IAchilleasI Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 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). I don't think that bribing a bunch of politicians is really going to get us anywhere. Regular people have a much bigger influence. Remember that change has never come from the establishment, because change is against its interests. Of the 1500 views you have no evidence how many agree with your views. Nope, none. But then again, I wan't claiming support from 1500 people, only their exposure to the issues I raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 16, 2012 Author 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. Just for clarification, I'm not arguing socialism is the way forward. Cavegirl only used it as a reference point in that a resource based economy shares some attributes of socialism. But they differ in several major aspects. Socialism does not focus it's efforts on eliminating scarcity. Instead it kind of assumes that there is enough for everyone. Socialism fights for the rights of the working class, when we want to eliminate social stratification. Socialism doesn't address the fact that people will not be inclined to work nasty jobs and therefore does not recognize the importance of automation. Socialism still uses money and this can and does get used as a tool to make sure that some people have more then others. Socialism does not utilize the scientific method. Decisions are still made by unqualified statesmen with half-assed opinions on any given subject rather then well educated experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 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. Self preservation is innate. Greed isn't. If an animal lived in a world of abundance, meaning there were enough resources to go around for everyone, what would be the purpose of hoarding everything for itself? Your link brings up the following examples: For example, in the Amazonian rain forest, an occasional tree dies and falls. This leaves an opening to the sun in the continuous canopy of foliage. Plants and trees race each other to grow into that opening. The winners in the race fill the hole; the losers die through lack of sunlight. (Attenborough, 1990) The greed for sunlight means life. Again, as for self-preservation and sex, greed is an instinctive reaction. When presented with resources, the instinct is to grab them, use them, take advantage of them. This isn't a conscious decision. An animal, when starving, wants more food; when thirsty, more water. If it means taking it from another animal, that's what it does if it can. But if I were to cast enough artificial light at the forest, the plants and trees would have no reason to race to fill the hole. If I were to provide enough food and drink to an animal to sustain it from the beginning of its life, it wouldn't even know what starvation is. When presented with resources, the instinct is to grab them because in your whole life you have lived in scarcity. In other words, behavioural patterns are encouraged in an environment of scarcity. My point is that if we utilized science and technology to their fullest extent, we could create an abundance that would eliminate these patterns of behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I don't think that bribing a bunch of politicians is really going to get us anywhere. Regular people have a much bigger influence. Remember that change has never come from the establishment, because change is against its interests. Then lobby the Trade Unions, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, other campaigning groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 Then lobby the Trade Unions, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, other campaigning groups. Like I said, we can and do both at the same time. On a side note, I've noticed some of my posts have disappeared and it makes the conversation look very disjointed. For example, in post #153 Spooky3 is quoting me, but the actual post of mine that contains that quote has vanished. Is it a glitch or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Nope, none. But then again, I wan't claiming support from 1500 people, only their exposure to the issues I raise. Way to go! Only another 500 or so views and you attract as much attentions as other world changing subjects such as "Home Brew Guinness", "Training Hamsters" and "Are You Prepared For The Zombie Apocalypse". http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=11&sort=views&order=desc&daysprune=-1&page=85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 Way to go! Only another 500 or so views and you attract as much attentions as other world changing subjects such as "Home Brew Guinness", "Training Hamsters" and "Are You Prepared For The Zombie Apocalypse". http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=11&sort=views&order=desc&daysprune=-1&page=85 Well that says more about society than it does about my ideas. The fact that the internet contains more or less the breadth of human knowledge and yet people would rather watch cat and baby videos on youtube is no fault of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Self preservation is innate. Greed isn't. If an animal lived in a world of abundance, meaning there were enough resources to go around for everyone, what would be the purpose of hoarding everything for itself? Your link brings up the following examples: But if I were to cast enough artificial light at the forest, the plants and trees would have no reason to race to fill the hole. If I were to provide enough food and drink to an animal to sustain it from the beginning of its life, it wouldn't even know what starvation is. When presented with resources, the instinct is to grab them because in your whole life you have lived in scarcity. In other words, behavioural patterns are encouraged in an environment of scarcity. My point is that if we utilized science and technology to their fullest extent, we could create an abundance that would eliminate these patterns of behaviour. But what comes first the chicken or the egg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 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)? And the opportunity cost is producing something more needed with the same amount of energy. My way, no, virtually no energy is required, it's like picking apples from trees. Which technoligical advances would these be - are they anywhere near production or are we just talking theoretical? Have a look at the properties of graphene, already available, you can even make some yourself with a pencil and some sticky tape... One of the main issues is weight, everything will be too light, because of it's atomic structure materials can be the most efficient possible, therefore no wastage is actually required, we'll just add that for ballast. http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5131444734972913988 A 1m2 hammock weighing 1 microgram. Also see 6m to 7m (ish) P.S. I'll move this that way --> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Self preservation is innate. Greed isn't. If an animal lived in a world of abundance, meaning there were enough resources to go around for everyone, what would be the purpose of hoarding everything for itself? Your link brings up the following examples: But if I were to cast enough artificial light at the forest, the plants and trees would have no reason to race to fill the hole. If I were to provide enough food and drink to an animal to sustain it from the beginning of its life, it wouldn't even know what starvation is. When presented with resources, the instinct is to grab them because in your whole life you have lived in scarcity. In other words, behavioural patterns are encouraged in an environment of scarcity. My point is that if we utilized science and technology to their fullest extent, we could create an abundance that would eliminate these patterns of behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.