Tony Stark Fuels His Own Anxiety in Iron Man 3 [Non-Spoiler Film Review]

Since Iron Man 3 is the first step toward Avengers 2, I was itching to see the direction Marvel was taking its cinematic universe. While it wasn't the best Iron Man (first the best, second the worst), and it suffers from the same flaws as other Marvel Studios films, I really liked the central role of anxiety in the movie.

Tony Stark is his own worst enemy

The movie begins with Stark saying, "We make our own demons." While in previous films Stark fights bad guys who have their own evil agendas, here he's dealing with the consequences of his own actions. A villain is pissed off because Stark was a dirt bag to him. Stark is stripped of his Iron Man suit because of his own mistakes. He’s also experiencing anxiety because of his own decisions. 

Avoidance Fuels Anxiety

​Tony Stark is haunted by what happened in Avengers.

Why is Stark experiencing anxiety? Well he almost died in Avengers. For a guy who thinks he can engineer his way out of any danger (Stark did build his Mark I suit IN AN AFGHAN CAVE), coming so close to death could be a very traumatic thing.

While lots of things (biology, personal history, type of trauma) influence the development of PTSD, panic disorder, and other anxiety problems, there's only one thing that maintains anxiety - avoidance. Anxiety is a warning system that prepares our bodies for danger. This is a very good thing. Without anxiety, even if Loki was threatening us with an evil soliloquy and a mind altering glow stick, we'd just stand there twiddling our thumbs. The problem occurs when we try to avoid anxiety by restricting intrusive thoughts, numbing uncomfortable feelings, or running away from scary (but not life-threatening) situations. Avoidance doesn't reduce anxiety, it fuels it.

Iron Man 3 has some nice examples of this. Stark cuts off Pepper Potts when she talks about the dangers of being Iron Man. He avoids nightmares by staying up and tinkering with new inventions in his basement. When Rhodey Rhodes brings up the Avengers, Stark runs out of the room and flies away. He even develops new Iron Man technology to avoid being in the situation that caused his trauma. While we don’t see it, I bet he’s also numbing himself with alcohol (like he did in Iron Man 2). Stark tries to cope by shutting off anything that might trigger difficult memories. That's exactly how normal anxiety transforms into a clinical disorder. 

An Incomplete Arc 

​Things go downhill once the climax begins. 

The way to treat anxiety is by facing the thoughts, feelings, and situations that trigger it. Therapists do this through exposure therapy (a fast, highly effective way of becoming desensitized to anxiety). Through collaboration, therapists help people end patterns of avoidance and develop the courage to face feared situations.

We don't get to see any of that in the movie. No, I don't want to see Iron Man sitting in a therapy session, but I do want to see the resolution of his character arc. Instead, Iron Man 3's anxiety thread is dropped as soon as the climax begins. There's a resolution at the end of the film, but I have no idea how our hero achieved it. 

That's my beef with the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe - the films are inconsistent. The Asgard scenes in Thor were really cool, the Earth stuff not so much. I loved Captain America's origin story, but the action was boring. Hulk...well, both his movies just stunk. The only exceptions are Iron Man 1 (made before there were plans for a cinematic universe) and Avengers (yes it's full of plot holes, but the camaraderie made up for it). I don't need my comic book movies to be serious (like The Dark Knight), but I would prefer them to be complete (like X-Men 2).

I guess that's what happens when you're creating something as ambitious as the Marvel Cinematic Universe - films are rushed and details get neglected. Yes, Robert Downey Jr. is ridiculously amazing, the action is fun, the special effects are flawless, the script is always entertaining, and there's a fantastic canon-shattering reveal. I just wish we could have seen Stark fight back against his own personal demons, you know, like the film promised it would.

Rating: 7/10

For a more positive review, check out The Atlantic. Or if you prefer a stronger critique, read the AV Club. 

J.J. Abrams's Star Trek Makes Us Believe in the Future Again (Film Review)

Note : I'll be sharing a series of posts about Star Trek this month to celebrate the release of the new movie, Star Trek Into Darkness. The following is my unaltered (with updated links and images) May 2009 review of J.J. Abrams's first Star Trek film, originally published on a now defunct website. Keep in mind I wrote this way before learning the lessons of effective writing, so forgive me for my fanboy hyperboles. Check out my current thoughts on this film at the end of this post.       

---

SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't seen Star Trek (2009) yet, raise shields and engage evasive maneuvers!

I used to think Star Trek was a boring show for nerds who were obsessed with space. Then in 1991, my brother took me to see Star Trek VI. The movie was a fast-paced who-done-it murder-mystery action adventure about racism, espionage, and the end of cold war. It broke all the stereotypes I had for the franchise. In the proceeding months, I devoured everything Star Trek. I’ve been a Trekkie every since and it’s changed my life.

Star Trek instilled in me a curiosity about science, energized a love of learning, and nurtured hope and optimism about the future. It made me value other cultures and beliefs. It is the primary reason I sought an education and it set me down the path that I am on now.

Years later, Star Trek died. As Entertainment Weekly put it, “...Star Trek made the classic business blunder of the 1990s - it overexpanded.” After years of being saturated by recycled stories, the franchise lost its audience. In 2005, Paramount finally pulled the plug on the waning franchise and canceled the fifth and final Star Trek TV series.

I expected Star Trek to be shelved away for at least a decade. Yet, just a year later, it was announced that J.J. Abrams (producer of Felicity, Alias, and Lost) was hired to create a new Star Trek film. While Abrams was more than capable of producing a compelling sci-fi film (see Lost season 1), if it wasn’t done right (see Lost season 2) it would completely bury the franchise.

Since Star Trek is already the highest grossing film of the year, it’s safe to say Abrams has successfully rebooted the franchise. I think the film is fantastic, and here’s why.

Story

The genius lies in the decision of the screenwriters (Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) to set the story in an alternate timeline. By doing so, the writers freed themselves from the previous 600 hours of established Star Trek canon. Most prequels fail because we know who will live, who will die, and how the story will end (see Star Wars Episodes I, II, III). Here, everything is back up for grabs (like the genocide of the Vulcan people). At the same time, the film honors what has come before, directly through Leonard Nimoy’s Spock and indirectly through numerous Star Trek easter eggs (e.g. red shirt, Admiral Archer’s beagle, Pike in the wheelchair, mind-altering slug, Kobayashi Maru, Kolinahr, etc).

Cast

I was surprised at how much I believed Chris Pine as Kirk. He had the toughest job - filling William Shatner’s enormous shoes. But Pine played the character with just enough bravado, confidence, and sex appeal to be endearing but not douchey. Zachary Quinto was perfect as a conflicted and emotional Spock. Karl Urban’s portrayal of Dr. “Bones” McCoy was largely an imitation, but it worked because the character is so likable. Simon Pegg captured Scotty’s zest and humor. Zoe Saldana’s Uhura, with her mixture of confidence and warmth, was the breakout performance of the film. It’s hard to judge John Cho’s Sulu (he didn’t do much beyond the fight scene). Anton Yelchin’s Chekov was a little heavy on the Russian accent, but I loved his eagerness. I wanted to see much more of both Bruce Greenwood’s Captain Pike and Faran Tahir’s Captain Robau. Eric Bana’s performance as Nero was menacing, layered, and tragic. Leonard Nimoy was so flawless as Spock that he nearly overshadowed the rest of the cast.

Direction

Abrams’ direction in Star Trek is light-years ahead of his first film, Mission Impossible: III. Star Trek’s battles are epic and the character moments intimate. The editing moves at warp speed, keeping you glued to the screen. Major kudos for adding engine trails to the warp engines, changing the phasers to bullets instead of lasers, making engineering look like engineering, turning the viewscreen into a functional tool, and adding silence to space. Next time, ease up on the lens flares. They became pretty distracting during bridge sequences.

Special Effects

Finally, we get to see what the Star Trek universe looks like on a Star Wars budget! Industrial Light and Magic really outdid themselves. Sound effects supervisor Ben Burtt (of Star Wars fame) also deserves special mention for integrating old 1960s Trek sounds with modern effects (e.g. classic sounds on the bridge, revamped transporter and warp effects). Both Burtt and ILM made this universe come alive in a way we’ve never seen or heard before and both deserve Academy-Awards for their work on Star Trek.

Score

​Photo via Scoring Sessions.

Michael Giacchino (Lost, The Incredibles, Ratatouille), would not have been my first pick to score this film. While I love most of his work, I didn’t think he could pull off a Jerry Goldsmith or James Horner styled space opera score. And he didn’t, his score sounds more like a superhero film score. I really want to hate it, but I can’t - the themes just fit the feel of the movie. Spock’s theme is the clear standout for me, beautifully capturing the wonder, elegance, and tragedy of the Vulcans. The original Star Trek theme song (appearing during the end credits) is also memorable. Like the rest of the film, it’s brilliantly updated and fresh.

The movie is not without its faults. It asks you to take a big leap of faith regarding Kirk. In the span of hours, Kirk goes from suspended cadet, to stowaway, first officer, and ultimately captain of the Federation’s most powerful ship. It’s not plausible and worse, it changes the character from a guy who earned his position through hard work to a guy with a destiny (a la Anakin Skywalker). I know the writers didn’t want it to take three movies for Kirk to become Kirk (a la Anakin Skywalker), but I don’t like this explanation and it doesn’t feel consistent with the rest of the Star Trek universe.

That being said, I’m a very big fan of this movie. It’s greatest accomplishment is in making Star Trek fun, exciting, and relevant again. The movie cuts across all demographics, including Trekkie/non-Trekkie, and offers something for everyone.

To quote Captain Pike, Star Trek “is important.” It was envisioned in a period of social, economic, and political unrest. Star Trek created a venue to discuss the issues of our time and gave us hope that we would not only get through our global crises, but we will grow as a species. Now, the world is a mess again. Our economies have failed, Americans are polarized on gay marriage, extremism threatens us domestically and abroad, and the climate is changing each year. I can’t think of a better time for Star Trek’s bright and optimistic vision of our future to be with us again.

Rating: 9/10

Revised Star Trek movie rankings (best to worst): ST6, ST8, ST11, ST4, ST2, ST3.....ST9, ST10...ST7, ST1, ST5.  

---

May 1st, 2013 Addendum:

I'm surprised at how much I agree with my original review - watching 2009's Star Trek is still a lot of fun and makes me excited about the future of the franchise. 

However, I don't know what I was thinking when I said Nero was "menacing, layered, and tragic" - the character was pretty one dimensional (though he's more fleshed out in the Countdown comic prequel). 

I also forgot how conflicted I was about Giacchino scoring the movie. Since he's become one of my favorite composers, it seems silly to question his attachment to Star Trek! 

I still don't like Kirk's rise to power (though it seems like there will be repercussions for that in Star Trek Into Darkness) or the use of lens flares (especially after all the excessive ones in Super 8). 

A lot of fans were upset that this film "felt like any other action movie" and that it was light on the social commentary. I get that, and this is definitely not the Star Trek I grew up with, but the "genocide of the Vulcan people" drew a parallel to September 11th and setup Star Trek Into Darkness's themes of terrorism. We'll get more social commentary in the sequel (I hope). 

6 Secrets to Writing a Blog (Brain Knows Better 6-month Anniversary)

​Brain Knows Better logo concept by Duaba.

This past week was the 6-month anniversary of my inaugural post, Growing Up Trekkie - How Star Trek Made Me Fall in Love with Psychology. Since then, I've written 18,118 words across 20 posts, averaging a little more than 3 articles per month.

I've had a lot of fun writing about what I love. It's also been encouraging to see the website grow - my readership has tripled since October 2012 and my list of the best scifi scores from the last decade was featured on one of my favorite science fiction websites, SF Signal.

I've got a lot of neat stuff lined up for the next 6 months - a logo is in development (check out the concept above), there're a lot of new scifi films I'll write about this summer, and I'm talking at Nerd Nite (and possibly San Diego Comic Con) in the near future. But before I get to all that, I want to mark this this occasion by looking back on the 6 biggest lessons I've learned about writing for the internet these past 6 months.

1) Academia trained me to think, not write

My 100+ page dissertation could probably be summarized in 10 pages. 

I spent 7 years in grad school doing science. Thanks to my professors, colleagues, and the dreaded peer-review process, I got really good at critical thinking. It's all about knowing where to look, what to search for, and how to digest the information you find.

But just because I can think through an issue doesn't mean I can communicate in an effective way. Academics don't write like the rest of the world - we write exhaustive papers, include vague titles, bury the lead, and avoid personal details. While academic writing is thorough, fair, and objective, it is also stripped of any humanity. Academics love reading in this style - the rest of the world not so much.

Many of my original posts were plagued by the academic curse. Look at "Star Wars Episode VII, Star Trek into Darkness, Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome, and the Adaptability of Fans" - what the heck does that title even mean?!? This essay should have been called "No Matter the Franchise, Fans Will Always Want More". Then there's my Prometheus film review - this post takes far too long to get to its point (my thesis doesn't come up until the 4th paragraph) and covers too many ideas. Here's an outline of what I wrote:

1. Prometheus was a letdown.
2. Prequels usually disappoint people.
3. Prequels and evolutionary theorists make the same mistakes.
4. Old ideas in psychology lead people to make similar mistakes about themselves. 
5. Prometheus 2 will be better. 

That’s not a cohesive story. Compare that to my review of Oblivion, which sticks to one message:

1. Oblivion was entertaining.
2. It's not a complex movie.
3. It's just a fun ride.

Lesson Learned: When you write for the Internet, you have to communicate in a very clear, brief, and highly organized way.

2) Blogs aren't newspapers, they're conversations

Lowen helped me understand that blogs work best when they're authentic and conversational (photo credits go to New Starship). ​

Some of the best advice I got about blogging was, "write like you're talking to me, not lecturing at me." People read blogs because they enjoy the personal perspective of the author - their voice, opinions, humor, and stories. My readers are fellow geeks and they want to read an interesting article about stuff they like, not feel like they're in a class studying for a test.

I struggled with this - including personal details is a big no no in clinical psychology (many psychologists try to maintain a "blank slate" with their patients). But something really interesting happened - the more authentic I was, the more my posts were read and shared. For example, an essay about how Firefly helped me understand my culture was linked/tweeted/liked all over the place. Sharing personal details, when relevant, turned my content into a more natural form of communication.

Lesson Learned: Keeping a conversational tone doesn't dumb down your message - it makes you more credible, interesting, and persuasive.

3) The best conversations happen off the blog

Funny that I haven't written about most of the topics I outlined in my first Facebook post.

Once I was regularly publishing, I couldn't understand why so few people commented on the blog (this was supposed to be a conversation right?). I knew a good chunk of people were reading, they just weren't saying anything. I feared silence meant people hated my writing.

That just wasn't the case. Someone usually did say something, just not on the blog. Readers were more likely to communicate through email, Twitter, Google+, or Facebook than by commenting on this website. What's really surprised me is how much feedback I got offline – usually from coworkers, friends, and family.

I have no clue why this is (maybe my posts fail to ignite strong emotions?) - but I've learned to accept it and no longer judge the quality of my writing by the number of comments it receives.

Lesson Learned: Some people are going to love what you write, some won't, but the most meaningful conversations will happen off your website.

4) You never stop writing

​To prevent writer's block, I write down ideas when I get them. I use Drafts to record thoughts and iA Writer to polish them.

Every medium has its specific challenges - the most difficult thing about writing a blog is that IT'S NEVER DONE. Like some sharks, blogs have to keep moving or they die. Part of this is really exciting and keeps me from getting bored - it's fun to get a new idea, flesh it out, send it into the world, and then get started on something totally different. But blogging is REALLY tiring - a 500-1,000 word post takes me 2-8 hours to write (depending on how well I know the topic and source material). When I do the math, all the time I've spent blogging could have gone into starting (and finishing) a book.

What's helped me keep up with the pace of a blog is constantly writing down ideas as they come to me. I keep a text file called "blog ideas" synced between my phone, tablet, and computer - when inspiration strikes (often in boring meetings, while watching TV, or riding the subway) I immediately jot down all the details. This is why I never get writer's block - I have a gigantic list of ideas to draw from.

Lesson Learned: Blogs need a constant supply of new posts so make sure you have a way to capture ideas as they come to you wherever you may be.   

5) Stay on target

A blogger must stick to what they know - for me that means scifi+psychology. 

A few weeks before I launched this website, I attended a talk by top scifi/fantasy bloggers at the 2012 New York Comic Con. Their consistent advice was to find a niche no one else does and stick to it. For the most part, I've done a decent job sticking to my niche - psychology+science fiction. But I did make one very big mistake...

Last November I reviewed Spielberg’s Lincoln. The film was about as far away from science fiction as you could get. However, I had some strong opinions about the movie and wanted to share them. I thought that by focusing on Spielberg, who has made a lot of science fiction films, I could get away with expressing my disappointment at Lincoln's ending. I ended up coming across as an armchair psychologist, diagnosing Spielberg with anxiety and hypothesizing how his childhood influenced the creation of his movies. No one liked this post - it had the fewest hits/likes/tweets of anything I've written. It was bad for psychology and bad for my blog.

Lesson Learned: Find a specific niche topic and stick very closely to it, even when you are dying to write about something else. 

6) Writing makes me resilient

Seeing my Starfleet emblem at work reminds me that no matter how bad things get, I always have my writing to look forward to. 

The most surprising thing I've learned about writing is how much I love it! I didn't write much growing up. I wrote a lot of academic papers in undergrad and grad school, but I was never excited about that type of writing. This has been different.

Writing for Brain Knows Better invigorated me. This website kept me resilient against burnout from my day job. When patients have been in crises and I've been overwhelmed with administrative work, coming home to my blog always gave me something to look forward to – something fun that was completely under my control. Through writing, I strengthened my ability to reflect on big ideas like what would really happen the first time we meet aliens or why music takes us back in time. Writing for the internet has also opened up a lot of opportunities, like presenting at WonderCon.

It's been such a great experience that I've decided to start writing a book! I can't wait to tell you more, once things are crystallized. In the meantime, what I can tell you is the project involves some of the biggest franchises in science fiction. 

Lesson Learned: Not only does writing lead to many new opportunities, it can also be a rewarding experience in itself and builds resilience against stress.  

Thank you for supporting Brain Knows Better! I couldn't have hit this milestone without readers like you. Please do send me your comments, questions, requests, and complaints through email, Twitter, or Google+ - I'd love to hear from you.

Oblivion Is Just An Amusement Park Ride, and That's Okay (Non-Spoiler Film Review)

I didn't have huge expectations for Oblivion. A friend saw it early and said it was better than expected, but nothing too original. As long as it entertained me, I’d be happy.

I was definitely entertained. The movie was gorgeous - beautiful cinematography, believable special effects, and a score that consistently delivered. It was well worth the $22 IMAX ticket.  

But it could have been so much more. Oblivion references some of the greatest science fiction films, though doesn't come close to emulating them. It also touched on really interesting ideas, none of which were fleshed out. The opportunity to explore drone warfare was completely fumbled by the producers.

Oblivion was just an amusement park ride. I wish it was more fun like Independence Day, The Fifth Element, or Avengers instead of trying to be as serious as Wall-E or The Dark Knight. But after the events of this week, it was a welcome escape. To paraphrase Jim Gordon, Oblivion was the movie we needed, but not the one we deserved.

Rating: 6.5/10

For a more thorough analysis, check out AV Club's non-spoiler and spoiler review. 

Why Star Trek’s Future Without Money Is Bogus

Note: This post is the first in a series of guest contributions. The author, Lowen Baumgarten, is a close friend and my go-to source for all things literature and economics. 

One of my favorite moments from Star Trek is in ST IV: The Voyage Home, when Kirk and the gang are stranded in 1980s San Francisco. They try to board a Muni bus and are promptly turned away.

Spock: What does it mean, “exact change”?
Kirk: They’re still using money. We need to find some.

Not only is money a foreign concept to the crew, it’s so foreign they didn’t even remember it was used in the Twentieth Century. Money, like the human sacrifice of the Aztecs, has been lost to the sands of time.

I’m here to tell you that’s ridiculous.

First, two things: I only have a bachelor’s in economics. But that’s all you really need to tear to shreds Star Trek’s future where money is a distant memory.

Second, I love the optimism of Star Trek. I didn’t even notice the lens flares in the new one (I even bought J.J. Abrams’ explanation that “the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame”). I believe we’ll someday, far in the future, have a unitary world state, I love touch screens, I want to wear pajamas to work, and I think we should work toward a future largely free of disease, violence and poverty.

But that doesn’t mean we won’t need money. Money will be with us til the sun goes dark. Here’s why:

1) Money Is Not the Same as Wealth

Star Trek’s future treats money like “filthy lucre.” – the pursuit of money is depicted as unevolved greed. If only we could invent something better than money, we could free ourselves from greed. Picard sums this up in First Contact:

"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."

Picard’s mistake is equating money with “the acquisition of wealth.” But money is so much more than wealth. In Econ 101, you learn money serves three purposes in our lives:

1. It’s a store of value – Your savings, or wealth, yes.
2. It’s a medium of exchange – Like beads or shells, it’s something you give someone else when you want what they have. Without money, you’d need to have exactly what they want; that’s a “barter economy.”
3. It’s a unit of account – This one’s the key: it’s how you measure what everything in the economy is worth. In the electronic age, money isn’t dollar bills or gold coins; it’s numbers. We’ll say a candy bar is worth “2” and a new car is worth “26,000.” What matters isn’t the pieces of paper in your wallet, what matters is that we can say a new car is worth about 13,00 candy bars.

Those are prices, and in a market-based economy, prices are set when supply meets demand. Without the jargon, that means if the guy at the corner store tried to sell candy bars for $1,000 no one would buy them, and he’d have to close down, unless he lowered the price to what people will pay. Supply meets demand.

Unfortunately for Trekkies, money only works if you get to keep it. I’ve seen some Internet theories that the Federation uses “credits” for prices, but not for accumulating wealth. But if I don’t get to keep the money you spend at my store, save it up and later buy a new car, then I'm not selling you any goddamn candy bars!

2) The Transporter and the Replicator Don’t Solve Anything

“But in the future,” you say, “the economics are different because of replicators and transporters. Everybody can have candy bars and new cars right now – everything might be free! In the future, we’ve solved the problem of scarcity.”

Wrong. In economics, “scarcity is the fundamental problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants and needs in a world of limited resources.” For Trekkies, the key phrase in that definition isn’t “limited resources.” You’re right, transporters and replicators have largely solved that. The key phrase is “unlimited human wants.”

This is about so much more than greed. (From a psychology perspective, Ali has told me hedonic adaption explains how we’d get used to thing materializing out of thin air pretty fast – and come up with new wants.)

Imagine a future where goods are essentially free. The economy would be 100% services – haircuts, concerts, tax advice, therapy… anything where somebody exchanges their time for money. (Services are already 80% of the U.S. economy.)

We’d still need some way to know how many haircuts an hour of therapy is worth. Does the Enterprise only need one Mot and one Counselor Troi? Without prices for services, how do you know?

3) Communism Doesn’t Work

If you remove the money, (the prices), from our story, then somebody has to tell you what candy bars, cars, haircuts and therapy are worth. Whoever that person is basically has to run the whole economy, telling everybody what everything is worth. That’s central planning, or Communism.

One big reason why Communism never works is it’s very hard to measure desire. With a lot of effort, you could measure how much labor and raw materials went into making a product (the supply side), but it’s very hard for central planners to know if people will want it (the demand side). This is why you hear all the stories of Soviet economies running constant shortages of things like toilet paper and cigarettes.

In a 100% service economy, if everyone worked to better themselves and humanity, who’s to say what “better” is? And who gets to do it? Everyone would want to be captain of the Enterprise! How do we stop them? Who steps in and says your part in bettering humanity is scrubbing the plasma ducts on Deck 12?

Without money, if you can’t pay some people more to do less desirable jobs, you couldn’t keep them from taking the best ones. We’d all be President of the Federation, Captain of the Enterprise, or, dear god, Ambassador to Delta IV.

In some fan theories, massive AIs run the Federation economy, telling everybody what everything’s worth, how many barbers and starship captains they need. Well that’s central planning, just with computers instead of human beings. So, the Matrix, but with Communism. No lens flares in that future.

4) Money Is Language

​Photo via James Boo

This is why we need money. Because we need prices. We need live experiments where people try to sell things at prices others will pay. Whatever they’re selling, whether it’s the time they spend commanding the Enterprise or jumja sticks. Without those live experiments, somebody would have to guess about our desires (Even I don’t know whether I want a Kit-Kat or a Twix before I get to the store) or what’s “better” for humanity.

We call those live experiments “markets.” And those prices – money – are essentially a language. It’s the language of value.

Saying we won’t need money in the future is like saying we won’t need language. Six thousand years ago, when humans invented language, we never said, “Someday we’ll have something better.” (Although if you can imagine a world with perfect telepathy, where everybody always knows exactly what everyone wants, you can probably imagine a world without money, but I think you just imagined the Borg.)

We’ll always need words to communicate and we’ll always need numbers to communicate value – we’ll always need prices, and once you’ve got prices that are set in the live experiments of the market, you’ve got money.

What Will Money Look Like in the Future?

​Image via StarTrekFans

This is not to say that money will always work exactly like it does today. In The Ascent of Money, Niall Ferguson tells how we’ve invented new forms of money throughout history. Like any technology some of these fail (sub-prime mortgages), but others, like flood insurance, allow people to get back on their feet after a natural disaster.

Maybe in the future, we’ll have some new form of money that inherently values “the betterment of humanity.” In economic terms, you could imagine endogenizing every social and environmental cost to every price and extending consumers massive revolving lines of credit. In other words, candy bars would cost $400 because of all the carbon offsets, but you’d have a very high credit limit, which you could work off by doing something good for the world.

Again, who gets to decide what’s good? Until we figure that out, it’s best left to markets, greased as they are by filthy lucre.

---

Lowen Baumgarten is a freelance writer and communications consultant based in San Francisco. Working with organizations from small startups to Fortune 500 companies, he creates content for clients' websites, blogs and newsletters. He loves co-working and finding new cafes to work in, while exploring new running routes through the city. He studied international politics and economics at Georgetown University.