It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: undo
Such systems, along with a plethora of others, are already in the works.
Distribution is tricky, not necessarily the design/manufacturing.
originally posted by: ArcAngel
I truly believe this is inconsequential. Think about it for a moment.
There's over 7.2 billion people in this world (www.worldometers.info...) and it's growing every second.
They all need food and water and a way to provide this for their families and themselves (I am in there too). We all need energy for the trucks, planes and rail that deliver this food to us. If that stopped, our world would literally change in 3 days. That's when the food runs out.
At current consumption, we have 53 years of oil left (www.usatoday.com...).
An excellent blog that explains far better than I could with data states:
that the use of fossil fuels since 1820 has allowed GDP to rise faster than population, for pretty much the first time. Prior to 1820, the vast majority of world GDP growth was absorbed by population growth.
If we compare the later time periods to the earlier ones, Figure 11 shows a pattern of increasing growth rates for both population and GDP. We know that in the 1000 to 1500 and 1500 to 1820 time periods, early energy sources (peat moss, water power, wind power, animal labor) became more widespread. These changes no doubt contributed to the rising growth rates. The biggest change, however, came with the addition of fossil fuels, in the period after 1820.
Looking back, the question seems to become: How many people can the world support, at what standard of living, with a given quantity of fuel? If our per capita energy consumption drops to the level it was in 1905, can we realistically expect to have robust international trade, and will other systems hold together? While it is easy to make estimates that make the transition sound easy, when a person looks at the historical data, making the transition to using less fuel looks quite difficult, even in a best-case scenario. One thing is clear: It is very difficult to keep up with rising world population.
So, my point is that the wealth distribution world wide won't matter much for anyone's family, rich or poor in a generation or two. We are all in that boat and it's about to capsize.
Now, with that perspective, what would you do if you were part of the 1% or say the 0.01%. Read the Georgia Guidestones again and see what's coming. There's a few ways to correct an inequality. One would be to make both terms equal (share the wealth). But that won't happen. Human nature will make sure of that. Or eliminate one of the terms. This seems to be mankind's preferred method for survival.
How would this happen? Or could it even happen? Honeastly I don't know for sure. But I wouldn't be surprised. Remember this from 2009?
Czech newspapers are questioning if the shocking discovery of vaccines contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus which were distributed to 18 countries by the American company Baxter were part of a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic.
This would be one way.
So, there won't be any pitchforks in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd world countries, there will be "manageable populations"
originally posted by: Snarl
Too bad he doesn't know the date of the ball. I'm just about ready to dance.
RON UNZ: Well, I think there are very strong liberal and conservative reasons for raising the minimum wage. Right now, $250 billion a year in social welfare spending goes to workers who can't survive on their paychecks. What we're talking about is a massive system of hidden government subsidies for these low-wage employers where they can shift the costs of the workforce over to the taxpayer. I think businesses should stand on their own two feet and have to pay their workers instead of forcing the taxpayers to make up the difference.
NEARY: Now, do you think that people who, let's say, they have two kids, maybe they're living in a city like Los Angeles, do you think that they won't still need some government help?
UNZ: Well, certainly in some cases in expensive cities still need some help but much less help. On a minimum wage of $12 an hour, a couple - two full-time minimum wage workers - would earn $50,000 a year. That certainly doesn't make you affluent, it doesn't make you rich, but you can get by reasonably well on $50,000 a year.
originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
Many people automatically equate excessive wealth with corruption and greed, but it's the acts of the few that have given the wealthy a bad name. Bill gates, George Lucas and co have donated billions to charity and kudos must go to them.
Of course you have to be evil to be rich.