Warp coils and photon torpedoes aside, have you ever thought of the weird fact that there's no money in Star Trek? Or how people get stuff done in real life when they can just ... erhm, enjoy what the holodeck can offer?
Our very own John who blog at The Zeray Gazette has, and he's given it some serious thoughts:
... my usual interpretation of the economics of Star Trek: they were unrealistic, as they eliminated the first law of economics -- scarcity. Thanks to the replicator, there is virtually no need to manufacture anything. Although there were a few objects, such as latinum or yamok sauce, that could not be replicated, there was essentially nothing that your replicator could not provide for you -- including more replicators.
Come to think of it - how would a money-less economics of the future a la Star Trek work? Who'll do the scut work?
A cure for cancer or aids is always based on donations and government contributions, basic medicine for 3rd world countries and normal folk a like is always based on how much it cost to manufacture, to sell and to buy.
Space exploration and technological advancement is always constrained by money, if the need for money to do this no longer existed, humans would be able to accomplish things a lot more than we can now.
Again religon does not exist in Star Trek, it is usually money, greed and religon that causes the most grief and wars in today's society, if there is to be a society where the human race builds a future to better itself and man kind, then bring it on, but unfortunately an awful destructive thing would have to happen to society first before we can evolve and progress on from the greedy self obsrobed society we've become.
Then there will always be disparities in talent. You can see this in every episode by the mere fact of the ships hierarchy. Why is Jean-Luc a Captain and some random dude just a lieutenant? Because Picard is better than that other dude. He's smarter, more ambitious, a better ass-kisser, maybe simply more lucky. Whatever, the point is there will always be people who have less talent and luck than others. Hence you will have poverty. Maybe it won't be the abject poverty we see in some places of our time, but there will always be people who have less. For example: look at a poor person in America, compared to sub-Saharan Africa. A poor American likely lives in a small apartment, with few frills, bad heat and no AC, but there is little chance of dying from exposure. They can always go to an emergency room if they are ill, although quality of care is suspect. They will also have access to abundant amounts of cheap food, albeit very bad for you. An impoverished sub-Saharan African, meanwhile, likely has no shelter, little to no access to ANY kind of medical care, and is in a constant state of malnutrition. Being poor in America is a helluva lot better than being poor in sub-Saharan Africa, but poverty still exists in America. 24th century poverty might seem pretty sweet to us, but poverty will still exist.
Unless they came up with a low cost energy source. Like Solar Energy, Cold Fusion or Antimatter . Besides its a sci-fi show.