On May 21 2012 09:06 diggurd wrote: Did you guys know that in China, entertainment programming that depicts alternate reality and time travel has been banned. It seems the government is afraid that the chinese people will start dreaming - they are fearing the imagination of their citizens.
In the west, we have a different problem. Here we don't think of prohibition, because the 'ruling system' has nearly oppressed our capacity to dream.
And those who still dare to dream? They are mostly dreaming of a muslim/terror-free society. :/
DelicousVP, they will tell you that you are dreaming, but the true dreamers are those who think that things can go on indefinitely the way they are, just with some cosmetic changes. We are not dreamers, we are the awakening from a dream which is turning into a nightmare.
On May 14 2012 05:23 CharlieCheng wrote:Of course not! The whole system relies on the fact that somehow everything will be automated(he can't see how insane this sounds) and everyone will be content doing nothing all day!
Wow, you saying this shows your ignorance. There should be a shift to things being more automated, such as road works, driving, car creation, computer part creation which is slowly happening. Now those jobs will be replaced but that creates other jobs robot repair and upkeep which people can move to when there jobs get replaced which would also slowly get replaced until robots take care of themselves...
Hell even level design can be shifted to AI and has been done.
On May 14 2012 05:23 CharlieCheng wrote:EDIT: Sorry, I meant that you'll be able to do ANYTHING you want. But since you don't have an identity you won't gain any recognition for curing cancer. But since he knows people better then they know themselves, he knows that people will indeed just do things "for the greater good!"
I don't see any reason why you can't have an identity and recognition for doing things? You sound like a Thiest arguing that an Athiest has nothing to live for and that they must be depressed all the time when that is clearly not true.
On May 14 2012 05:23 CharlieCheng wrote:You won't freak out when you realize that you're not as intelligent as you once thought, even though you dreamed of being a Quantum Physicist. But don't worry, you can still pursue that goal because it won't matter, everything is automated! So just because you're pursuing a wasteful goal(Even though he talks about the elimination of waste over and over) it's fine because the robots will still be there.
Obviously to get to a fully automated system would be very difficult and for that to happen people have to do a lot. Remember when things are automated, they become more efficient such as garbage collecting, which can be automated right now to a point.
You would still have people going to parties, playing games, making games, creating art etc. Although some of that could get to a point where they are automated which would be fine. Resource collecting could become automated, especially in space.
People who are interested in cancer cure would be the only people researching it. If you would rather make video games you could do that as well. Or if you felt like it you could race cars. If you would rather play video games, do that.
Although I think we need the current system to achieve this kind of a system. But we can slowly eliminate small menial tasks and use the people that did those things to continue working in more productive fields.
Obviously there might have to be sacrifices for example, everyone gets limited power until a renewable energy source is found and harnessed to the degree that we need. It would change a lot though.
On May 19 2012 13:23 Competent wrote: I just read through 47 pages and I think I have absorbed enough to make a very valid point.
A main concern I see is, " How can we be sure things will be distributed evenly? Fairly? etc..."
So I new plan has been suggested. A plan that will remove the current system that isn't fair, doesn't distribute evenly, is not just, etc and it was never implemented to be any of those things... Now, your main concern is the new system--which is aimed at being fair/just unlike the current one--won't be?
Tell me, what the hell do you have to lose? Really? You are worried that this new idea might be like the current system, and THAT is the reason you are against it? Earth to you! Oh never fucking mind. If you haven't got it by now, I don't think you ever will.
So, the current system is really based off of a banking system, if u traveled in the middle ages you wouldnt be able to trade the wheat from your farm at your new destination, hauling the wheat and the agging in travel would ruin that prospect. So their has to be a common currency, fora long time it was gold, now it would probably be oil/gas. Before paper currency was introduced as the general currency silver and gold was the base currency, this was even true to an extent until 1972 when america (the worlds reserve currency) went off tue gold standard.
A currency free world would never happen, everything has a price and that price would be weighted in the something such as gas. If you work on a farm right now, they will pay u 12-15 an hour, or 96-120 a day. If you worked on that farm without wages you would probably be payed with a room and food. One of those sounds like slavery... Because ppl wont do somthing that they dont have to a system without currency is doomed to fail in the world we have created. Communism, which is a step farther than what you are proposing is not a successful model. It will not be successful (outside of small family like communities) until our entire world is automated and there is no meed for wages, we have a few centuries for that to happen.
Its interesting that you and others think that a capitalist system doesmt work, especially since capitalism is the reason a middle class exists. Not to mention that prior to tje industrial revolution and the tech that followed most of tje wealtj in every country was controlled by the ruling class. Its easy to think of a faceless picturecof some greedy business man and say that said person is bad forcthe country and is why currency system doesnt work, but if you apply a face such as bill gates, or warren buffet or Carlos slim (the 3richest ppl in the world outside of the rothschild family) then you have a way different opinion, not only that but look at peoppe such as mark zuckerberg, just because people have success doesnt mean that a currency system is bad. The american dream is a house, a boat and some kids, this is still possible and as long as businesses stay in america and keep their jobs in america it will live on. Obviously im not looking at europe or otjer countries in this reply because thats not where i live (and the economic systems in most european countries are failing).
If you are looking for the reason why america is failing than look at our government. Ppl seem to constantly blame greed as tje cause for our problems when in reality greed and fear are the only emotions you can count on.
PS. Posting from phone so there are grammatical errors
I have an issue with your response--along with others. It is the same response I see browsing all these pages for people who are opposed. It is the same response I hear when I talk with co-workers or friends. I hear a lot of "can't" & "won't". I am not given any actual reasons. I am just told it can't happen; it won't happen. No evidence or reasoning behind it. It simple "can't/won't" work. Sorry, but that evidently should show that it doesn't work for me.
The reason why i didnt go in depth is because i am responding on my Phone. Currency is neccessary because it is an easy to carry medium for trade. If you are selling iron and you want wheat it is better to sell the iron to someone that wants it instead of searching for a wheat farmer that needs iron. I cant trade desk work for milk. And currency is needed because ppl are not inherently good. If you want to feed the starving ppl you should open or join a charity.
Next we have them pointing to how well the current system works. However, there isn't any pointing out that what products are created aren't best for the environment. These are just the cheapest to make. No mentioning of the incredibly poor wealth distribution(top 1%), the creation of money with no contribution to society(stocks). And no pointing out that we are at the mercy of currency. If things aren't going well financially, then people lose homes, starve, and cannot receive health care. These homes, farms, and hospitals are still there. They still have people qualified to do the job. These home are still capable of housing people. Instead people go hunger. They go without medical attention. And they sleep in their cars(if they have one).
I argue that this is immoral bullshit. We have the means to keep everyone fed. We have the houses to keep everyone sheltered. We have the hospitals to keep everyone healthy. What do we not have? Money for everyone. This is why the question is being proposed--why the hell do we need this paper? Simply put, we don't.
All a system like the one proposed requires is a small population of willful people with the right mindset. If I knew that when I went to work that I had 90% of the worlds population was on my back, and that I was taking care of their needs, I would enjoy working. And that is all this system requires. A handful of people to do the work machines can't.
Or we can just wait until 60% of the workforce's jobs are taken by machines. It would be interesting to see how a monetary system works when more than half of the people required to participate in it don't receive paychecks because a capitalist corporation's only concern is to make money.
In a world that had inherit scarcity to the nesscities of life sure then a monetary system could be "acceptable", the second we started producing more food than there we people on the planet our monetary system was outdated.
And the second we had the technology to feed everyone on the planet the monetary system started becoming obsolete. Today we create food for 10 billion people but we are only 7 billion and we could easily increase our production to feed a 100 billion with less acres than we use today. + Show Spoiler +
According to the CIA World Factbook, the total land area of Earth is 148.94 million square kilometers, with 17.34 million square kilometers used for crop production. In 2007, the US produced approximately 11,000 kg of vegetables per acre. According to the Institute of Simplified Hydroponics, a group of impoverished children in India has developed a 20 square meter hydroponic garden that produces 730 kg/year(1). If these yields were scaled to a full acre, those yields could increase to ~147,000 kg/acre(2). Using orbitropism, increased CO2 concentrations in the air, and LED lighting, yields could theoretically increase to between ~800,000 to ~1,500,000 kg/acre(3). By adding fulvic acid and gibberellin, yields could increase further. Aeroponic variants have demonstrated an 80% increase in production on top of standard hydroponic yields. With these estimates, it is theoretically possible to produce between 1.8 to 3 million kg/acre(4) – between 180 to 300 times 2007 production, enough to feed a few thousand people every year – and with vertical farming, these yields could be increased linearly. If 4.2 billion acres(5) were required to produce 1.3 thousand kg of food for each living person in 2007, the amount of land used for agricultural means could be dramatically reduced to as little as 3.5 million acres without stacking crops(6), to 1.75 million acres using 2 stacks(6), to 700,000 acres using 5 stacks(6), to 350,000 acres using 10 stacks(6), etc. Using advanced aeroponic facilities and vertical farming, it is physically possible to feed an entire city of up to a million people using only 10 acres of land and 50 stacks(7) – if the population increases, simply add more vertical stacks. http://zeitnewsblog.blogspot.se/2011/03/meeting-human-needs-how-resource-based.html
To starve 1 billion people today is monstreous, Now one can argue using fancy words backed by nothing but the complexity of the structure of the word. But it still dont change that we have a 1 billion people starving because of our monetary system.
Sources are in the spoiler where you can read about how the system would operate to generate the human needs required and more.
On May 18 2012 20:08 Rassy wrote: Oh here comes the condenscending ad hominems to go with a logically flawed rebuttal. To be fair, this thread consists of about 50 pages worth of rebuttals against DeliciousVP
Lol . You realy think you refuted annything? American debating is so far from reality, You can debate and proof anny point if you better then your opponent, it has lost all connection with reality. Great ideas and decissions dont come from people debating, they come from people with visions. You can debate all you want, and its relativly easy to shut this idea down but dont think you did proove annything. People against this idea just dont get it. And i will now leave this thread with the happy feeling that in the far future history will proove delicious right. Every case has manny arguments and sides, wich side is more important is a matter of taste.
In a world that had inherit scarcity to the nesscities of life sure then a monetary system could be "acceptable", the second we started producing more food than there we people on the planet our monetary system was outdated.
And the second we had the technology to feed everyone on the planet the monetary system started becoming obsolete. Today we create food for 10 billion people but we are only 7 billion and we could easily increase our production to feed a 100 billion with less acres than we use today. + Show Spoiler +
According to the CIA World Factbook, the total land area of Earth is 148.94 million square kilometers, with 17.34 million square kilometers used for crop production. In 2007, the US produced approximately 11,000 kg of vegetables per acre. According to the Institute of Simplified Hydroponics, a group of impoverished children in India has developed a 20 square meter hydroponic garden that produces 730 kg/year(1). If these yields were scaled to a full acre, those yields could increase to ~147,000 kg/acre(2). Using orbitropism, increased CO2 concentrations in the air, and LED lighting, yields could theoretically increase to between ~800,000 to ~1,500,000 kg/acre(3). By adding fulvic acid and gibberellin, yields could increase further. Aeroponic variants have demonstrated an 80% increase in production on top of standard hydroponic yields. With these estimates, it is theoretically possible to produce between 1.8 to 3 million kg/acre(4) – between 180 to 300 times 2007 production, enough to feed a few thousand people every year – and with vertical farming, these yields could be increased linearly. If 4.2 billion acres(5) were required to produce 1.3 thousand kg of food for each living person in 2007, the amount of land used for agricultural means could be dramatically reduced to as little as 3.5 million acres without stacking crops(6), to 1.75 million acres using 2 stacks(6), to 700,000 acres using 5 stacks(6), to 350,000 acres using 10 stacks(6), etc. Using advanced aeroponic facilities and vertical farming, it is physically possible to feed an entire city of up to a million people using only 10 acres of land and 50 stacks(7) – if the population increases, simply add more vertical stacks. http://zeitnewsblog.blogspot.se/2011/03/meeting-human-needs-how-resource-based.html
To starve 1 billion people today is monstreous, Now one can argue using fancy words backed by nothing but the complexity of the structure of the word. But it still dont change that we have a 1 billion people starving because of our monetary system.
Sources are in the spoiler where you can read about how the system would operate to generate the human needs required and more.
People aren't starving because of the monetary system. Frankly, that's just a stupid thing to say.
The poorest countries, and the ones most vulnerable to famine, are the countries without democratic governments and without real market based economies.
"People aren't starving because of the monetary system. Frankly, that's just a stupid thing to say. The poorest countries, and the ones most vulnerable to famine, are the countries without democratic governments and without real market based economies."
Ok then explain to me why africa now is much worse of then it was in 1900, When there was arguably alot less monney/trading going on in africa. There are definatly people starving in africa wich would not have starved without the monetary system. We are plundering the continent, and this plundering is facilitated by monney and trade. This monney is corrupting the leaders in africa who no longer act in the interest of the people and it also has led to manny civil wars.
"People aren't starving because of the monetary system. Frankly, that's just a stupid thing to say. The poorest countries, and the ones most vulnerable to famine, are the countries without democratic governments and without real market based economies."
Ok then explain to me why africa now is much worse of then it was in 1900, When there was arguably alot less monney/trading going on in africa. There are definatly people starving in africa wich would not have starved without the monetary system. We are plundering the continent, and this plundering is facilitated by monney and trade. This monney is corrupting the leaders in africa who no longer act in the interest of the people and it also has led to manny civil wars.
It isn't worse than it was in 1900. Where are you getting your statistics? Everywhere in Africa you find higher life expectancy, higher standard of living, less infant mortality, etc. Africa is becoming the next big emerging market as Asian countries (once as poor as Africa) have developed and prospered into rich and middle income nations.
Countries in Africa that have decent governments and decent economic freedom are doing quite well. Even if we are talking about just sub-Saharan Africa then Mauritius, Gabon, Botswana and Equatorial Guinea have average income per persons as high as Russia.
The parts of Africa that are struggling are struggling for a variety of complicated reasons. You can't just point to money as some singular cause.
"People aren't starving because of the monetary system. Frankly, that's just a stupid thing to say. The poorest countries, and the ones most vulnerable to famine, are the countries without democratic governments and without real market based economies."
Ok then explain to me why africa now is much worse of then it was in 1900, When there was arguably alot less monney/trading going on in africa. There are definatly people starving in africa wich would not have starved without the monetary system. We are plundering the continent, and this plundering is facilitated by monney and trade. This monney is corrupting the leaders in africa who no longer act in the interest of the people and it also has led to manny civil wars.
The introduction of automated weapons and the lack of control set by a countries military/police force. The gun is a great equalizer when both sides of the fight have them. When a militia have guns but no one is protecting the civilians. You cant have prosperity in an area in anarchy.
It isn't worse than it was in 1900. Where are you getting your statistics? Everywhere in Africa you find higher life expectancy, higher standard of living, less infant mortality, etc. Africa is becoming the next big emerging market as Asian countries (once as poor as Africa) have developed and prospered into rich and middle income nations.
Countries in Africa that have decent governments and decent economic freedom are doing quite well. Even if we are talking about just sub-Saharan Africa then Mauritius, Gabon, Botswana and Equatorial Guinea have average income per persons as high as Russia.
The parts of Africa that are struggling are struggling for a variety of complicated reasons. You can't just point to money as some singular cause.
You are clueless as always, Its globalization thats killing the poor countries the fact taht their farmers are competing on a global market. This is all being brought up in the book "confessions of an economic hitman"
You can compare statistic anywhere and check unemployment poverty and starvation and compare it to what it was before globalization hit the country. There are more aspects to this of course but first you have to understand the underlying root causes.
Globalization causes.
-Currency devaulation that gives international companies the opporunity exploit the countries resources for a fraction of its worth. -Cuts to social programs usualy involved healthcare,education and social safety nets. -Privization of state infrastructure such as Water,power and transit systems allowing them to regulate and raise prices as it fits them. -Trade liberatzion destroys the local markets in the country because the farmers cant compete with the global transnational companies taking in their mass produced goods causing massive unemployment and makes the country more vulnerable to exoploitation and waves of starvation.
In time you will see it, it will become as clear as day 79% of people that dont support this are wrong but lets work it down 1% at a time.
It isn't worse than it was in 1900. Where are you getting your statistics? Everywhere in Africa you find higher life expectancy, higher standard of living, less infant mortality, etc. Africa is becoming the next big emerging market as Asian countries (once as poor as Africa) have developed and prospered into rich and middle income nations.
Countries in Africa that have decent governments and decent economic freedom are doing quite well. Even if we are talking about just sub-Saharan Africa then Mauritius, Gabon, Botswana and Equatorial Guinea have average income per persons as high as Russia.
The parts of Africa that are struggling are struggling for a variety of complicated reasons. You can't just point to money as some singular cause.
You can compare statistic anywhere and check unemployment poverty and starvation and compare it to what it was before globalization hit the country. There are more aspects to this of course but first you have to understand the underlying root causes.
Gapminder has good data, from legit sources. Check it out sometime you sound like you could use a few more facts and a bit less opinion. Just click on gapminder world and take a look at what has happened to the world over the past couple centuries.
It isn't worse than it was in 1900. Where are you getting your statistics? Everywhere in Africa you find higher life expectancy, higher standard of living, less infant mortality, etc. Africa is becoming the next big emerging market as Asian countries (once as poor as Africa) have developed and prospered into rich and middle income nations.
Countries in Africa that have decent governments and decent economic freedom are doing quite well. Even if we are talking about just sub-Saharan Africa then Mauritius, Gabon, Botswana and Equatorial Guinea have average income per persons as high as Russia.
The parts of Africa that are struggling are struggling for a variety of complicated reasons. You can't just point to money as some singular cause.
You are clueless as always, Its globalization thats killing the poor countries the fact taht their farmers are competing on a global market. This is all being brought up in the book "confessions of an economic hitman"
You can compare statistic anywhere and check unemployment poverty and starvation and compare it to what it was before globalization hit the country. There are more aspects to this of course but first you have to understand the underlying root causes.
Globalization causes.
-Currency devaulation that gives international companies the opporunity exploit the countries resources for a fraction of its worth. -Cuts to social programs usualy involved healthcare,education and social safety nets. -Privization of state infrastructure such as Water,power and transit systems allowing them to regulate and raise prices as it fits them. -Trade liberatzion destroys the local markets in the country because the farmers cant compete with the global transnational companies taking in their mass produced goods causing massive unemployment and makes the country more vulnerable to exoploitation and waves of starvation.
In time you will see it, it will become as clear as day 79% of people that dont support this are wrong but lets work it down 1% at a time.
Unless you consider China, or India, where, you know, half the world lives.
Life expectancy? Up. Access to water? Up. Infant mortality? Significantly down. Per Capita income and purchasing power? Significantly up. Hunger? Way down in China, down slightly in India.
Nothing you're saying bears out in any real life scenario.
Life expectancy? Up. Access to water? Up. Infant mortality? Significantly down. Per Capita income and purchasing power? Significantly up. Hunger? Way down in China, down slightly in India.
Nothing you're saying bears out in any real life scenario.
This has nothing to do with our monetary system but everything to do with social and technological process. and a RBE is nothing but a system that doesent stiffle technological and social progress in favour of traditional outdated beliefs that have no corrolation with reality. one such example is having a 1 billion people starve to death while we make enough food for 10 billion. Every second any of you guys refuse to see what is infront of you is another second of people starving to death.
And btw i woulden't use india as an example for high standards of living where 25 thousands die every year from rabid dogs roaming the streets.
The chinese are doing better even tho they are polluting 85% of their lakes and quickly depleting their water sources. but we can learn someone from the chinese like their spiritual group activities they have that seems to strength health considerable.
Gapminder has good data, from legit sources. Check it out sometime you sound like you could use a few more facts and a bit less opinion. Just click on gapminder world and take a look at what has happened to the world over the past couple centuries.
I like gapminder. And you should know that being able to read statistics and see the root causes and events unfolding is a skill one cannot have without alot of knowledge in alot of diffrent areas..
And you would do well to remember that iam the one showing studies,sources,statistic and technologies. You are the one who has nothing to base of but your opinion so take your own advice.
Life expectancy? Up. Access to water? Up. Infant mortality? Significantly down. Per Capita income and purchasing power? Significantly up. Hunger? Way down in China, down slightly in India.
Nothing you're saying bears out in any real life scenario.
This has nothing to do with our monetary system but everything to do with social and technological process. and a RBE is nothing but a system that doesent stiffle technological and social progress in favour of traditional outdated beliefs that have no corrolation with reality. one such example is having a 1 billion people starve to death while we make enough food for 10 billion. Every second any of you guys refuse to see what is infront of you is another second of people starving to death.
And btw i woulden't use india as an example for high standards of living where 25 thousands die every year from rabid dogs roaming the streets.
The chinese are doing better even tho they are polluting 85% of their lakes and quickly depleting their water sources. but we can learn someone from the chinese like their spiritual group activities they have that seems to strength health considerable.
Gapminder has good data, from legit sources. Check it out sometime you sound like you could use a few more facts and a bit less opinion. Just click on gapminder world and take a look at what has happened to the world over the past couple centuries.
I like gapminder. And you should know that being able to read statistics and see the root causes and events unfolding is a skill one cannot have without alot of knowledge in alot of diffrent areas..
And you would do well to remember that iam the one showing studies,sources,statistic and technologies. You are the one who has nothing to base of but your opinion so take your own advice.
LOL, I have to say something now. You haven't posted any studies, statistics or anything of the like. All you've done is regurgitate the same Zeitgeist videos again and again which provide none of the so called proof that you delusionally think is there.
Life expectancy? Up. Access to water? Up. Infant mortality? Significantly down. Per Capita income and purchasing power? Significantly up. Hunger? Way down in China, down slightly in India.
Nothing you're saying bears out in any real life scenario.
This has nothing to do with our monetary system but everything to do with social and technological process. and a RBE is nothing but a system that doesent stiffle technological and social progress in favour of traditional outdated beliefs that have no corrolation with reality. one such example is having a 1 billion people starve to death while we make enough food for 10 billion. Every second any of you guys refuse to see what is infront of you is another second of people starving to death.
Your claim was that globalization made these countries worse off. We disproved that with statistics. Now you want to change the topic to 'root causes.'
This has been your method throughout this entire thread. You state an opinion, we disprove it with facts, you then change the topic. It's an endless circle!
Your claim was that globalization made these countries worse off. We disproved that with statistics
Oh, you prooved it? So you sincerely believe that if you would be born randomly as a child in africa, that you are now better of then you where in 1900? If i had the choise, i would rather be born in africa in 1900 , then in the africa of 2012. Your statistical "evidence" is blinding you from reality. Statistics has this power. i know. Just answer that one question for yourself in all honesty.
you forgot one important statistic for the hapiness of people btw, but thats a luxery statistics gives you.
Civil wars:up
Also i dont believe the disposable income per captiva is higher then it was in 1900. It was nothing in 1900 but people could get their food on the local market and the local medicine man for healthcare (lol). Its still nothing now and people cant get their food, nor can they afford modern healthcare, and the medicine man has exitinct.
@ below: you make a good point, and i should maybe take precollonial times as counter example, wich would be like 1600. Though i would still prefer the africa of 1900 to the africa of today to live in, if i had the choise.
I am aware manny statistics show improvement in africa but i cant help thinking that thoose people are now on average worse off then they are in like 1600 or even 1900. There is a small group wich is alot better off, but the group wich is of worse has grown alot more. The population growth in africa i blame on globalisation and trade indeed.
Globalisation and trade have been bad for the african continent as a whole, i stand by this statement despite statistics. (as if there is sufficient and reliable data from 1900 to compare it with lol) There is also something like common sense and keeping your eyes open. People who genuinly believe that africa is now better of then it was 50, 100 or more years ago are fooling themselves. When in doubt we could always ask the africans what they think about it off course.
Life expectancy? Up. Access to water? Up. Infant mortality? Significantly down. Per Capita income and purchasing power? Significantly up. Hunger? Way down in China, down slightly in India.
Nothing you're saying bears out in any real life scenario.
This has nothing to do with our monetary system but everything to do with social and technological process. and a RBE is nothing but a system that doesent stiffle technological and social progress in favour of traditional outdated beliefs that have no corrolation with reality. one such example is having a 1 billion people starve to death while we make enough food for 10 billion. Every second any of you guys refuse to see what is infront of you is another second of people starving to death.
Your claim was that globalization made these countries worse off. We disproved that with statistics. Now you want to change the topic to 'root causes.'
This has been your method throughout this entire thread. You state an opinion, we disprove it with facts, you then change the topic. It's an endless circle!
Yeah, it became really apparent just then. He specifically said to look up the statistics on three, very specific, things. Starvation, poverty, and something else, not going to bother to look. But we looked up the statistics, and, turns out, all of those things are getting significantly better, especially now. Fewer people, on a percentage basis, starve today than before, and more people have access to jobs, wealth, and opportunity than ever before.
So he turned it, and says that India's a poor example because the entire country isn't up to first-world standards yet. It doesn't happen overnight, man.
It's a circle, he's making argument for the sake of argument, make an assertion, be shot down, change assertion to pick out one detail of the counter, begin anew. He's a hopeless troll with an ability to link to youtube. Vote we just let the thread die. He can drown in his own nonsense.
On May 25 2012 21:28 Rassy wrote: Your claim was that globalization made these countries worse off. We disproved that with statistics
Oh, you prooved it? So you sincerely believe that if you would be born randomly as a child in africa, that you are now better of then you where in 1900? If i had the choise, i would rather be born in africa in 1900 , then in the africa of 2012. Your statistical "evidence" is blinding you from reality. Statistics has this power. i know. Just answer that one question for yourself in all honesty.
you forgot one important statistic for the hapiness of people btw, but thats a luxery statistics gives you.
Civil wars:up
Also i dont believe the disposable income per captiva is higher then it was in 1900. It was nothing in 1900 but people could get their food on the local market and the local medicine man for healthcare (lol). Its still nothing now and people cant get their food, nor can they afford modern healthcare.
Sorry but this just isn't true. Pre-colonial times maybe it was, I'm not too well read in the subject. After, though, it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't in 1900. Furthermore there are a lot more people in Africa now than back then. Might want to question yourself how that came to be.
And are you blaming globalization for civil wars? Blame colonialism and bad advice to new governments. Africa also isn't one single country. There are countries which are worse off today, but they are few in number and again "globalization" doesn't seem to be the problem they're having.
statistics are made based on western standards. ofc they'll show what you need them to show.
who are you to say that those standards are what the african people should strive for?. those have value for the one doing the plundering not for the ones getting the shaft.
On May 14 2012 05:23 CharlieCheng wrote:Of course not! The whole system relies on the fact that somehow everything will be automated(he can't see how insane this sounds) and everyone will be content doing nothing all day!
Wow, you saying this shows your ignorance. There should be a shift to things being more automated, such as road works, driving, car creation, computer part creation which is slowly happening. Now those jobs will be replaced but that creates other jobs robot repair and upkeep which people can move to when there jobs get replaced which would also slowly get replaced until robots take care of themselves...
Hell even level design can be shifted to AI and has been done.
On May 14 2012 05:23 CharlieCheng wrote:EDIT: Sorry, I meant that you'll be able to do ANYTHING you want. But since you don't have an identity you won't gain any recognition for curing cancer. But since he knows people better then they know themselves, he knows that people will indeed just do things "for the greater good!"
I don't see any reason why you can't have an identity and recognition for doing things? You sound like a Thiest arguing that an Athiest has nothing to live for and that they must be depressed all the time when that is clearly not true.
On May 14 2012 05:23 CharlieCheng wrote:You won't freak out when you realize that you're not as intelligent as you once thought, even though you dreamed of being a Quantum Physicist. But don't worry, you can still pursue that goal because it won't matter, everything is automated! So just because you're pursuing a wasteful goal(Even though he talks about the elimination of waste over and over) it's fine because the robots will still be there.
Obviously to get to a fully automated system would be very difficult and for that to happen people have to do a lot. Remember when things are automated, they become more efficient such as garbage collecting, which can be automated right now to a point.
You would still have people going to parties, playing games, making games, creating art etc. Although some of that could get to a point where they are automated which would be fine. Resource collecting could become automated, especially in space.
People who are interested in cancer cure would be the only people researching it. If you would rather make video games you could do that as well. Or if you felt like it you could race cars. If you would rather play video games, do that.
Although I think we need the current system to achieve this kind of a system. But we can slowly eliminate small menial tasks and use the people that did those things to continue working in more productive fields.
Obviously there might have to be sacrifices for example, everyone gets limited power until a renewable energy source is found and harnessed to the degree that we need. It would change a lot though.
If that was possible, why can't I make a robot that does my job for me? It would be really nice if I sat in my home while a robot brought home the money... Oh wait... It's not feasible.
How will RBE drastically improve technology to that point?
Saying that people would work harder because there's no money involved is nonsense.
If we had a group of people today and gave them a reasonable amount of money monthly to live off of regardless of whether of they came to work or not, what will happen?
Even if they truly enjoy their work, do you think they'll be working HARDER rather thank going on a vacation to the alps with their family?
If we had the technology to make robots for everything we do, we would have done that a long time ago.
EPT
