One of the things I love about Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s original vision for the show, his view of the future. Not the ‘original vision’ he sold NBC with, the “Wagon Train to the Stars” bit, but the part where humanity had absolutely destroyed itself with ignorance and greed, and had to rebuild.

While a small part of the world is fretting over JJ Abrams’ interpretation of Star Trek, many of us have forgotten one of the most important plot elements, and it’s really relevant today.

The human civilization in Star Trek didn’t wake up one day and decide to build cool starships and put their astronauts in miniskirts. Human civilization collapsed as a result of war and mismanaged finance. depending on which review you trust (and I’m going with Riker’s in “First Contact”) at the end of the third world war, there will be 50 million people left dead. Governments collapsed. All systems — down.

When humanity got it together, after First Contact (of course), one of the decisions was to eliminate currency altogether. The idea being, whatever your true talent is, go do that and excel at it. The better you are at it, the better humanity will be as a whole.

Here are specific examples, from Memory Alpha:

* Kirk told Spock about 20th century Earth: “They’re still using money. We need to get some.” Later on, while Kirk was having dinner with Gillian Taylor and was unable to pay in the restaurant, Gillian asked sarcastically, “Don’t tell me they don’t use money in the 23rd century,” and Kirk told her “Well, we don’t.” (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)

* Picard tries to explain to Ralph Offenhouse from the 20th century that there would be no need for his law firm any longer: “A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of ‘things’. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions.” (TNG: “The Neutral Zone”)

* When Lily Sloane asked how much the USS Enterprise-E cost to build, Picard tells her “The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century… The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.” (Star Trek: First Contact)

* When Nog suggests that Jake should bid for a baseball card in an auction, Jake says “I’m Human, I don’t have any money.” Nog replies “It’s not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement.” Jake says “Hey, watch it. There’s nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” Nog then replies “What does that mean?” Jake responds “It means we don’t need money!” (DS9: “In the Cards”)

* Jake: (big smile) “I sold my first book today.” Quark: “Really? How much did you get for it?” Jake: “It’s just a figure of speech. The Federation News Service is going to publish a book of my stories about life on the station under Dominion rule. But they’re not paying me.” (DS9: “You Are Cordially Invited”)

* Tom Paris says about the significance of Fort Knox: “When the New World Economy took shape in the late 22nd century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum.” (VOY: “Dark Frontier”)

Now, I have yet to read the review of Star Trek that says it’s “socialist”, yet I read and hear constantly how leveling a playing field in this global financial crisis is a huge mistake. Which leads me to wonder if Gene Roddenberry was right in thinking that eliminating money sort of fixes the problem. In my own life, I have seen money solve problems, but also, I have seen money amplify character flaws. People who were broke bad people become bad people to more people once you add money to the mixture. It’s sort of why some people have to completely lose everything in order to understand it’s true value.

Which brings me to the current financial situation. It would seem that the US is losing everything. savings accounts are evaporating. companies that have stood for years? Now closed. Record high unemployment. People are panicked.

Unless, of course, you see things in a science fiction-conditioned way. Then you know that either someone’s got to go back to 1955 (1973?) and fix this timeline, or there are going to have to be some changes made.

What if the changes that need to be made are really serious ones? And not in that “we’ve got to change the way we build cities” sorta way. What if it’s as simple — and complex — as changing the way we see money.

What if Roddenberry is right?