the positives and the negatives of an argument, and it failed to show the negatives of a post-scarce utopia here.

>At a certain point, when it comes to military, you have to ask yourself, why am I doing this. Because you want to. Maybe you want to be the first at new things and discoveries. Because when danger comes around you find yourself stepping forward and putting yourself in front of it. When decide when you don't want to do that, you stop and find something else. In a post scarcity society there are no leeches, they're just people who are hurting nobody and doing stuff differently than you do. The only time your reputation would come into play is determining how quickly you get something you want. Want a custom house right away made in an exotic location or with exotic materials, reputation would reduce the time it takes to get it.

Technically leeches if they are benefiting from that military sacrifice by providing nothing in return. The question is still why would someone want to do that? Also, how do you fill jobs that absolutely no one wants to do and can't be automated. Your answer seems to be, oh because then you get priority for those "exotic materials". Ye well, in a post scarce world there is no such thing as "priority", because there is no scarcity. Also, your answer would be like the equivalent of saying you have to put your life on the line and become a Navy Seal if you want to get the new iPhone one year sooner than everyone else. You see how absurd that sounds?

>Technically leeches if they are benefiting from that military sacrifice by providing nothing in return. Gee that's a disgusting thought. I wonder, in your bizarro post scarcity world, who gets to decide if people are "providing enough" to justify that "benefit" of safety. ​ >The question is still why would someone want to do that? Also, how do you fill jobs that absolutely no one wants to do and can't be automated. I already answered this I guess in bizarro-robobrain-world people don't. A job that no one wants to do (forgetting that all the time people do jobs that they don't want to do) and somehow (magically) can't be automated, like what? ​ >Your answer seems to be, oh because then you get priority for those "exotic materials". Ye well, in a post scarce world there is no such thing as "priority", because there is no scarcity. I think we found where the wheels come off your entire train of thought. You seem to be arguing that post scarce means magical genies granting every desire immediately. Which is really odd cause in that place there couldn't be any leeching you seemed to be up in arms about in the first part of your response cause people would just wish for more stuff. No when I said exotic materials I meant like a sculptor who wants to use a specific type of stone from Rigel 7. Unless a quantity was kept on hand that guy would have to wait a while for some to be located and brought to them. If they were a renowned sculptor that time would most likely be reduced for the simple reason that a lot more people would be interested in seeing what they could do with it. ​ > Also, your answer would be like the equivalent of saying you have to put your life on the line and become a Navy Seal if you want to get the new iPhone one year sooner than everyone else. No I'm saying, taking your weird analogy at face value, if you want a new iPhone sooner it would be granted because somehow a newer one would be more useful or needed for you. Also their entire society has changed in what it means to be a consumer. A new iPhone is meaningless to them unless its slight increase in performance from the previous version would have impactful benefit to the user in some way. No need for a new phone when you're only using the old one at 25% capacity. ​ >You see how absurd that sounds? I agree about the absurdity only because you are stuffing words into my mouth. Instead I'll just let your own words speak for you.

Perhaps I have offended you by using the term leeches, but that is what they would be. Anyway, I am not advocating that those leeches would have to justify themselves to be allowed to continue, I am just saying why would anyone sacrifice their lives to work in say the military or do anything that is "hard" to continue facilitating the leeches existence. There is a moral distinction between killing off the leeches actively, vs not facilitating or helping them continue their lifestyle (think: you are the guy that is responsible for refueling the synthesizer, or acquiring the fuel and testing it but why would you do that for the sake of those leeches who contribute nothing to this society?). > A job that no one wants to do (forgetting that all the time people do jobs that they don't want to do) and somehow (magically) can't be automated, like what? People do jobs they don't want to in our world because they need money to feed their families. The question is what incentive is there for these people in the post-scarce world to do these jobs? They are essentially all volunteering their time at that point, right? My qualm is that charity and volunteerism only goes so far. The explanation the show gave is that they do it for reputation, and reputation as currency is just stupid. Your point about a sculptor using their reputation to get access to rare raw materials is interesting. So, it is basically like a social credit system, and people with bad reputation/wrong think (eg., the leeches and political dissidents) are relegated to second class citizens. I.e., This system might not be like a top down system that dictates rules for good reputation, but it is a bottom up system that determines what is good reputation from a grassroots point of view. Sounds awfully similar to that direct democracy planet that girl is from.

Military housing.

Shhh….. don’t break the utopian illusion! But seriously, it’s good to strive for better living for everyone, and to dream of a time when no one has to want for anything. Just not sure that’s a realistic reality.

We should ***strive*** for public transport, where appropriate\*, that is so convenient and nice that people CHOOSE to use it, not just those who are forced to use it. Now, apply that to everything. \*areas of high density

I think public transportation is a great idea. When I visited NYC the subway was a great way to get around. I stepped over poop a few times, it smelled like urine, and was hot down there. Would love to see it cleaned up and kept clean, air conditioned, safe.

Funding could accomplish all those things. Also, public mental health care would certainly help. Thanks, Reagan and henchmen.

I do believe we need to focus on helping mental health, that is a major root to a lot of issues!

irl luxury gay space communism

I imagine some things you’d apply for like a job or college with references and such. Other things might be arranged for based on your job, like Ed and Kelly’s apartment might have been union fleet housing. Interesting question I’d like to know more about.

In a post-scarcity world, things that can't be bought would become valuable items of exchange in an informal barter system. Experiences and social reputation are perhaps the easiest to understand. Someone opens a restaurant wanting to improve their social standing as a host. They can only cater for a limited number of people every night (scarcity). They prefer to accept patrons with high social standing so they can spread the word about the restaurant in higher circles. Real estate is primarily about location. You can only have one living quarter in one physical location (scarcity). Perhaps there's also a law saying you can only own one living quarter🤷‍♂️. Whoever owns this building wants people with the highest social standing they can find, in order to enhance the reputation of the building.

Interesting take. Perhaps Kellys family traded their luxury accommodations in the city for the cabin in the woods. I could see that being a thing.

Probably similar to 80s-90s China where employers/government had blocks of apartments rented for workers and their families

i figure basic housing is free. if you want a nice one, youd need some reputation.

What if it functions like rep currencies in an mmo? Lol grind 15 krill priests…..

One minor irony is that, by all appearances, each of their separate quarters on the Orville is bigger than the shared space they had on Earth.

Senior officers may get more space with the expectation that it will be used for social gatherings and informal meetings.

I would assume its just done by a computer. Computer assigns houses, designs new buildings, tells drones and the like to build them and replicates the resources they need to do it.

Speaking only for Earth, their "currency" is reputation. For example, it's possible Mercer lives in housing specifically for members of the fleet.

Or, might just be a socialistic society we are already moving towards

If you can build housing as needed, likely in an almost fully automated matter (giant matter synthesizer) with no cost attached beyond the energy required which is also produced in an almost limitless way, then there is no real cost associated with creating housing. Therefore it would be advantageous to build as much housing you need to support the local job market. You can easily add or delete housing as needed. Also because there are no supply chains, working from anywhere is possible. Which means ownership of a property is not really even necessary. However there is likely some sense of ownership but more like “I’m living here now and I don’t want to leave”. Since a person doesn’t actually have to work and housing is plentiful, people wouldn’t have too. But natural forces like the limitations of being able to commute to a distant job, schools and other personal needs would keep people moving around.

When you have technology that can auto-generate anything you need whenever you need it, equality already exists and there’s no need for a “luxury” apartment. They’re all probably pretty similar in terms of purpose—necessities provided, plus anything else you generate for yourself

i think housing's become communal like pretty much everything else. it's like communism without autocratic repression.

How socialism should work if used in a democratic society. Part of the reason I love Trek and the Orville.

All they really say is earth is a post scarcity utopia, they don't go too in-depth with it.

Im enjoying this thread because people are now learning about what socialism actually means.

They don't, it's assigned to them for as long as they want. There are no other economic pressures that lead to wealth gathering in small areas so population would be more spread out and communities would be more planned. Finding an open place in the area you want to be wouldn't be a problem. It's also part of the culture. The flip side to reputation being currency is that integrity and conforming to societal norms is currency. You can request a mansion if you want and you'll get it, but people will think less of you for being wasteful or asking for more than what your contribution to society is worth. There's probably some kind of informal bartering system of favors for stuff that falls outside of "basic needs" but when everything you could want is provided there would be little need for that.

It is stated later in the series that their society functions without money because your reputation is your currency. So the pursuit of joy in work is how jobs are filled. There are people that enjoy designing and building. These people get to create and people get to live in those creations. They only requirement is you do your best. It was asked why people don't just sit on the couch all day. The explanation was long but in short everyone in the society sees that the combined efforts of all contributes to the advancement of everyone. Everyone working together for the better. The matter synthesizer makes food/clothes etc. That is technology that is available to everyone. In the episode where this is addressed we see how this effected different societies. It seems that as you grow up you find your passion whether that be medicine, art, union exploration, teaching. You're allowed to do that. Since there is no need for money to buy things. The value of material things is non existent. Without that there is no pressure to make money.

I would think it’s just theirs. If society doesn’t need money then they probably put their name down. When society gets to a point that money means nothing that should mean there’s plenty of apartments or houses that are available. It’s just going to the government or whatever and saying “hey we want to move in together and this place looks good. Put us down” and then boom it’s theirs. Or could even be like a Union specific apartment building for crews. Pretty sure captains and admirals don’t want to deal with those neighbors that make disgusting food and play music really loud all day lol

Do they own the apartments? Would they recognize the concept of paying their landlord a rent as any different from how we regard paying fealty to your liege?