Of all the plaudits laid at the metaphorical feet of JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot, "the model for humanity's future" may be one of the more excitable and over-the-top, but apparently there's historical precendent...
The Examiner's L. Steven Sieden uses Star Trek's moneyless society as a destination for Buckminster Fuller's "cosmic accounting" theory of life:
Nobody on the Star Trek fictional crew works for a living or gets paid. Not the fictional crewmembers or the aliens or the enemies. Nobody puts in a timesheet or picks up a paycheck in this visionary world. Everybody just seems to be doing what needs to be done, and they all live long and prosper – unless they are blown to bits in one of the mandatory battles. After all, it is an action film series.
Still, the idea of doing what you want to do and being supported in that pursuit seems like the way things should be. After all, the bees do not pay the flowers for the nectar, and the flowers do not pay the sun for the radiant energy. So, why should any of us have to do anything that we don't want to do just to earn a living – to earn our right to live? ...This is what happens on Star Trek and with every living creature on Earth – except humans. We chase after money in pursuit of happiness only to find ourselves stuck in a job we dislike at best. Then, we wonder why we feel so unfulfilled and when we will finally be satisfied. That will never happen if we don't get out of the "making a living" box and expand into making a difference in our lives and the lives of our fellow humans.
Ignoring any "Well, the Ferengi clearly operated on a for profit basis" type of counter-argument, I'm smitten with the idea that Gene Rodenberry's altruistic imaginary world is being held up as the model of humanity's future. Not convinced in the slightest, mind you, but definitely smitten. Me, I think we have more chance of ending up in Red Dwarf, sadly...