Originally posted by NatureBoy
reply to post by Amaterasu
Wow i knew that by admitting i had skimmed through certain long winded and overly mawkish sections you would say i missed the point, i didn't expect it to be the main focus of EVERY line you wrote in reply. For the record i read #most# of it the first half word for word then i started scan reading and skipping pointless sections -sorry i've read A LOT of poor sci-fi i know which bits to skip. I still understood your arguments, plans and reasons.
Fair enough there, too. But that it was pretty clear to me that the idea of taking control of the planet's resources and creating abundance for ourselves, and that this is now possible, seemed to have passed over your head. Rather than discuss the content and ideas, you attacked style, and painted it all with a "loony sci fi" brush.
Pardon me if I failed to appreciate that.
Ok, the gender bias - I could deluge you in feminist essays, Grear has a good one which springs to mind but i won't bother i'll just assume you know that many women found it really insulting that all the major characters were men while women played only vapid bit parts in most text - You have done the same in reverse, but that's probably only because you're building yourself a ideal society, everyone in it is you (or a plastic Ken doll) which is the crux of the problem for me -the world is more complex than that, we aren't all you.
Eh? I thought I managed to portray an easy-going partner who is less interested in "taking control" and more into sharing the experience of life with one he loves. He took the lead several times.
*I* think you were LOOKING for something to malign as "gender-biased," and took a GENDERED PERSPECTIVE and called it "bias." The meat of what I present (which you may have missed in "skipping" what you deemed "pointless sections" (which I have to laugh over, because very little if anything in that had no point whatsoever)) is as neutral as it gets, referring to an Individual of Sentience and Its rights... Geez you are working hard to kill what I have created.
Why is that?
Sorrry that you took my post as an all out attack, it wasn't but i understand it was hard to take nicely, i did after all 'attack' your work - i undertand why you would tell me to 'shut up' so many times. I would shut up but then you keep spamming other threads demanding people read your book so i feel like you've almost invited me back to speak some more of my opinion.
Yes, you did attack my work.
No, I am not "demanding" anything of anybody. If you read my posts I suggest reading it (whith "please" either overt or implied) and always with a thank you.
But you're always welcome to discuss your opinion of the ideas offered. It's the nitpicking on the style, format, skill of writer, and making comments like "I know better!" when you clearly have failed to grasp enough to know in the first place, that I am less pleased with.
hehe do people tell each other to 'shut up' in utopia?
Yes, if the other is making claims on a work not fully digested that clearly demonstrate that they failed to grasp the worth and implications offered.
All those books i mentioned, indeed the main problem is Scarcity - however the focus of the society is to deal with scarcity, they all have a society designed to provide a horn of plenty but alas they all describe the problems within this... the stone in the hand in Logan's Run is often seen as a metaphore, it's about limiting our access to the share of resources -we each get a certain time in the sun but it's not enough for anyone, EVERYONE RUNS i.e. everyone trys to take more than the fair share...
Sure, but that is irrelevant to the fact that we have enough on this planet for everybody ten times over. That is irrelevant to the fact that we have the technology to maximise our resources, optimise transportation, take over all jobs no one wants, allowing us leisure to follow our bliss.
Now Star Trek has an actual solution to this, the federation gathers space rocks which provide mass amounts of power which can then be used to power the replicator which creates items people want, as long as you don't mess up everyone else life you can have what you want.
Yes, but the question is, how do we get there from here? And my book offers that solution.
This is why i said star trek was like your idea, but then you were being to defensive to see that -i understand.
Yah, I'm glad you understand why I might be defensive... I mean, you started out with "I hated it." Then proceeded to attack the superfluous case in which the ideas were offered and either pretending to not get it, or really not getting it - after stating you didn't read it all.
I suspect I had good reason to choose to be defensive.
Now Star Trek is about a billion years in the future,
To my understanding, they are more like 200 years in the future - at least the first one was. So this is untrue...
they are developing towards being a type 3 civ - WE, right back here in history are almost a type one -we don't have infinate power or replicators -thus we still have scarcity.
The Lizard Hearted DO have free energy (infinite power). We have a lot of tech that could lead to replicators going right now if they haven't alreaqdy perfected such a thing in black ops. I don't know where this "type 3 civ" came from, but I can say for sure that we have scarcity ONLY because the resources on this planet are managed with profit in mind, with intent to "cull our herds," and other interests counter to efficient distribution of what we have here.
In fact, we do not need replicators to have abundance. We need better resource management.
Your book covers how to install a surveillance society and puts it in individual hands, how to trade when money is ended and why you should only do things you love -however you never once mentioned who is making the flying ships, who gets the stuff from the ground, who makes the power to power them, etc, etc, etc.
Robots, and those who love to do that sort of thing. Was it that difficult to figure out? (And with Jump Doors, moving things anywhere becomes all the easier.)
Ok and finally, my point with the battleship wasn't that i was going to attack anyone i was just picking something you would find ugly, offensive, etc -hehe i considered a giant neon S&M Club in the shape of a penis too - the point being that not everyone is you, not everyone will coexist in peace - We have 6.8billion now, with no economic reasons for having less children and no reason not to plenty of people will find 'bliss' in having large litters, octomum will become dodecamom or centimother - Thus over population will rise massively (this happens in logans run, soylant green, etc and causes the main problems)
Over population is a myth. They place it out there so we will believe in the need for scarcity, so that they can control our money and us.
If you take every human and give them 1/4 acre in Australia, you'd still have a chunk of Australia left over. And granted not every plot would sustain a human, but a large number could. And then...
There's the whole rest of the world.
If you took the combined volume of all the humans on this planet and packed that into one of the small side canyons at the Grand Canyon, you would not fill that side canyon, having a fair amount of space left over.
If you want to throw penis parties with the informed willing, have at it. S&M, hey, even mutual kill-each-other parties - as long as the participants are informed and willing.
You say "not everyone will coexist in peace," and I suppose that is true - but the fact that we will hang with people we like severely reduces the number of issues arising. Add to that that we all may "witness" any issues, and the number of choices leading to issues will drop greatly.
In the end, you have lovers' quarrels, and other personal disputes, but no money-driven stuff (such as wars begun to enhance profit).
So a world with trillions of people all jostling for space and finding 'bliss' in big battleships, floating forests, steampunk submarines, etc -how is the ecosystem going to cope? Where does the power come from, Sol only sends us so much....
First, we would not be "jostling." (See above.)
Second, Sol, geothermal, kinetic wave energy and many other forms of energy extreaction methods already COULD support us abundantly - IF they were fully developed.
And third, you really didn't read the whole book. I'm guessing you deemed this answer as "unimportant."
In short, you have a nice vision for the distant future but that's not going to help us get there - we live in a type zero world and face type zero problems, if you're going to spam world solutions, how about helping us reach type one first? We need to sort out our governments, our greed and ourselves before we can move into floating zen gardens.
I'm buying the "type zero, type 3" stuff less and less. *I* believe we could accomplish in the near future what I describe.
And that you bring up "greed" also suggests that you really didn't read enough of my book. You are here, it would seem, to poo-poo on me, and what I bring.
Telling everyone that they can just stop worrying about scarcity won't help anyone, and filming everything that happens isn't as simple as you make it out -to start with we don't even have the tech for that yet, invasion of privacy, pedos, faked recordings (ALWAYS possible), criminals will know to shoot from behind, etc, etc, etc.
Out of characters to discuss this. I think I got enough in.
