Where're on the brink

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Russia is a dying animal--dying animals are often given to violent thrashing and loud noises.

Putin is not doing nearly enough to diversify Russia's economy or build strategic relationships that can make future Russia anything more than China's raw material warehouse. His successor will probably find himself in the same situation that Gorbachev found himself at the end of the Soviet Union.

Capitalists have shifted much of their manufacturing industry in China for cheap labor. End result is China is an emerging superpower and is expected to outgun USA economically very soon.

In addition, USA have a major debt problem; expenditure is higher then revenue generation. So what is the plan to overcome this issue?

Living standards of Americans also in decline, millions are unemployed and it is not easy for the people to shift back to simplicity after experiencing the taste of materialism and modernism.

Defense budget is also being reduced.

America doesn't have bright future either.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
True and that was on my mind. But ultimately that's related not to teh evul science so much as social issues already present along with factors such as low literacy rates, high government corruption, civil warfare/terrorism, and religious extremism.

Hate to be the one to agree with Astner here, but imo he's on the right track in this discussion with Digi, Bardock and Moose.

Science is a tool. By itself it isn't inherently anything, save enlightening on the matter of technological liberation, but under the influence of apathy its implications are useless.

The culprit is inaction, more than anything else. The time to start fresh was in the dawn of the industrial revolution of the early 1800s, by the final decade of the 1800s the beast of business driven industry had grown into an irreparable system.

The ideals of the Italian Renaissance had been abandoned for expedient application through the same scarcity driven business methods that resulted to the fall of Rome. A fall that allowed a lot of barbarism to ensue; Khan's Conquest in itself helped spread the Black Plague - which in my mind was the pivotal turning point in human history which allowed us to start fresh and try again. We ended up going full circle, to be "incorrectly conflated".

It's not all related, but from a humanistic observation of systems; it is a pattern, this destructive rebounding is stagnating - moreover it'd be a greater threat to modern life than was our way of handling things leading up to and in the dark ages.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You think that USA is doing good?

Capitalists have shifted much of their manufacturing industry in China for cheap labor. End result is China is an emerging superpower and is expected to outgun USA economically very soon.

In addition, USA have a major debt problem; expenditure is higher then revenue generation. So what is the plan to overcome this issue?

Living standards of Americans also in decline, millions are unemployed and it is not easy for the people to shift back to simplicity after experiencing the taste of materialism and modernism.

Defense budget is also being reduced.

America doesn't have bright future either.

It's a potentially cataclysmic concoction, and at the center of it is business, in its earliest form driven by scarcity not the abundance we currently possess, connecting all of these issues to the human-nature of business is not at all incorrect in my mind.

This issue isn't national, or exclusive to one nation. The wealthiest families and most powerful industries aren't exclusively American. Business is international.

Generally, the global populace has better living standards than ever before.

That's not the issue. The issue is everything crumbles beneath our feet and desperation pushes one government or militant nation or another to start something irreversible as we're still limited to the same old things, same old cities, same single planet - we're not world-war-proof suddenly and the rules of engagement we've set are conditional.

Strategic global thermal-nuclear warfare isn't even the biggest technological threat. That could end up sending us into the stone age.

There is a bigger technological threat in the form of nano-biology, that is genetic manipulation.

That means superior to natural bacteria, that means if it is lethal to natural terrestrial strands of bacteria as well as superior it will multiply faster, fill the oceans. Any water we can get will kill us all. We can't survive without water, and in that case we wouldn't be able to survive with it either.

there world doesn't have a bright future aslong as $ is the most important thing period

I agree with Astner, but I often do anways so we shouldn't be too surprised.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
there world doesn't have a bright future aslong as $ is the most important thing period

It's due to abundance, America was able to manufacture the most powerful air-force on the planet more cheaply than any other country because their grid was efficient enough.

One solar-powered retro-city, that doesn't intervene was the natural wild-life and without producing greenhouse gas emissions, could have such an energy and resource-efficient grid of transportation, manufacturing, and industry that nothing really costs more than a fraction of a penny for anyone. Interconnect the whole world with such grids and you make business obsolete and can focus on space age terraforming technologies of a similar nature.

Originally posted by Oneness
WWII proved there's a way to have a working societal infrastructure without the exchange of currency or goods.

It's due to abundance, America was able to manufacture the most powerful air-force on the planet more cheaply than any other country because their grid was efficient enough.

One solar-powered retro-city, that doesn't intervene was the natural wild-life and without producing greenhouse gas emissions, could have such an energy and resource-efficient grid of transportation, manufacturing, and industry that nothing really costs more than a fraction of a penny for anyone. Interconnect the whole world with such grids and you make business obsolete and can focus on space age terraforming technologies of a similar nature.

A major issue in the modern world is a disconnect between rich businesses and certain geographical locations. Long gone as the days when a factory had everything on site in 1 location which would mean that the owner felt a connection to a local community and use their wealth to give back to the people of that community public amenities that improved lives.

Now it's likely that the manufacturing plant in sited in the country with the cheapest labour, the director's offices in a modern western city and the head office a token property in some small island tax haven. It means there's no inclination for a company to have any loyalty to a community and will open and close factories in various places as the wind changes. Americans need only look to Detroit to see how your big 'American' businesses don't give a flying **** about America or Americans.

Originally posted by Astner
So yes, capitalism does hinder research.

I would like to argue the finer points of this statement.

Here's a fact:

The most honest and correct statistics are done by corporations. If you want to see how real statistics are done, work for a large corporation that conducts research on its own products. Sure, these products might fail but giving as accurate as possible statistics is paramount because deaths could directly result from bad statistics on new products. With deaths comes criminal and civil penalties, lawsuits, and loss of business. Sure, you may NEVER see these studies but they are as about as accurate as we can do as humans.

If you work for one of these organizations as a statistician, you'll do real statistics. Not the extremely biased and underhandedly funded public shit (Universities and Medical Institutions). Some of the best cutting edge science is coming from mega-corporations, right now. They are the ones currently driving research and scientific breakthroughs: not governments.

HOWEVER, I think you are at least partially correct in that governments should fund more research and fund the Military Industrial Complex less.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would like to argue the finer points of this statement.

Here's a fact:

The most honest and correct statistics are done by corporations. If you want to see how real statistics are done, work for a large corporation that conducts research on its own products. Sure, these products might fail but giving as accurate as possible statistics is paramount because deaths could directly result from bad statistics on new products. With deaths comes criminal and civil penalties, lawsuits, and loss of business. Sure, you may NEVER see these studies but they are as about as accurate as we can do as humans.

If you work for one of these organizations as a statistician, you'll do real statistics. Not the extremely biased and underhandedly funded public shit (Universities and Medical Institutions). Some of the best cutting edge science is coming from mega-corporations, right now. They are the ones currently driving research and scientific breakthroughs: not governments.

HOWEVER, I think you are at least partially correct in that governments should fund more research and fund the Military Industrial Complex less.

We NEED liberation from the monetary institution/economic parasitism/scarcity production/post-abundance scarcity/the run away greenhouse effect/a system that's toppling in on itself and limiting the space age.

Yet corporations are feeding something very, very destructive with things like IRAs and Private Equities.

Like I said in the OP, maybe we make it to the point where we've painted a picture of a scientific, money-less, abundant and self-sufficient energy grid before it's too late. But then again, maybe we don't.

Originally posted by Oneness
One solar-powered retro-city, that doesn't intervene was the natural wild-life and without producing greenhouse gas emissions, could have such an energy and resource-efficient grid of transportation, manufacturing, and industry that nothing really costs more than a fraction of a penny for anyone. Interconnect the whole world with such grids and you make business obsolete and can focus on space age terraforming technologies of a similar nature.

You've been watching too much Star Trek, son. I previously had not thought this possible.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've been watching too much Star Trek, son. I previously had not thought this not possible.

Of course it requires sustainable energy and a different kind of construction and transportation altogether. These developments are hindered by businesses in such a large way it's pathetic.

Originally posted by Oneness
You are referring to me inclusively, correct?

Mostly, yeah, though not entirely. If it makes you feel any better, I think everyone here - myself included - is out of their depth on this topic...whatever this topic is, exactly.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've been watching too much Star Trek, son. I previously had not thought this possible.

Heresy.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Heresy.

Originally posted by Oneness
There was a scientific demonstration of how that's not impossible IIRC wish I'd held onto the peer-reviewed article and its abstract.

Of course it requires sustainable energy and a different kind of construction and transportation altogether. These developments are hindered by businesses in such a large way it's pathetic.

Well in Star Trek, the reason why humanity came together and did away with things like "money" was because an alien (Vulcans) race made contact and humans realized they weren't alone in the galaxy.

So best conjure up some aliens if you want your utopia to come about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"If you run into an ******* in the morning, you ran into an *******. If you run into assholes all day, you're the *******."

I'd be in pain, if I ran into those all day. Look like caltrops.