Originally posted by The great unknown
A. We were told that robots and computers would do the same thing (job losses etc) - employment changed, it was an upheavel, we survived.
B. cheaper transport and energy would mean less working hours needed to pay for cheaper goods and services.
C. Governments don't care about risking civilization, thats why we had MAD in the last century - they do care about power and control, though.
I think the real reason they don't disclose is probably because from day one the people with access to the facts have handled the whole 'others'
situation badly, are probably commited to a policy, and are probably still handling things badly. The usual reaction to that is to hide the truth,
whatever that may be, and when all else fails - lie.
A.) Robots and computers changed industries, not fundamental aspects of GLOBAL economic foundations.
You must account for the differnces of
inherent in these paradigm shifts. And remember, the introduction of both
of these technologies reulted in the loss of jobs in the
Certainly, as is evident in the US auto industry, the introduction of robotics has left many of these jobs yet to be replaced. Imagine what the
elimination oil as a fuel would do, the number of industr-ies
, (plural) that would either be diminished (ie.; petro-chemical processing) or
eliminated entirely (ie., road-building, airport opertaions)on a GLOBAL scale!
B.) Cheaper transport and energy would mean fewer working hours needed to pay for goods and services; wouldn't it also, therefore mean Fewer
Workers Needed to provide those goods and services?
Afterall, why Pay
some one to do something that doesn't need to be done?
The new anti-grav "trucking company" saves money on road taxes because its anti-grav "trucks" no longer need to use the roads; so why would the
gov't still build roads? Except that now thousands of people who used to design and build roads, and the folks who made the materials that made the
roads, are now out of jobs.
And since unemployed people buy fewer of the products the trucking company ships, they have less to ship, and so they end up loosing money!
C.) Governments don't care about civilization...Dude, Governments ARE
Civilization! You cannot have one without the other! Even down to the
nuclear family unit, there exists a decision-making heirarchy intended to establish action/policy. Like it or not, That's a form of
To claim that "governments don't care about risking civilization", and then to claim that [governments] do
"care about power and control",
is contradictory: a government's "power and control" is derived from the civilization from which it arises. If the civilization is destroyed,
obviously, the government, along with its power and control, is destroyed as well.
BTW, the fact that we are here, now, and able to debate this topic is a decent arguement for the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); no
matter that basis of the policy was frighteningly surreal. As insane as it was, MAD seems to have kept mankind from anihilating itself.
As to my actually being a "Dis-info Agent", I must say that I am indeed flattered!
It is said that to truly know thy oppenent, one must be able to think like one's oppenent. Perhaps, on this point, I have succeeded.
The fact is that I truly hope that there is "Life out There" and that "They" have indeed been visiting us. I hope that they continue to do so,
and that I may one day get to meet them on peaceful terms.
I must also confess that I think/hope the recent incident at O'Hare International may be the turning point in this "High Strangeness".