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?

      • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Our world is already post scarcity too for basic needs like food and housing. We’re just terrible at actually getting them to people since most countries are still capitalist, so they prioritize capital/profit over human lives and rely on what’s basically slave labour from less developed nations to make the ruling class richer.

        • Jakdracula@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Under capitalism, food isn’t produced to eat but to make profits. When it’s not profitable to sell, they would rather dump foods, starving the people than to plainly donate.

          We produce enough foods to feed the entire population. But the sole purpose of food is to not feed the people, but to feed the greed of the producers, the farmers, the corporates.

          Capitalism created an artificial scarcity of food where we produce too much food for the obese and throw the rest away to rot in front of the poor.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Read an article in the economist ten years ago or so that said that with the automation potential back then, we could have 70% unemployment and still produce western middle-class living standards for absolutely everyone. Probably not cars (go public transport, instead) but definitely roof and four walls, healthy food, education and entertainment, healthcare, and a washing machine. Reason it’s not happening is that while investing in that kind of thing has a giant ROI, it’s also long-term, for quarterly or even ten-year profits it’s more advantageous to hire humans.

          Honestly, actually that’s good news: It’s going to happen one way or the other anyway, and we don’t want that kind of control over automated means of productions in the hands of people too greedy to invest in it.

        • Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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.

            • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year 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.

        • c10l@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Aside from the arguments posited by this comment’s siblings, I’ll add: artificial scarcity is scarcity nonetheless.

          We’re very far from post-scarcity despite the fact that there’s seemingly no material conditions stopping us from achieving it.

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And yet the political commentary displayed in the series is blatantly leftist in nature, and was written in the context of modern Capitalism.

        Just like showing a dystopian hyper-Capitalist cyberpunk future is a commentary on the dangers of modern day Capitalism, showing a more “enlightened” post-scarcity Communist society as a hopeful future is also commentary on modern day society.

        Sci-fi is pretty much just political, as it’s all speculative fiction based on different possibilities of modern society abstracted to a future setting.

    • stebo02@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure but there are other franchises far more popular amongst geeks, so why Star Trek specifically?

      • Gabu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Watch Star Trek TNG and you’ll instantly get it. The original series was getting a bit dated by the 90s, but TNG is still as fresh as you can get, talking about issues we’re still dealing with - It’s timeless. Not to mention it has, IMO, the best and most synergistic crew of the whole franchise.

      • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Popular, geeky, and leftist. That last one likely resonates with a large part of the communist/socialist community we have here on Lemmy.

        It certainly does for Lemmy dev Dessalines, seeing how they’re responding on this thread too.

          • 8000mark@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah try searching for “star trek socialism” on YT or wherever, you’d be surprised.

            But apart from the series specifically there is at least some theorizing that space exploration is only possible after capitalism has been abolished since the energy and cooperation alone required to make it work on a meaningful scale is not possible under capitalism. We need the unleashing of productive forces that only communism can provide.

            Aaaaaaand of course there are the Posadists. Google them for a good chuckle!

      • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        tbh, i’m not sure you’re correct. most other franchises are either more devicive or do not have the same cross generational appeal.

        Star wars is highly devicive

        Stargate was widely loved but currently only exists for a single generation

        BSG was great but didnt achieve the same culture permiation that star trek did