Longcol Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Manipulating matter at the molecular level will mean that scarcity will become a thing of the past and it will render it impossible to evaluate the price of anything. Really? Won't there be a trade off between the energy required to transform one element / molecule into another and say the energy used to manafacture a car - or the production of food? Or are we back to some sort of "free energy" idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Well no not commercially, it has been done for research purposes. And any element the process is the same, but you wanted examples Gold & Platinum. I was just correcting you when you said "Nobody has found a way yet", they have, it just isn't viable economically to do so. Who knows. But if it does become viable it will cause the collapse of the gold market, or any other precious metal really. So the constraint is the amount of energy needed ( as well as the plant / buildings needed to do this on a commercial scale and all the safety factors needed etc)? And the opportunity cost is producing something more needed with the same amount of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 So the constraint is the amount of energy needed ( as well as the plant / buildings needed to do this on a commercial scale and all the safety factors needed etc)?[/Quote] Pretty much. And the opportunity cost is producing something more needed with the same amount of energy. Or if technologically advances alow, less energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 First of all, its not foolproof, nothing is. Second, doing one doesn't exclude the other. Almost 1500 views on this thread already, so every little helps. I think we'd gathered it isn't foolproof. I have yet to see any evidence that proponents of this and similar "theories" do any serious lobbying (I don't class you tube as serious lobbying). Of the 1500 views you have no evidence how many agree with your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Pretty much. Or if technologically advances alow, less energy. Which technoligical advances would these be - are they anywhere near production or are we just talking theoretical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Which technoligical advances would these be - are they anywhere near production or are we just talking theoretical? Well fusion isn't theorictical, there you go energy source for the particle acclerator, pretty sure there would need to be others too. And if you are going to ask me what they are, or could be I don't know, funnily enough I don't have the ability to predict the future. Have you not noticed I have qualified my answer with an 'if' each time? "Or if technologically advances alow, less energy." "Who knows. But if it does become viable" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Well fusion isn't theorictical, there you go energy source for the particle acclerator, pretty sure there would need to be others too. And if you are going to ask me what they are, or could be I don't know, funnily enough I don't have the ability to predict the future. Have you not noticed I have qualified my answer with an 'if' each time? "Or if technologically advances alow, less energy." "Who knows. But if it does become viable" That's OK - just checking out your knowledge on the subject - I have the same lack of ability to predict the future - I think that makes us both honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 You said you didn't have a problem with the left wing. I never said you did, I said Jim did- that's what I was referring to. The only feasible way to remove the capitalist system is for most people to stop believing in it, only then will the overall system change. I don't have a problem with the people only their ideals. Socialism doesn't work. Never has. Never will. The issue I have is that despite all the evidence, all the history and all the rhetoric people of the left still think they have something to offer. They don't. Socialism is an ideal that looks great written down on paper in endless books and debated ad nauseam by people with no practical skills. Everyone is equal, share, community etc etc. We've heard it all a zillion times. But, when it comes down to it George Orwell was right. But, what really gets me going is that despite all the evidence of failure of socialism socially, economically and politically the good people of the left persist with this ludicrous ideal. What's worse is because there is no evidence of success they have to resort to lies, twisting history and abusing anyone who doesn't agree with them. I always I know when I've made a good point on SF because I get abused. The left, in general, are a bunch of mindless thugs wedded to a philosophy that doesn't work so they resort to bullying, intimidation and violence to force their views on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I don't have a problem with the people only their ideals. Socialism doesn't work. Never has. Never will. The issue I have is that despite all the evidence, all the history and all the rhetoric people of the left still think they have something to offer. They don't. Socialism is an ideal that looks great written down on paper in endless books and debated ad nauseam by people with no practical skills. Everyone is equal, share, community etc etc. We've heard it all a zillion times. But, when it comes down to it George Orwell was right. But, what really gets me going is that despite all the evidence of failure of socialism socially, economically and politically the good people of the left persist with this ludicrous ideal. What's worse is because there is no evidence of success they have to resort to lies, twisting history and abusing anyone who doesn't agree with them. I always I know when I've made a good point on SF because I get abused. The left, in general, are a bunch of mindless thugs wedded to a philosophy that doesn't work so they resort to bullying, intimidation and violence to force their views on others. Are you still here? I think you really need to look-up Socialism before you start detracting from it. Why are you scared of Socialism anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Any anecdotal evidence you might garner from my having kids or not isn't really proof that corruption and greed are genetically predetermined. There are countless studies to support my own anecdotal experience. Go Google and you'll see for yourself. Here's one I picked at random from the first page of my Google search... http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/biology.html Greed is covered. Corruption is a tactic used by the greedy. You will no doubt argue that nurture (the right 'system') can suppress the animal inside. To an extent you are right but only given the right conditions and conditions change. And when conditions change for the worse the animal is quick to reappear... the evidence is overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.