>In other words, despite the ground-breaking style and
>thought-provoking content that set these programs apart
>from the inane sitcoms and melodramas that comprise much of
>TV, their inability to propose a better system means they
>fell short of any meaningful social impact. They inspired
>viewers to question without providing alternative answers.
There was 'Star Trek' of course. But perhaps the problem and the solution are presented in a way which is too low key to register. Star Trek you will recall is about a post capitalist society in which scarcity has been abolished because everything can be manufactured from pure energy with "replicators".
The implications of these new material circumstances aren't really explored in great depth by the writers, since the show(s) are about space exploration. But we know that the 'Federation' (which is apparently some kind of unified government on Earth and beyond) does not use money. Money isn't really called for on a regimented and isolated star ship anyhow.
But perhaps the author isn't a "Trekkie" and overlooked this one?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas