Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief!

reply to post by 8311-XHT


Well I don't believe they did 9/11, just let it happen. And that other stuff they did last century and didn't understand what they were doing anyway. I don't think, however, you realize the statistical facts here. With 7 billion people on Earth and this supposed fusion power source easy to make, somebody WOULD make it, and somebody WOULD sacrifice their family for it if they wanted to. With such huge numbers, mind you that's nearly 7,000,000,000 people, somebody would be that heartless.

Don't make excuses for your own delusions. It doesn't exist. We already know of elecrto-magnetic generators that literally could go on and on for as long as the magnet lasts before it decays, this is close to free energy, and anyone can built it. We already know that resonance frequencies can alter the weave lengths of matter and change their identities in some cases. This basically is free energy, though it takes a lot of money to make. We already know of countless other, real, viable free energy sources from hydropower, to solar, to wind, to carbon-fiber nanotubes working with lenses and sunlight. You want to go believing in your fantasy, go right ahead. The rest of the world is going to do real things on real science.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by 8311-XHT

 

Well I don't believe they did 9/11, just let it happen. And that other stuff they did last century and didn't understand what they were doing anyway. I don't think, however, you realize the statistical facts here. With 7 billion people on Earth and this supposed fusion power source easy to make, somebody WOULD make it, and somebody WOULD sacrifice their family for it if they wanted to. With such huge numbers, mind you that's nearly 7,000,000,000 people, somebody would be that heartless.

Don't make excuses for your own delusions. It doesn't exist. We already know of elecrto-magnetic generators that literally could go on and on for as long as the magnet lasts before it decays, this is close to free energy, and anyone can built it. We already know that resonance frequencies can alter the weave lengths of matter and change their identities in some cases. This basically is free energy, though it takes a lot of money to make. We already know of countless other, real, viable free energy sources from hydropower, to solar, to wind, to carbon-fiber nanotubes working with lenses and sunlight. You want to go believing in your fantasy, go right ahead. The rest of the world is going to do real things on real science.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

We have been over this.. it's only EASY if you have massive amount of brain power and money to throw at the problem. It takes TIME to do that. I think this is part of the reason why the government rationalizes suppressing it.. because they feel they were ahead of the curve. It's a rationalization for maintaining the status quo. But if they released this tech it would be child's play to reverse engineer it..

Time will tell if I am right.. it is well documented that the government has kept secrets from us before - they kept stealth technology secret for at least 0 years.. they kept that stealth helicopter secret for who knws how long. And this isn't even really a secret because many have known it for a long time.. and Laviolette and Nick Cook have documented it all through history. It's just the details that have been held with an iron grip because our entire society would change if it was released.. to them that is opening Pandora's box. Look how religion suppressed scientific knowledge for so long. MKUltra is an example of somehting the government kept secret - they destroyed all the documentation - and it also is a perfect example of a technology they view too dangerous to even talk about..

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

...2

Here, read up on why your world will never work.

www.working-minds.com...

Oh, for crying out loud. Ayn Rand is hardly the source to explain things. She made some very unastute observations, claiming MONEY to, in essence, be God. She misses that fact that the LOVE of money creates all the evil in this world.

Her "John Galt" speech is hardly an explanation as to why abundance won't work - because, primarily, She is seeing the same scarcity paradigm the planet has been in for as long as We have history for being here. She is glorifying "industrialists" as if They are never sociopathic, and would never do hurtful things (like develop a rat poison to sweeten our foods, for example, and then pay off the people who might block its use) for mere profit.

She, however, is very wrong on a number of scores. She also did not have robots figured in, nor the Interweb, nor the plenum energy. She was not in a position to consider abundance.

So rather than pass off misguided fiction as any kind of "explanation," perhaps You can find studies or something.


EDIT to add: Abundance is simultaneously "service to Others" AND "service to Self." Ayn never saw that as possible.

reply to post by Amaterasu


amaturusu , good luck to you in your cause .I have followed some of your posts regarding your attempts on creating the van graff torsional energy generator and concept of planetarian party .good luck to you and your family's attempt for economic and energy freedom .

Secondly I would suggest you leave the USA and go to a place like Iceland or Greenland , much more freedom though cold is harsh and govt won't track what you do . these nations alongside Russia (leader in subatomic torsional energy technology) and are trully free in terms of economic freedom(Greenland,Iceland) ,Russia has a tendency to not allow commercial use of torsion devices as they could harm its oil and gas industry,but they do not threaten inventors with death like USA and the West .

Originally posted by USAisdevil
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

amaturusu , good luck to you in your cause .I have followed some of your posts regarding your attempts on creating the van graff torsional energy generator and concept of planetarian party .good luck to you and your family's attempt for economic and energy freedom .

Thank You so much. [smile]

Secondly I would suggest you leave the USA and go to a place like Iceland or Greenland , much more freedom though cold is harsh and govt won't track what you do . these nations alongside Russia (leader in subatomic torsional energy technology) and are trully free in terms of economic freedom(Greenland,Iceland) ,Russia has a tendency to not allow commercial use of torsion devices as they could harm its oil and gas industry,but they do not threaten inventors with death like USA and the West .

I would be THRILLED to do so. But living in poverty as We do, there are few options, and so managing a move anywhere is highly problematic. I would accept help as long as it was in any form but money from any who would get Us there, though. [grin] [wink]

And given free energy threatens the Globalists, I'm guessing one place is as good as another. The CIA has ways.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Oh I agree. You see what's by my username? Of course I disagree. But there is a difference between actual and ideal. You, and hell, me too, are idealists. But idealists never win. Rand was a practical person. And, although her claims would make you and me angry, she's right. Money is God in the world. That's not a good thing, it's just that that's the way the world works. Love of money is the source of many evils, but not THE source of evil. A world without money would have its own evils. Evil exists. It cannot be defeated by man, for evil is part of our evolutionary history. We simply call it survival of the fittest.

And not to be devil's advocate, but statistically speaking there are fewer psychopaths and the lot in the wealth than if you randomly took someone out of a crowed. And that rat poison, in non-american IE, normal portions, is not dangerous but for people like myself whom lack the protein sequences to digest it. It's a fundamental biological fact that Aspartame can be digested by most of the population and broken down into edible foods. But there are some who don't have the genes to do that, myself included. The fact that this minority cannot digest the food is no logical reason to not use it. Though if I had power, of course I would ban it because it's just not healthy period. But Americans eat a lot. Ergo, they get poisoned. It's kind of like with anything. Some people are allergic, some people are perfectly fine, and some people who are perfectly fine have so much of it they poison themselves from it.

Abundance is not good. It simply never was. A person really only needs a 100x100 square food plot of land, plumbing, food, and air to live, and a few books, fellow humans, and crafts to live happily. Everything is human greed. And like it or not, 7 billion people cannot live in a "anything I want I can have" attitude. Free energy doesn't change that fact, nor does a world without money, nor anything else you said.

The world will never have flying cars and floating cities. It has free energy right now in the form of magnetic, solar, wind, and hydro power sources. But nobody is doing anything about it. That's the fact. People don't care, evn when their salvation is right in front of them. People won't change if you love them, people won't change if you give them free energy, and people won't change if you make money nonexistence. They will still trade, fight, and hate. Want to change the world? Not to go all Christian on you, but I will. Only a leader who lives amongst his people without a home or a family will help the situation. You can suppress human hatred to a point that people don't kill and fight each other, but there's always that part of the brain that hates, and if you don't have that, then you've simply not lived to feel such hatred. Human greed can be suppressed so that people don't take beyond what they need, but there will always be some who take a little more. You just have to live with that and forgive them. You can give them knowledge, free energy, peace, and brotherhood, but young boys and girls will still fight by nature, and even though they will mature and grow out of it, it's still there, and must always be fought. The universal law of decay is true even in culture. And all cultures end. So that even if you could do these things and make the world a peaceful world where everyone's bellies are full and water is clean, and everyone's happy, within 3 generations something will go wrong, and something will decay, and people will fight. Thus there's only one thing you can do. Train leaders to do the same as you did and hold it back just enough, just that little but beyond, and things won't decay beyond manageable levels. However, the world will not sustain itself in brotherly love if you got it there. You can change the world and die happy knowing you did that, you cannot change the world permanently. And only the memory of your efforts will live on to inspire others, but the fight never ends, because we are human. You're floating cities would come crashing down, and the flying cars will run out of fuel, and they too will turn to rust, and man will take up sticks and stones to steal skilled craftsmen who can build them new ones, and then it starts all over again.

Once again, this is humanity. And people cannot be put to one mindset. You can just create a herd that lives the way you train them and pray to God they can manage between the exchanges of Shepard that lead them.


I, as an architect in training, am trying my best to motivate people. I can make houses that change culture, forums that open leaders to their people, etc etc. But I cannot do this alone. You want to help, go out and use your skills. But I know I'll die with the world in ruin. I'll be happy to be remembered in spirit for the things I tried to do.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Oh I agree. You see what's by my username? Of course I disagree. But there is a difference between actual and ideal. You, and hell, me too, are idealists. But idealists never win. Rand was a practical person. And, although her claims would make you and me angry, she's right. Money is God in the world. That's not a good thing, it's just that that's the way the world works. Love of money is the source of many evils, but not THE source of evil. A world without money would have its own evils. Evil exists. It cannot be defeated by man, for evil is part of our evolutionary history. We simply call it survival of the fittest.

I am unsure if You are familiar with "The root of all evil is the love of money..." And it turns out that the overwhelmingly largest motivation for evil is money. No, We cannot be rid of purely interpersonal issues. But We CAN get rid of the need for money. You say it's "just that that's the way the world works." I say it is NOT a requirement - given the tech We now possess. Between robots, the Interweb and plenum energy, Humans are now in a position to free Them from toil into high standards of living with freedom to follow Their bliss.

"Evil" cannot be without motivation. Without the motive to make money, what is left is motive to betterment - something most of Us carry. The motive to solve problems the BEST way, and not the cheapest/most profitable. The motive to create things that last and not break down to ensure future sales.

Just because something "has always been like that" does NOT follow that it MUST be that way, nor that it is the BEST way. We ARE capable of changing (before the car was invented, no One got anywhere at 65 miles an hour; but things changed...).

And not to be devil's advocate, but statistically speaking there are fewer psychopaths and the lot in the wealth than if you randomly took someone out of a crowed.

It turns out that in the CEO world there is a higher percentage of sociopaths than in the population at large. Isn't THAT scary?

And that rat poison, in non-american IE, normal portions, is not dangerous but for people like myself whom lack the protein sequences to digest it.

Are You really supporting Aspartame? Really!?!?! I think You're in error here.

aspartame.mercola.com...
organichealthadviser.com...

www.holisticmed.com...

This last is a list of fairly recent studies including this list:

Analysis Shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems With Aspartame
Aspartame Ingestion Causes Formaldehyde Accumulation in the Body
Aspartame and MSG Cause Painful Fibromyalgia Symptoms
Aspartame and Brain Tumors (Swedish Study)
Aspartame Causes Memory Loss
Aspartame and Lymphomas / Leukemias / Kidney & Peripheral Nerve Cancer
Aspartame and Weight Gain
Aspartame and Combined Toxicity from Formaldehyde & Excitotoxins
12 Environmental Health Experts Call for Aspartame Review and Possible Ban

I'm guessing You are incorrect in saying, "in non-american IE, normal portions, is not dangerous but for people like myself whom lack the protein sequences to digest it." Formaldehyde accumulation in the body...

It's a fundamental biological fact that Aspartame can be digested by most of the population and broken down into edible foods.

Or not.

But there are some who don't have the genes to do that, myself included. The fact that this minority cannot digest the food is no logical reason to not use it.

If that was the only issue, I'm sure this would be a correct statement. However, it is not.

Though if I had power, of course I would ban it because it's just not healthy period.

Yes, it's not healthy, the makers KNOW that, and the FDA - doing NOTHING to protect Us - knows as well.

But Americans eat a lot. Ergo, they get poisoned. It's kind of like with anything. Some people are allergic, some people are perfectly fine, and some people who are perfectly fine have so much of it they poison themselves from it.

I think You are not seeing the whole picture: virtually ALL people have SOME issue with it - whether it's a little or a lot. And now We have Neotame:

www.karinya.com...
www.quantumhealinghour.com...

All because they're cheap to make, offer huge profits, sicken the population (so They "need" pharmaceuticals), and kill (towards that reduction in population goal).

Abundance is not good. It simply never was. A person really only needs a 100x100 square food plot of land, plumbing, food, and air to live, and a few books, fellow humans, and crafts to live happily. Everything is human greed. And like it or not, 7 billion people cannot live in a "anything I want I can have" attitude. Free energy doesn't change that fact, nor does a world without money, nor anything else you said.

You seem to have a poor grasp of how much is on this planet v. how much Humans need. First... The ONLY scarcity is in energy. Period. Second, if You took every man, woman and child on this planet and gave them 1/4 acre on Australia (4% of land mass EXcluding Antarctica), there would still be a good chunk of Australia left over - and the whole rest of the world. If You took the volume of all Humans, You could pack it all in one side canyon of the Grand Canyon and still have room in that canyon left over.

So, in fact, there is PLENTY on this planet aside from energy (well, there's that, too, but We are not using it). We could feed Our present population ten times over. And if waste in the form of planned obsolescence were eliminated, the resources We have would spread even father.

The world will never have flying cars and floating cities.

Why do You say this? Given We have the tech to do it - in black ops.

It has free energy right now in the form of magnetic, solar, wind, and hydro power sources. But nobody is doing anything about it. That's the fact. People don't care, evn when their salvation is right in front of them.

So? We have other access to energy. But not scale-invariant, available anytime anywhere energy. And You're wrong that people don't care. Many, many DO care, but have no idea how to change things.

People won't change if you love them, people won't change if you give them free energy, and people won't change if you make money nonexistence. They will still trade, fight, and hate.

In abundance, trade is merely formality. It is not required. Have You read my novella, The Abundance Paradigm?

media.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look. (Why would They fight? Why would They hate? These are signs of scarcity...)

Want to change the world? Not to go all Christian on you, but I will. Only a leader who lives amongst his people without a home or a family will help the situation. You can suppress human hatred to a point that people don't kill and fight each other, but there's always that part of the brain that hates, and if you don't have that, then you've simply not lived to feel such hatred.

Hatred is a learned behavior. It is NOT inherent in the Human make-up. I am 54 and hate no One and nothing. I have my dislikes, but no hatred. Maybe You learned hatred and think it's something You were born with?

Human greed can be suppressed so that people don't take beyond what they need, but there will always be some who take a little more.

And in abundance, They can take more if They wish. "Greed" is meaningless in abundance.

You just have to live with that and forgive them.

Or change the system.

You can give them knowledge, free energy, peace, and brotherhood, but young boys and girls will still fight by nature, and even though they will mature and grow out of it, it's still there, and must always be fought.

Fight They might, but it won't be over material issues. And when They have matured, it is not "still there." That is the result of maturing - One rises above such things. Many may not mature, and still retain juvenile behaviors, but if One has matured, that retention is lost.

The universal law of decay is true even in culture. And all cultures end. So that even if you could do these things and make the world a peaceful world where everyone's bellies are full and water is clean, and everyone's happy, within 3 generations something will go wrong, and something will decay, and people will fight.

Really? And You know this how? With the "work ethic" supplanted with a Betterment Ethic, with the opportunity for each to become what gives Them bliss rather than having to learn a career and live with it whether happy or not? And what do You envision Them fighting over?

Thus there's only one thing you can do. Train leaders to do the same as you did and hold it back just enough, just that little but beyond, and things won't decay beyond manageable levels. However, the world will not sustain itself in brotherly love if you got it there. You can change the world and die happy knowing you did that, you cannot change the world permanently

Oh, but EVERY change is a permanent change. It may evolve beyond the point I would bring it to, but it won't revert. And it will be a whole hell of a lot healthier, conscientious, unified, and peaceful than it is now.

And only the memory of your efforts will live on to inspire others, but the fight never ends, because we are human. You're floating cities would come crashing down, and the flying cars will run out of fuel, and they too will turn to rust, and man will take up sticks and stones to steal skilled craftsmen who can build them new ones, and then it starts all over again.

Well... The cars can only run out of fuel if the universe itself dissipates. And, as today We build new to replace the old, so will We in the future. You make it sound as if it will immediately disintegrate. (And robots will build the new - with robots to repair the robots if need be.)

Once again, this is humanity. And people cannot be put to one mindset. You can just create a herd that lives the way you train them and pray to God they can manage between the exchanges of Shepard that lead them

No "training" involved. People don't need to learn how to have all They wish. People don't need to learn how to follow Their bliss And with money gone, only the three Laws (which are the foundation of EVERY society) are needed:

Do not willfully hurt or kill another Being

Do not willfully take or damage another Being's property

Do not willfully defraud another Being

No training needed at all.

I, as an architect in training, am trying my best to motivate people. I can make houses that change culture, forums that open leaders to their people, etc etc. But I cannot do this alone. You want to help, go out and use your skills. But I know I'll die with the world in ruin. I'll be happy to be remembered in spirit for the things I tried to do.

Oh, I AM using My skills. My ability to think, to grasp economics and sciences, to write coherently, to bring ideas to the fore that most have not thought of. (What else might I be doing?)

reply to post by Arken


Great thread S&F! I just started the same thread and some folks informed me of this one so I asked the mods to close mine. Thanks for getting this up!

Anyway it seems we are approaching a point where even main stream scientist will not be able to deny the progress being made and The NASA Chief apparently sees the writing on the wall. Still there is a a lot of political pressure to not tout Cold fusion as viable but the NASA Chief has finally overcome his fear saying cold fusion is not only real but most promising of emerging technologies, however he stopped short of saying the E-Cat was LENR (low emission nuclear reaction) .

Once this breaks out things will change rapidly but the current energy cartels will not go down without a fight!

reply to post by hawkiye


Thank you very much foor your words.

Sadly, I'm absolutely in agreement with you.

Something new is on the horizon but the dark forces they will fight before fall...

The knowledge by the mass of these new kinds of sources of energies is the key...

reply to post by Amaterasu


Honest truth is some men just want to watch the world burn. When I was younger I had dreams of this general who brought down the system. Was a man seeking to do what you said. Only he used violence to achieve it. He would barge into corporate head quarters, shoot the tops, take their plans, and burn the building down. He called it "nationalization for the greater good". But I as an observer could not deny I wanted him to do these things. He got people behind him, and nobody could touch him. Eventually, through it all, he lost site of why he was doing these things. By several years past, he was doing it just for the sake of consistency. He was doing it, because the act of theft felt good to him. By his actions the people had full bellies, bliss, and many other things. But the general effectively turned his dictatorship of America into a vampire that was sucking the world's blood for his own people. He very well could support the world and rule it all. But he just did not want to. He was a man doing all the right things, but doing it without care for those whom got in his way. He got rid of money, he got rid of hunger, of all the vices of society. He took down the world and its ways, but the world did not change because of it. And eventually, the world took him down, and all his people were killed by the world, and then the whole world had what he had made, a few decades later, the victors split into a civil war, because some wanted to use free energy to control revolt. The nation with unlimited power has unlimited "power". It wasn't that people could just build the same tech and be independent. It was that the government knew how to find where the tech was, EMP it or deactivate it, and effectively have a monopoly.

Now of course I don't consider dreams real. but if it my mind can postulate a possibility, then your perfect world is not secure.

In terms of sociopaths, no. Steven Colbert, of all people, had an author of a book on about a month ago. This was somebody who actually went to dictators and had a keen eye for who was a psychopath. His research claims that there are more of them in the general populace than the leaders of the world. perhaps, the correct terminology, is that they are higher up on the leadership scale Being so few they band together. I've no doubt Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were. Bush not so much. I think he was just too afraid to stick up to them. Ever see the movie Equilibrium? In there, a global dictatorship has invested into such people. They are people who can pick up on the emotional reality of those around them. It's kind of like that. Some have said I'm kind of good of picking it up too. I'm not so sure, because the people whom I do pick up on it are people like lady Gaga and the likes. Cultural leaders. Destroying my fellow youth. Anyway, look it up on the archives there. it was a good interview. If I find it later I'll send it your way.

I am not supporting aspartame. Read. I am allergic to it and I would rather it banned because in mass it is bad for you. I suffered a lot of nerve damage when I was a baby because of it. But learn some chemistry and you'll see it's not bad in small amounts. Now if you go and have the diet soda every day twice a day, you're killing yourself however. You can go and look up related species of chemicals yourself. our own brain tissue has similar species constructing it. Bare in mind, however, that just like Kuru and the like, a prion can do horrors to the human body, but we're not dealing with such things.

Aspertame is no logical choice when safe things are cheaper to make. I think of Sucralose and the lot. These are cheaper and healthier. And yet we don't go to them automatically. of course there's some money in the back rooms. But just look at the chemistry and learn some things about digestion. It's not dangerous if you're not allergic and you're healthy. That said, there's a variety of people with different effects with it. And As I have said, I don't trust it. I'm going on what I know about chemistry and break down. We will see in 20 years what heavy doses of it are like mentally. And the CEOs will be alive to be prosecuted, so I cannot honestly see why they would try to hide it.

If you gave them all that 1/4th plot of land of Australia with an extremely dense dense population. For example, the Earth's population can fit in Texas with a NYC density. But not everyone wants that. And people will disperse and spread out. It's what they want. It's their nature. They want to go out into the countryside. At least some, others prefer the city. But either way, humanity is spread out. And it's getting bigger. The world has enough to support it barely at 9 billion, and with vertical farms and other such available tech, probably some 14 billion. But we have already gone from 2 billion to 7 billion in half a century. This simply is not functioning. I am no fan of changing anything though. I believe people have a right to live as they wish, governments have the responsibility to suppling their demand. otherwise they shouldn't be trying to get involved with their lives.

energy is not the only problem. Energy is not a problem. The sun supplies all anyone really needs. Food is the problem, and there is not enough. We waste too much and eat too much. We need more space. Space farms or whatever you want, point is we need more farmland. Vertical farms can bolster the supply, but not enough to supply us. basically, we are a virus that needs a new host. We need more planets.

If we had the tech in black ops then the military wouldn't have spent 60 million dollars on a brand new chopper for a mission nobody was suppose to know about. We wouldn't be investing millions in new chopper blades that are silent. We wouldn't be investing millions into the m1a3 abrams, nor the the countless other programs the army is working on as it upgrades the military by 2014ish. There is no indication of any financing of such a project, and no evidence for such devices in practice. And a few ufo pictures is not enough in an era of photoshop and after effects. We need real plans, real proof, real science. There is none. Look at where the money goes and there you will see all the secrets of this country. There is nothing being invested in for such things. Most of the money is going into next generation guns, space planes, and vehicles. Not floating cars and cities.

You can build electromagnetic energy sources anywhere quite literally. Get yourself some magnets and align them right, and see how much longer the spin then alone. Magnets hold onto energy, rather than burn energy to run. Inputed energy is held onto to do work continuously. This is why its so efficient. nobody wants to really make anything though because, and myself included, I just couldn't be bothered.

Hatred is born with. Why do you think children cry when they see something new? They have no experience with it, and they cry. Fear and hatred lead into each other. Only when you have been taught that it is wrong do you stop. Where I grew up, I was taught not to fight. So I did not. But I did fight anyway because people were aggressive. This was not because of scarcity. This was because of us being two boys, and having nothing better to do. Having to prove yourself maybe? Idk. Is that scarcity? What's so scarce? Respect? maybe. Makes no sense to me. I am content with who I am. And then of course you get psychopaths, and they are a condition born that way. They don't even feel such things. They truly just love the feel of a fight. of winning.

The best example of fighting without need for anything has to be Egypt's coastal wars. There was nothing scarce. Egypt simply did not want neighbors who could compete with them. So they killed them before they could. There's other examples but I can't really recall. Though most fights and wars are over scarcity, it's not all things.


Oh wow. Please don't tell me you said they could take more if they wish. Allow me to explain what this leads to. When a person is given unlimited supply and told they can take however much they wish, they will. Then they will keep taking, and then they will get fat and have no life to live other than to die. It's not even that medical people could eliminate their fat and they would be healthy again. It's that a person, when treated like a dog, and yes that is what you are doing, will become a dog. Ultimately only a few in such a society are motivated by their own desire to do something with their lives. But the rest take what they want, fill themselves, and lose their humanity. They become slaves to suckling at the bosom of the hand that feeds. It's no that everyone would become this. It's that some would hate it. Some would see this and grow to hate what their fellow man has become.

I want to show you an example. It's a good video game from a year or so ago. It's simply not that everyone has what they need and want, it's that some people, by simple random chance, grow to dislike the fact that the people are no longer alive. They only go to get fed and laugh at something, and then die. By nothing but chance and chance alone, one child in millions will grow up motivated by his own desire to learn and become something, a self sufficient child. But he will see his fellow man more interested in food and laughs then knowledge, and want to end that. And it only takes that one. Here. These people find more or less a virtual heaven, and they end it. not because of greed, not because of scarcity. They came into this heaven from a dead world. This could be their peace, their joy, their bliss. One even wants it. But because their fellow man are not human anymore, one chooses to end it. Simply for freedom, not anything else. They are just consumers with bliss. Bliss is not the only goal in life. it can be a motivator for destruction.



It only takes one, just one person who disagrees. And do you honestly expect you will have all 100+ billion people agree? Not likely.

And that;s the problem. Your world IS perfect. It IS ideal. And therefore, it is impossible. That's being human.

How could this thread carry on this long when the thread and the article both misquoted what the Nasa Scientist was saying??

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Honest truth is some men just want to watch the world burn. When I was younger I had dreams of this general who brought down the system. Was a man seeking to do what you said. Only he used violence to achieve it. He would barge into corporate head quarters, shoot the tops, take their plans, and burn the building down. He called it "nationalization for the greater good". But I as an observer could not deny I wanted him to do these things. He got people behind him, and nobody could touch him. Eventually, through it all, he lost site of why he was doing these things. By several years past, he was doing it just for the sake of consistency. He was doing it, because the act of theft felt good to him. By his actions the people had full bellies, bliss, and many other things. But the general effectively turned his dictatorship of America into a vampire that was sucking the world's blood for his own people. He very well could support the world and rule it all. But he just did not want to. He was a man doing all the right things, but doing it without care for those whom got in his way. He got rid of money, he got rid of hunger, of all the vices of society. He took down the world and its ways, but the world did not change because of it. And eventually, the world took him down, and all his people were killed by the world, and then the whole world had what he had made, a few decades later, the victors split into a civil war, because some wanted to use free energy to control revolt. The nation with unlimited power has unlimited "power". It wasn't that people could just build the same tech and be independent. It was that the government knew how to find where the tech was, EMP it or deactivate it, and effectively have a monopoly.

Now of course I don't consider dreams real. but if it my mind can postulate a possibility, then your perfect world is not secure

NO world is "secure" lest We are vigilant. In Your story, however, You have one Person leading the change. In MY world... No One is leading, but We all have the goals. Spreading the Ideas I offer will allow Each to move in that direction as little or as much as any One might have the opportunity.

On top of that, with plenum energy flowing, the need for money will dissipate on its own. Standards of living will rise on their own. With the structure I offer, there will be a focus, a common goal.

You make it sound as if, because it might not be perfect, We should not try for it. However... It is VASTLY closer to "heaven" than what We presently have. Why would We refuse vastly better because it is not perfection?

In terms of sociopaths, no. Steven Colbert, of all people, had an author of a book on about a month ago. This was somebody who actually went to dictators and had a keen eye for who was a psychopath. His research claims that there are more of them in the general populace than the leaders of the world. perhaps, the correct terminology, is that they are higher up on the leadership scale Being so few they band together. I've no doubt Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were. Bush not so much. I think he was just too afraid to stick up to them.

Oh, Bush is just as much a sociopath as Rummy and the Dick. He is better at "playing dumb" and hiding his sociopathic nature. Be that as it may, We are NOT talking dictators. We are talking CEO's. And I believe the evaluation suggested that sociopathy is HIGHER amongst CEO's than the population at large. And it is not political puppets We need to look at to see the sociopathic spreading of poisons for profit - it is to Monsanto and Haliburton and Exxon and so forth. The puppets just grease the way.

I am not supporting aspartame. Read. I am allergic to it and I would rather it banned because in mass it is bad for you. I suffered a lot of nerve damage when I was a baby because of it. But learn some chemistry and you'll see it's not bad in small amounts. Now if you go and have the diet soda every day twice a day, you're killing yourself however. You can go and look up related species of chemicals yourself. our own brain tissue has similar species constructing it. Bare in mind, however, that just like Kuru and the like, a prion can do horrors to the human body, but we're not dealing with such things.

Except that there seems to be some evidence of cumulative damage - regardless of quantity. Even small amounts of formaldehyde in the body where it's not supposed to be creates damage.

Aspertame is no logical choice when safe things are cheaper to make. I think of Sucralose and the lot. These are cheaper and healthier.

Sucralose is not much better. (I know for Me, I get horrific stomach cramps.) The better sugar substitutes of course are natural - but therefore cannot be patented and so are ignored. Stevia (helps balance blood sugar, some evidence of cancer-fighting - though that is still preliminary), agave (does not mess with blood sugar), honey (many good minerals and compounds), maple syrup (good minerals and compounds).

And yet we don't go to them automatically. of course there's some money in the back rooms. But just look at the chemistry and learn some things about digestion. It's not dangerous if you're not allergic and you're healthy.

The research I have read says otherwise. Healthy systems are compromised, and though the symptoms may not be seen immediately, there is quite a bit of evidence that long-term consumption, even by those deemed "healthy" to begin with, leads to a deteriorating health situation.

That said, there's a variety of people with different effects with it. And As I have said, I don't trust it. I'm going on what I know about chemistry and break down. We will see in 20 years what heavy doses of it are like mentally. And the CEOs will be alive to be prosecuted, so I cannot honestly see why they would try to hide it.

Except... CEO's virtually NEVER are prosecuted. They slap fines on the corporations, but the CEO's walk scott-free.

If you gave them all that 1/4th plot of land of Australia with an extremely dense dense population. For example, the Earth's population can fit in Texas with a NYC density. But not everyone wants that. And people will disperse and spread out. It's what they want. It's their nature. They want to go out into the countryside. At least some, others prefer the city. But either way, humanity is spread out. And it's getting bigger. The world has enough to support it barely at 9 billion, and with vertical farms and other such available tech, probably some 14 billion. But we have already gone from 2 billion to 7 billion in half a century. This simply is not functioning. I am no fan of changing anything though. I believe people have a right to live as they wish, governments have the responsibility to suppling their demand. otherwise they shouldn't be trying to get involved with their lives.

I can assure you that the planet has plenty for three times (at least!) Our present population. Also, higher standards of living are associated with lower birth rates. It is the poor who have the greatest number of children per capita. By raising the standard of living for all, the birth rate will slow - and perhaps even go negative compared with deaths.

energy is not the only problem. Energy is not a problem. The sun supplies all anyone really needs. Food is the problem, and there is not enough.

There's PLENTY! We pay many farmers to NOT farm, and We distribute by profit and not need, leading to supermarkets throwing out hundreds of thousands of tons of food each month! If need were the factor We were catering to instead of profit, We would still have waste at Our present level of population - but much less, and all would be fed.

We waste too much and eat too much. We need more space. Space farms or whatever you want, point is we need more farmland. Vertical farms can bolster the supply, but not enough to supply us. basically, we are a virus that needs a new host. We need more planets.

No... Most of the waste has to do with distributing by profit and not need. We have plenty of room here for as much as ten times the present number.

If we had the tech in black ops then the military wouldn't have spent 60 million dollars on a brand new chopper for a mission nobody was suppose to know about. We wouldn't be investing millions in new chopper blades that are silent. We wouldn't be investing millions into the m1a3 abrams, nor the the countless other programs the army is working on as it upgrades the military by 2014ish.

I disagree. Spending, first of all, is directed by the corporations. If They want to hide this tech, They WILL spend money on projects that They can suck money from the government (Us) and use as "showcases." And They do want to hide this tech - because energy availability through extraction from the plenum is the BIGGEST threat They have. It would remove Them from power.

There is no indication of any financing of such a project, and no evidence for such devices in practice

Any work on electrogravitics is financed through black ops... And You KNOW We don't have THOSE balance sheets. So using a lack of an "indication of any financing of such a project" is naive at best. And with the evidence hidden and suppressed, One can hardly expect to find such evidence.

And a few ufo pictures is not enough in an era of photoshop and after effects. We need real plans, real proof, real science. There is none. Look at where the money goes and there you will see all the secrets of this country. There is nothing being invested in for such things. Most of the money is going into next generation guns, space planes, and vehicles. Not floating cars and cities.

Well, I beg to differ with You on the idea that UFO pictures are not enough. There have been plenty of cases that cannot be explained. (And much that is out there is to muddy the waters, to hide the valid footage, and lead One to believe ALL footage is faked. Look where the money goes? Which money? The above-board taxes We pay? Or the drug money the CIA gets? That is the prime funding of black ops - not to mention that trillions have been known to be lost and never found...

In fact, it is nearly impossible to "follow the money." For most there is no record anywhere.

You can build electromagnetic energy sources anywhere quite literally. Get yourself some magnets and align them right, and see how much longer the spin then alone. Magnets hold onto energy, rather than burn energy to run. Inputed energy is held onto to do work continuously. This is why its so efficient. nobody wants to really make anything though because, and myself included, I just couldn't be bothered.

Well, I do believe that there are ways to extract energy from the Earth's magnetic field, but I contemplate the drain that might cause. With plenum energy, perpetually renewing, there is no drain on the Earth.

Hatred is born with. Why do you think children cry when they see something new? They have no experience with it, and they cry.

Fear, I'll give You. Hatred? It is learned. No child "hates" gays - until They are TOLD there is something wrong with gays. They don't hate Blacks (or Puerto Ricans, or Chinese, or Mexicans, or [fill in the blank]) until They are TOLD there is something wrong. Take a group of very young children of all races and put Them together, and NONE dislikes another based on externals. They play together just fine.

Fear and hatred lead into each other.

Not necessarily. Hatred occurs most often from a generalization made from the behavior of Individuals. Fear most usually is overcome if there is no direct threat.

Only when you have been taught that it is wrong do you stop.

Only when You have been taught that some group is bad and should be hated do You begin with hatred.

Where I grew up, I was taught not to fight. So I did not. But I did fight anyway because people were aggressive. This was not because of scarcity. This was because of us being two boys, and having nothing better to do. Having to prove yourself maybe? Idk.

There is a far cry from tousling with boys to hating others as a group. The posing of youth is NOT the persistent hatred of a biggot.

Is that scarcity?

No, the momentary skirmishes of youth are not scarcity-related. War, however, IS. And it is the war suppliers who instigate war that They might profit. All major wars of Our meager history have been propelled into being by the war suppliers. From Reichstag to Gulf of Tonkin to 9/11 (which has given Us now MANY wars), it has all been created to prompt war that the suppliers might profit.

What's so scarce? Respect? maybe. Makes no sense to me. I am content with who I am. And then of course you get psychopaths, and they are a condition born that way. They don't even feel such things. They truly just love the feel of a fight. of winning.

Psychopaths are few and far between. Sociopaths are much more common. And as a corporation exec, sociopaths can be counted on to hide cures, and sicken populations so as to make butt-loads of profit off pharmaceuticals, create wars to profit suppliers, and other ills We see today.

The best example of fighting without need for anything has to be Egypt's coastal wars. There was nothing scarce. Egypt simply did not want neighbors who could compete with them. So they killed them before they could. There's other examples but I can't really recall. Though most fights and wars are over scarcity, it's not all things.

If it was "competition" They were out to eliminate, I'm guessing money was involved... Yeah, I'm guessing that with the need for money dissipating, these sorts of things will decrease radically.

Oh wow. Please don't tell me you said they could take more if they wish.

I did, and I reiterate: If They wish, They may have all They can take.

Allow me to explain what this leads to. When a person is given unlimited supply and told they can take however much they wish, they will. Then they will keep taking, and then they will get fat and have no life to live other than to die.

Hmmm.... I'm guessing that might be true of You, but when I place Myself in that position, I find that I WOULDN'T keep taking... Tomatoes, for example... I wouldn't take more than I reasonably expected to use. Why would I? If I knew that should I have a surprise visit of the whole extended family I could take what will feed Them at that time? I wouldn't go taking beds and chairs and houses (can only be there to protect one at a time, anyway). I wouldn't take cars and motorcycles and whatever. I would take what would make Me comfortable.

And I wouldn't get fat, either. I would travel. I would help in excavations (this presuming My joint issues are cured...). I would raise My daughter, doing things SHE likes. I would write. I would offer advice. And I would work to solve problems. You seem to think Humans are incapable of finding bliss in creative and betterment-oriented endeavors. I'm here to tell You PLENTY of people love to build and program robots. PLENTY of people love to solve problems. Plenty of people want to find cures. Plenty of people want to entertain. Fame, respect, fandom, rather than fortune will define the condition of "rich."

It's not even that medical people could eliminate their fat and they would be healthy again. It's that a person, when treated like a dog, and yes that is what you are doing, will become a dog.

WHAT!?!?!?!?! Like a DOG!?!?!?! No, no, no. Like a valued God Creator as Each Conscious Being is. Like an eagle in the wild, free withing three Laws. Three very simple Laws. You could not have read my work if You have seen "doghood" in allowing Humans richness and freedom. And I don't even "treat" Them as anything. It is up to Each to define Humeself. ("Hume" being the genderless pronoun for all Humans.)

Maybe You should read The Abundance Paradigm. Seriously. You are so off the mark with the "dog" comment...I KNOW You have not done so:

media.abovetopsecret.com...

Ultimately only a few in such a society are motivated by their own desire to do something with their lives.

You're kidding, right? Virtually ALL of Us are motivated. Also, virtually ALL of Us have not had the opportunity to do the things that give Us bliss. And so We stagnate in the pit of scarcity. I can assure You, I can tell you stories (My own included) that make it clear that just because One has the motivation does NOT follow that the luck of the draw will pay any attention. Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to get a good picture of just how much success is bound to the luck of the draw.

But the rest take what they want, fill themselves, and lose their humanity.

Oh, good grief. Humanity is lost when One chooses poverty over richness for virtually all of Humanity. Humans are not Humans only when they are enslaved and hungry. Humans are beautiful, creative, betterment-oriented Beings. Money and its attendant problems creates pens and stockyards, stifling Human betterment, promoting the growth of evil through the love of money.

You make it sound as if, though the RICH can handle being rich, the POOR cannot. And That is just plain BS.

They become slaves to suckling at the bosom of the hand that feeds.

No... They are FREED of slavery into the opportunities that presently exist for only the lucky few who are rich and can pursue Their bliss. And who would They be "slaving" for as They live life as today's elite live?

It's no that everyone would become this. It's that some would hate it. Some would see this and grow to hate what their fellow man has become.

Oh, I doubt that very much. They would be too busy finding Their own bliss. Too busy partaking of all the advancements no longer suppressed for profit. Too busy enjoying Their time on this planet as Each is also accorded. Who would hate that?

I want to show you an example. It's a good video game from a year or so ago. It's simply not that everyone has what they need and want, it's that some people, by simple random chance, grow to dislike the fact that the people are no longer alive.

You are assuming that living as the elite do is a lack of life...I guess... Sure, if people are locked into jobs They hate, life is severely curtailed. I do believe that's how it is now. I aim to change that such that We all have all the opportunity in the world.

They only go to get fed and laugh at something, and then die

Well, if after having all opportunity, They choose that... No skin off anyOne else's nose. Let 'em. But I think there will be a severe dearth of such individuals.

By nothing but chance and chance alone, one child in millions will grow up motivated by his own desire to learn and become something, a self sufficient child.

Wrong. By chance and chance alone, one Child in millions is born with the OPPORTUNITY to find an outlet for Hume's motivations. When there are no opportunities, all the motivation in the universe will not help. And in scarcity, most will have Their motivations thwarted.

But he will see his fellow man more interested in food and laughs then knowledge, and want to end that.

What's it to Hume if Others choose differently with Their opportunities - as long as none of the three Laws are broken?

And it only takes that one. Here. These people find more or less a virtual heaven, and they end it. not because of greed, not because of scarcity. They came into this heaven from a dead world. This could be their peace, their joy, their bliss. One even wants it. But because their fellow man are not human anymore, one chooses to end it. Simply for freedom, not anything else. They are just consumers with bliss. Bliss is not the only goal in life. it can be a motivator for destruction

LOL! My dear, are You really trying to tell Me I should look to fiction to see how it all works? This is not addressing abundance, opportunity, enthusiasm, web governance, and no money/power/energy motives, no control by One over anOther.

It only takes one, just one person who disagrees.

No it doesn't. It only takes the tipping point for it to roll into everyOne's lives, and a fair majority to keep it in place. One Person is just that and will be mostly ignored. And what would motivate one Person? "I can have all I want and do whatever brings ME bliss - but I would rather ensure that OTHERS cannot!" Hmmmm. I doubt it.

And do you honestly expect you will have all 100+ billion people agree? Not likely.

Um... It's only about 7 billion, and They don't have to "agree." Release the plenum energy extraction and They can stay as They are or live more richly. Their choice. They will find that They can afford more. And then whatever They want. And then - "affording" things will be ancient history.

And that;s the problem. Your world IS perfect. It IS ideal. And therefore, it is impossible. That's being human.

No. There is no such thing as "perfect." However... It is a whole hell of a lot better for most.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Dear god your ramblings are delusional. How do you manage to plug your work in every thread without violating the T&C... I'm curious.

On your topic: Something being 'classified' does not mean that it works. It means that in theory, (if it did work) the government didn't wan't the information be used in other parts of the world.

Your dad telling you stories could have stopped because you got older, not because there was any validity to it, just as Santa Clause is usually phased out from a child's psyche.

On topic of the thread: The NASA scientist was taken out of context. Hardly enough to make 6 pages of delusion out of. Claiming that every rumor under the sun is real.

Just a friendly reminder to folks; these kinds of threads tend to attract disrupters, trolls, and sock puppets who have nothing constructive to contribute. They tend to posit thier criticisms circularly ignoring any evidence presented and just repeating thier argument over and over. DON'T FEED THEM OR ARGUE WITH THEM it just dominates and ultimately derails the thread which is thier goal.

Focus on the topic at hand which is the Nasa Chief essentially saying that cold fusion is the most promising emerging technology and confirming the tests run so far on the E-cat. While he stops short of calling the E-Cat LENR he is surely not wanting to rock the boat to much too fast and commit career suicide. However this is a good sign that he is acknowledging this emerging technology.

It is interesting that while he will not lend himself to calling the E-Cat LENR he speaks of cold fusion as the top new tech and E-Cat in the same vein... Very telling of the political climate in main stream science and how controlled it really is. Essentially this guy is trying to walk the tight rope of acknowledging the new technologies but not committing career suicide by pissing off the energy cartels that fund much of main stream science. Hopefully more will do the same!

reply to post by Amaterasu


But you assume all would go along. I wouldn't. I just cannot accept such a system so close to my own ideal, but so locked and closed minded to taking any other direction. And that's the fault. What do you expect, the whole world to follow? Nobody's ever gotten more than a third of the world to follow along. It doesn't matter if you have the perfect system. Communism was the perfect system in its day, it failed. Fact is a good majority of people will never follow along for no other reason than it not being their own ideal. And like it or not, without a leader, it can never become more than a cult stuck in one state or city or nation, never going beyond that. Why? Because most people need an image to follow if they are to trust a movement.

The thing is, you're not offering a structure. You're offering your opinion of a structure. Everyone has an opinion, and no one will ever have the same opinion of an idea 100%. Some people's living standards will rise, others will not simply because of who they are and how they live. We read about such people all the time. lonesome people who sit on their chairs so long their flesh fuses with the fabric. It's their choice to not want to fix their solution and not want anyone else. Do you expect the Pakistan tribal regions to desire your way? The need for money won't dissipate on its own. Somebody is going to take your energy system and make it more efficient somehow. Probably the left-overs of the people who were hiding it. They're going to demand something in exchange. The sheer unity of mind and ideology needed to build just one space ship in our own modern era is extremely difficult. They effectively ARE on your system. Friend's spouse works for NASA and when the government shutdown was imminent, they were ready to work without pay. They are on your ideal. But look at them. They are hated by some, called liars by others, and can't even get a real space plane built. Why these problems? Because it's tiresome. It's tiresome being weighed down by government timelines with your own personal skills, and the civilian opinion of yourself. It's frustrating to deal with people who do have better ideas, but simply cannot be trusted because its too new. The system you propose cannot work because all humans do not have the same minds. Some are greedy by birth, others caring by birth, others like myself creative from birth, others uncaring to emotions and only seeking their own glory by birth (this being psychopaths). And like I said, by simple random chance, some people just want to watch the world burn. You're system doesn't change these people. It demands they adapt for your own ideal. All governments do this, it's just that some governments ask much less of you, and that's why your system cannot work.

Everything damages the body. Right now, billions of particles are hitting your dna. Some, by random chance, hit it and damage it. You cannot avoid this fact. It comes with being in the universe. Some things do it a little bit more than others, but in terms of chances of hitting it, it's just quite too low to care. Aspartame does do damage over time. As does drugs like pot, Cigarettes, red meat, burnt food, unwashed fruits, blowfish, and many others. Some of these are legal, others are not. That's special interest of course. But we accept as humans that we are dieing, and that what we eat is causing it mainly. Doesn't change the fact that some people just don't care.


Well there you go. Sucralose does nothing to me. It's the much needed replacement for aspartame. But it hurts you. I shouldn't be blocked from using it because it hurts you. I have the genes that allow it to be digested just fine. Now here's the thing. What exactly is natural? Because humanity, by all accords, is not natural. We are an alien in terms of how we act with the world and our energy demands. We have to build our own environment just to live, because we are incompatible with the ones around us. We cannot take from the natural world because we would destroy it. We need to make our own spin off mini-natural world to supply ourselves. So when it comes to things being natural, I just don't really see how anything mankind eats, does, or acts like is natural. Natural would be living in the trees and only 50,000 humans on Earth. But that's genocide and impossible and evil.

You keep mentioning research for a lot of things but just as with VP, I don't think you fully understand. Like I said, go take a chemical course. Learn the chemicals your dealing with, Learn their active sites and how they react to active sites in the human body. Don't trust research unless you're had a taste of it yourself. I cannot honestly state to trust research in the field of GMO crops because I don't have any clue what the protein sequences they use are like. Judge not the claims of experts correct until you yourself have had at least a brief read through of the why to their claims. There are countless examples of fail-tacular "experts". This Paul Revere stuf with Sarah Palin is just the recent example. I have seen the news broadcasting about "extraterrestrial particles", thinking its life when all it is is literally dirt not from Earth. Learn for yourself before you assume truth. Some men just want money from it all.

CEOs get prosecution all the time. But they just bare with it and go back once they're done. They have too much money for fines or jail to matter. My solution is to just shoot them with a firing squad. If they die they die, if they live they live. But I'm a bit more on the extreme side.

Higher standards in the western perspective are associated with lower birthrates. I can assure you that the world you create would have higher birth rates because they would have everything they need. In the world you described to me, I would personally desire having 5-7 kids, a nice family house on a hilltop somewhere, and a little community built around it. In the western world I live in today, if I was rich and famous, I would only have 2 kids, maybe 3, because I don't trust this world enough to take care of them. I want to raise them to my own standards least they become Hollywood whores or coc aine heads. But the world you described to me is indeed heaven on Earth. Thus I would have no fear of having many children. The world would be so well that if I couldn't raise them, my neighbors and their friends would. Now when the world started exploding in population size, what would happen a century down the road? How long until you simply have no more room and no more resources.

The government makes 15 trillion dollars every year. The money required to make even the most basic starship, and your tech does allow for warp drive weather you know it or not, would be in the ever higher trillions. Plus, we would see other such things. See, the thing about warp drive is it's going to collect a LOT of matter en route to where it wants to go. When it comes back, that warp shell is going to release that matter in a bright explosive burst of something going many times the speed of light to suddenly only a few mph. Where are these light bursts? They would be bright enough to light up the sky. Of course, only a fool would come out of warp speed near the Earth. Like I said, that stuff affects the bodies of mass around it. You are masking your own true mass. But that still means we should see stars that quickly come and go off in the outer solar system.

I'm sorry, but in the 21st century, I cannot believe that such things, if they existed, would not be leaked. They simply are. The government paid a lot of money to keep the hush up on the SR71. But even though, the Russians still had even the basic idea figured out in a few years. We should know if such things existed.

Sorry, but you have to explain where your energy is coming from because it all comes from somewhere. Lets say you used VPs. Those might be gravitons, that by hitting and getting energy from, you prevent from getting to their proper location. The Earth then falls out of orbit because the information for its orbit is loss.

What you describe is the same thing that a molecular engine would use. A molecular engine could ride on the energy used to transmit genetic messages between cells. But that information then is loss, and cells become uncoordinated. And die.



Hate sorry, I'm not so sure about. Nobody I know ever hated gays. I never saw anything wrong with it. But I cannot deny that by choosing one faith, I have to disagree with the life style. Even so, these two sides were always met with the feeling of disgust in my mind. I was born with that disgust. In many ways, it came about from nothing more than my own choice. That it's simply gross. Go and be gay if you want, but I still find it gross. I won't try to ban it, I won't try to stop it. I do disagree with it. But because that sense of grossness came about by nothing but random chance, another may grow to hate what is gross by the same random chance. I can say the same with Muslims. There was a time I actually loved the religion for its culture and its ways. But as I grow older, and learn more about it, I'm different. I'm becoming more prejudiced. Not because of anything I was told, but out of choice based off what I learn about other cultures and ways of life. I no longer think all cultures and ways of life have merit. I honestly think some are just plain evil and have no worth being in existence. Surely you must agree, because you display a hatred of the CEO-type. Not that its wrong to hate corruption. Still, your hatred is from your choice. Some times these are just random acts. And under your system, well, what stops such a man?

Perhaps war today is motivated by wealth and scarcity. But lets go back in time to the first wars between, say, the Greek city states. Or perhaps even later on with Latinum. Rome never had anything to gain from taking over Italy. It just wanted power. In fact a large number of wars Rome fought were for no other reason than to prove themselves as Romans and men. No needs. Just to prove they were better than some other group. It's not that war today isn't about scarcity. It's that the idea of war can be re-birthed by your society. I mean, go back in time far enough and you will find periods of no war. War came from somewhere. It didn't just pop out of nowhere. It may have a relationship to scarcity, and many wars are for that. But sometimes people go to war for no other reason than power. For the simply glory of it. That's a problem. because your society makes all people essentially happy and blissful. Some people, believe it or not, like being miserable. And want to destroy.

I'm guessing that might be true of You, but when I place Myself in that position

Exactly. Don't base a system off your own standards. It can never work. It is impossible to change everyone.

No, not that the rich can handle being rich and the poor cannot. That very few can handle either. I kind of have a thing against inheritance for that very reason. I can handle self-inflicted poverty pretty well, and self-motivated wealth. But I have given entire semesters to try and build a person up to something more, only to see them fall into the same errors that got them in the bucket the first time around. It's not that I don't think humanity is epic win and beautiful and so much more capable. It's that I think most people simply won't do those things. Simply cannot handle a corporation, or a small household. That most people cannot handle leading their own lives. This doesn't come from something I've been taught. This was learned. Mainly in college. Believe me a couple years ago I would agree with you on your views. But like I said. I spent entire semesters educating, building up, and working to make someone a self-motivated, self-disciplined, active and smart human being, only to see them fail very shortly after I left them to solve their own problems. Worser still is seeing them get a "free" day card from the education system. knowing that they'll fall ever more in the future. That said some people do respond. But an overwhelming majority of people simply are not capable of doing anything beyond basic works. I think this is what created feudal systems in other societies. But I maintain that all people deserve the right to at least try and improve themselves. But I cannot agree to your claims that all humanity are beautiful creatures that will do their pert. Sorry, sometimes God makes an ugly evil person for his own reasons that I cannot claim to know. Most of the time he makes a poor man with nothing that I think is to work with his fellow man in a good community. I simply do not believe, however, that most of humanity is independent and capable of leading itself. I was taught the opposite. I learned the truth in the world.

No... They are FREED of slavery into the opportunities that presently exist for only the lucky few who are rich and can pursue Their bliss. And who would They be "slaving" for as They live life as today's elite live?

You don't have to be doing something to be a slave. Sometimes it's easier for evil men to do what they want if they can get the majority of the population out of their hair and on some bread and circuses. They become their own slaves. The opportunity you present is good. But without the right challenges they will not be motivated.

Allow me to explain. There was a time in my life when I was young when I had everything I wanted. Everything I ever dreamed. I did live the life of the elite. I had everything. A good meal every day, 3-4 times a day. A warm bed, etc etc. Everything. Was I happy? No. And from that day onward I lived a stoic life with the occasional feast. It's not that having everything was good, it was that having everything destroyed my humanity. That's why I tell you now that I only want to do my skill, have some food and water, and create. Because honestly, it's a happier life.

Oh, I doubt that very much. They would be too busy finding Their own bliss. Too busy partaking of all the advancements no longer suppressed for profit. Too busy enjoying Their time on this planet as Each is also accorded. Who would hate that?

See what I just wrote before I read this? idk, have you ever been unimaginably wealthy with everything? The happiest I ever have been in life was a life with little to no technology, a beautiful woman as my best friend, and working on my "bliss", as you call it. See that's why your system is partially right. People won't fight each other if they are too busy on what they love doing. But they will fight each other when it gets boring. When they find no joy in what they are doing because they have everything they want. I was happy not because I was working on my skills. I was happy because I didn't have constant bliss. I had to work to understand architecture in those early days. Work on my projects. Struggle, cry, and hurt to understand it. I was happiest when I was in pain. because I still had friends and people to share it with and talk.

Rethink your system. I do like struggle and hardship. I enjoy the problems. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy your world. It's that it would get boring. Sometimes I have these things. I don't know. Hot flashes? Of the need for battle and mayhem. Not against some foe, but against a topic. Against a system. "fighting the war of architecture" some call it. The ideal adult life I want to live is literally a hilltop house with barely any technology. I cannot deny my desire for a holograph room, but that's really it. I would spend my days reading, talking, and thinking. Hell, you might learn a thing or two if you ever just decided to go and take an architectural course somewhere. We have said in close circles that architects could solve all the world's problems.

Um... It's only about 7 billion, and They don't have to "agree." Release the plenum energy extraction and They can stay as They are or live more richly. Their choice. They will find that They can afford more. And then whatever They want. And then - "affording" things will be ancient history.

But it would grow. You said it yourself. And there you have it. Not everyone would agree. Like I said. Some people would learn how to improve it, others would not be able to run it for as long. repairmen would be needed. inventors and engineers. People would seek profit and security. And God help us all when some people organize to make a government around it.

I'm going to give you one basic example of this. America, circa 1890. America was the good guys back then. They fought foreign wars to liberate, not to colonize. They used their technology to improve life, not to destroy it. Maybe a few cities were the exception, but the rich back then actually used their wealth to help others get wealthy. What happened? A bubble formed. and broke. Then another. Money became the equivalent of your free energy. It was everywhere. Anyone could have it. America was rich enough and powerful enough to throw it away and let anyone have it. So what happened? about 20 years went by where everything was just great. Then another 10 years where there was hardly a poor man. But then people mismanaged things. The bubbles grew too much, and they all broke. 1929 came. THEIR Free energy ultimately became their own undoing. And the rich took what they had to secure their riches, while the poor got poorer. Wars broke out. Evil men came. And the world hasn't been the same since.

So I want you to tell me that. How was money in the year 1925ish any different than free energy in the year 2025ish?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

But you assume all would go along. I wouldn't. I just cannot accept such a system so close to my own ideal, but so locked and closed minded to taking any other direction.

Huh? How do you mean?

And that's the fault. What do you expect, the whole world to follow?

There's no issue with "following." In fact, You would only have to follow if You CHOSE to follow. As long as You are within the three Laws. Add the energy and offer both a structure to consider and a website for input - and the rest takes care of itself. No One has to change. No One has to answer to anyOne else, either.

Nobody's ever gotten more than a third of the world to follow along. It doesn't matter if you have the perfect system. Communism was the perfect system in its day, it failed. Fact is a good majority of people will never follow along for no other reason than it not being their own ideal. And like it or not, without a leader, it can never become more than a cult stuck in one state or city or nation, never going beyond that. Why? Because most people need an image to follow if they are to trust a movement.

Yes, many scarcity solutions have failed. But how many would be against a better life for Themselves and Their families? How many would be against freely available foods? Organic farming? Being able to follow One's bliss? I tell You, there is no following at all.

thing is, you're not offering a structure. You're offering your opinion of a structure.

No. I'm offering a structure. My opinion is that it offers what is needed in abundance, but it is still a structure.

Some people's living standards will rise, others will not simply because of who they are and how they live.

You are unclear on the concept. ALL people's standard of living will rise - IF They choose it to. There is no way to AVOID this with abundant energy flowing. Suddenly that $10 that bought a bag of rice buys 15 bags of rice... If One wanted two bags of rice when one cost $10, One will get two bags - and then maybe some vegetables that before they forewent. Or, the standard of living may be chosen and They only buy the one bag and make do as before. But that is Their choice.

We read about such people all the time. lonesome people who sit on their chairs so long their flesh fuses with the fabric. It's their choice to not want to fix their solution and not want anyone else.

And again I say that most of those people are the way They are because They don't have the opportunity to be what They really want to be.

Do you expect the Pakistan tribal regions to desire your way?

Well... Since My way allows Them to live as They wish - in a tribe, in modern society - their choice - and also retain the option of assistance should crops fail or other disaster should strike if They chose tribal, why should They CARE negatively? As I said, They do not need to change. They needn't "support" or "not support." It's merely available to Them.

need for money won't dissipate on its own.

Yes, eventually it will. As the cost of energy is taken out of the production of everything all down the line, there reaches a point where everything is there for the taking. Money just represents that scarcity: meaningful energy expended. When We can meaningfully expend energy all We want to, nothing will cost anything.

Somebody is going to take your energy system and make it more efficient somehow.

That would be awesome.

Probably the left-overs of the people who were hiding it. They're going to demand something in exchange.

What would They want to demand? They can have all the food, clothing, shelter richly provided, and money is worthless. With the Betterment Ethic, They will get LOTS of prestige and fame and appreciation for offering a better way to extract the energy that already made Them and all on this planet rich beyond compare.

The sheer unity of mind and ideology needed to build just one space ship in our own modern era is extremely difficult.

True, but if designs were open source, better ideas can be offered, and leaders will emerge from the creative milieu. And things will be built. (If You doubt that, examine such projects as Linux - which has NO CEO, NO leader, NO board of directors, stock holders, or anything. Yet what one Human offered many took forth and made better and more comprehensive. No One paid any of Them a dime. But They sure got a lot of strokes for the additions that worked.

They effectively ARE on your system.

LOL! Not even! Until everyone can wake in the morning as Each desires and plan the day according to Their bliss, no One (except the elite) are "on [my] system."

Friend's spouse works for NASA and when the government shutdown was imminent, they were ready to work without pay. They are on your ideal. But look at them. They are hated by some, called liars by others, and can't even get a real space plane built. Why these problems?

Because People in those organizations have lied and manipulated the public. Any therefore associated with Them will wear the brand. (And most people will work for nothing if They believe in Their work - if there is some bliss to be had.)

Because it's tiresome. It's tiresome being weighed down by government timelines with your own personal skills, and the civilian opinion of yourself.

So what if there were no government and timelines? If the goal was to the fastest end without sacrifice?

The system you propose cannot work because all humans do not have the same minds.

Considering that My system leaves open all but three Laws, and complete choice as to how richly to live - for everyOne, that is clearly NOT why it won't work. It may not work, but I say, since it requires little to nothing from virtually everyOne - while encouraging betterment - and accommodates any and every kind of mind, it is not for the reason You give here that it wouldn't work. (I haven't found a reason yet...)

Some are greedy by birth, others caring by birth, others like myself creative from birth, others uncaring to emotions and only seeking their own glory by birth (this being psychopaths).

"Greed," again, becomes meaningless in abundance. Here, here's a story I was told once:

A Human from the 20th century somehow pops into the 25th Century Star Trek universe. Hume is given a house and shown how to use the replicator. Hume got so excited and when the dignitary left, Hume got to work. First Hume created gold. LOTS of gold. Hume filled a room full. Next Hume thought gemstones - diamonds, emeralds, rubies - would be cool. Out poured the gemstones, filling another room.

Furs and pearls, and silver services and on and on. Room after room, Hume filled. And when Hume was all done...with a house so packed with riches that even the living spaces were inaccessible...Hume looked upon Hume's fortune and wondered, "Why?"

Not long thereafter, Hume put all that stuff into the disposal unit. There was no point.

And like I said, by simple random chance, some people just want to watch the world burn.

Well... Less by random chance and more by having endured abuse in this life. Well, I guess it's random that One is born into abuse...born to no opportunity...born suppressed and enslaved. Yeah, that will lead One often to less open, loving behavior. But again, fear of a few keeping the vast many suffering seems insane...

You're system doesn't change these people. It demands they adapt for your own ideal. All governments do this, it's just that some governments ask much less of you, and that's why your system cannot work.

No... You're right that My system does not change these People. It changes no One. Except in the standard of living available to choose. It makes NO demands. I don't even claim living better will be forced. One can continue living as One in poverty now lives - no One stopping One. But the CHOICE to live better will be available.

Everything damages the body. Right now, billions of particles are hitting your dna. Some, by random chance, hit it and damage it. You cannot avoid this fact. It comes with being in the universe. Some things do it a little bit more than others, but in terms of chances of hitting it, it's just quite too low to care. Aspartame does do damage over time. As does drugs like pot, Cigarettes, red meat, burnt food, unwashed fruits, blowfish, and many others. Some of these are legal, others are not. That's special interest of course. But we accept as humans that we are dieing, and that what we eat is causing it mainly. Doesn't change the fact that some people just don't care.

You are woefully uneducated about the pariah plant. ALL studies done with good science (and there have been many) suggest very strongly that the pariah plant cures cancer, controls glaucoma, relieves stress, and much much more - and does NOT deteriorate the body - even from smoking it.

To pass off Aspartame as if it was on par with cigarettes (which, by the way, They have NEVER, in 50 years + of studies, found a link between tobacco and cancer. Fiberglass filters and cancer? Yes. Carcinogenic chemicals tobacco is steeped in? Yes. Organic tobacco? Not one.) - to pass this off as if it was on that same level is disingenuous.

And if some don't care, that is their prerogative. But MOST do care or would if They had all the information - They just have little information or, worse, lies.

Well there you go. Sucralose does nothing to me. It's the much needed replacement for aspartame. But it hurts you. I shouldn't be blocked from using it because it hurts you.

Yeah, I have no issues with You consuming Sucralose. As long as You're fully informed...

For example: From www.vegan-nutritionista.com...

Sucralose is made by chemically altering the structure of sugar molecules by adding chlorine atoms in place of hydroxyl groups.(Everything You Need to Know About Sucralose, International Food Information Council ) Sucralose is therefore chlorinated sugar; a chlorocarbon.

Chlorocarbons are poisonous; they're used in bleach, disinfectants, insecticide, poison gas, and hydrocholric acid. (www.holisticmed.com...) Because it technically started as sugar, sucralose can be marketed as "made from sugar."

To find and avoid the sweetener, you have to actually be on a mission to do so, and read every ingredient label.

Why would you want to go to all the trouble to avoid sucralose?

The US FDA approved sucralose in 1998, but it has not yet been approved in most European nations. In the pre-approval stage, the FDA conducted short-term tests that actually found the potential for toxicity, but it was approved anyway.

According to the "New Scientist" November 23 1991 edition on page 13, the pre-approval tests conducted on animals (you know how much I hate these tests) showed toxicity:

Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)

Enlarged liver and kidneys

Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus

Increased cecal weight

Reduced growth rate

Decreased red blood cell count

Hyperplasia of the pelvis

Extension of the pregnancy period

Aborted pregnancy

Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights

Diarrhea

Additionally, the government doesn't monitor health effects after the initial tests. There is no warning information of potential side effects on the labels of the sweetener's products.

And More:

www.medicinenet.com...
www.splendaexposed.com...
www.karlloren.com...
www.livestrong.com...
www.americanchiropractic.net...

Oh, I could go on and on.

I have the genes that allow it to be digested just fine. Now here's the thing. What exactly is natural? Because humanity, by all accords, is not natural.

"Natural" is a marketing term that has no definition, so, essentially, EVERYTHING is "natural."

We are an alien in terms of how we act with the world and our energy demands. We have to build our own environment just to live, because we are incompatible with the ones around us. We cannot take from the natural world because we would destroy it.

You are kidding. You must be. Though Humans were genetically created, We take from the "natural" world just fine. Carrots, for example, are yummy.

We need to make our own spin off mini-natural world to supply ourselves.

No... Not really.

So when it comes to things being natural, I just don't really see how anything mankind eats, does, or acts like is natural. Natural would be living in the trees and only 50,000 humans on Earth. But that's genocide and impossible and evil.

Like I said, "natural" is a marketing term with no definition.

You keep mentioning research for a lot of things but just as with VP, I don't think you fully understand. Like I said, go take a chemical course. Learn the chemicals your dealing with, Learn their active sites and how they react to active sites in the human body.

Don't assume I am clueless about chemistry. Chemistry has little to do with virtual particles. More to do with valence bonding...

And You know, We're back around on a topic I thought I covered a while back. If You had reservations then, why didn't You bring them up then? Truly, I think I well established that virtual particles include a class which includes a particle and its antiparticle "popping" into 3D space, and most often annihilating one another in less time than Our theoretical limit of measurement, bound by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

In fact, it is because of the creative nature that these particles come into being at all that We know that it is Life sustaining. Here are particles pumping energy into the universe and if We choose wisely, obeying the three Laws (and I ask anyOne to tell me why, if everyOne else around Them made the same choice - to obey these Laws - They would break the Laws, one or many? How many of Us would look around and say, yeah, if You do it, I'm in? I will not break these laws. In essence...

I agree to get along.

Can You agree to get along? Can We, Humans on this planet? These "lords" who have had the Humans herded have kept Us divided, conquered, and yes, toyed with.

Right Now We have the free Interweb, barely. We, Humans here Now. We have a choice and time is running out.

Don't trust research unless you're had a taste of it yourself. I cannot honestly state to trust research in the field of GMO crops because I don't have any clue what the protein sequences they use are like. Judge not the claims of experts correct until you yourself have had at least a brief read through of the why to their claims. There are countless examples of fail-tacular "experts". This Paul Revere stuf with Sarah Palin is just the recent example. I have seen the news broadcasting about "extraterrestrial particles", thinking its life when all it is is literally dirt not from Earth. Learn for yourself before you assume truth. Some men just want money from it all.

Yes... Money is an issue. Imagine the truth that will prevail when money is no longer a motive... As for GMO... I found these links:

www.biolsci.org...
www.responsibletechnology.org...
www.gmo-compass.org...
www.projectcensored.org...
www.survivalistseeds.com...
www.wanttoknow.info...
www.healthfreedomusa.org...
eatlocalguide.com...

Here's an interesting study:

www.organicconsumers.org...

From the above:

The study found:

a strong association between author affiliation to the GM industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome

at least one of the authors was connected to industry in almost half the GM health and nutrition studies analyzed

where there was such a conflict of interest, 100% of the studies (41 out of 41) made a favorable GM safety finding.

studies funded by industry or involving scientists employed by industry are almost certain to produce conclusions in favor of product commercialization.

CEOs get prosecution all the time. But they just bare with it and go back once they're done. They have too much money for fines or jail to matter. My solution is to just shoot them with a firing squad. If they die they die, if they live they live. But I'm a bit more on the extreme side.

I imagine there are some instances - but mostly it's the corporation that get the slap. No one Individual gets nailed. As a rule. And Me? I want to get rid of the need for money, thereby eliminating Their power over others.

Higher standards in the western perspective are associated with lower birthrates. I can assure you that the world you create would have higher birth rates because they would have everything they need. In the world you described to me, I would personally desire having 5-7 kids, a nice family house on a hilltop somewhere, and a little community built around it. In the western world I live in today, if I was rich and famous, I would only have 2 kids, maybe 3, because I don't trust this world enough to take care of them. I want to raise them to my own standards least they become Hollywood whores or coc aine heads. But the world you described to me is indeed heaven on Earth. Thus I would have no fear of having many children.

That may be You. But overall, higher standards of living mean people have other things to do besides work and have sex. As it stands now, the poor have few options. And with Welfare more or less promoting having children... Well, You can see that money will no longer be the factor in promoting births amongst the poor (who are poor no longer and can do the things They only dreamed of doing while They plugged away at work and sex).

The world would be so well that if I couldn't raise them, my neighbors and their friends would. Now when the world started exploding in population size, what would happen a century down the road? How long until you simply have no more room and no more resources.

1. The population will not "explode."
2. The Human race is poised to travel into space; many will move out to explore the universe.
3. Yes, children will be raised by many - if the parent allows. Which mostly will happen...
4. Resources are orders of magnitude greater than We could use in a thousand years; scarcity is propaganda. The only crucial "resources" They tell Us We're running out of are energy related: oil, gas, coal. With plenum energy available, those "dwindling" resources will be moot. And on top of all that, Humans transmuted lead to gold in the 1970's. It all looked feasible to do on a larger scale but that the energy involved to transmute made the gold cost about a million dollars an ounce. Hardly cost-effective. But with all the energy We want, we can transmute elements as needed.

The government makes 15 trillion dollars every year. The money required to make even the most basic starship, and your tech does allow for warp drive weather you know it or not, would be in the ever higher trillions.

Yeah...but if money was not involved in the choices to do things, just think of the wonders We humans could accomplish! As for allowing for warp drive...I believe there are related effects that might be put to use. As I said, We are poised to move into space.

See, the thing about warp drive is it's going to collect a LOT of matter en route to where it wants to go. When it comes back, that warp shell is going to release that matter in a bright explosive burst of something going many times the speed of light to suddenly only a few mph.

Now this is plain silly. Please provide links to show My assessment is incorrect.

Where are these light bursts? They would be bright enough to light up the sky. Of course, only a fool would come out of warp speed near the Earth. Like I said, that stuff affects the bodies of mass around it. You are masking your own true mass. But that still means we should see stars that quickly come and go off in the outer solar system.

Really, this follows the silliness. And I have no clue what you're talking about.

'm sorry, but in the 21st century, I cannot believe that such things, if they existed, would not be leaked. They simply are. The government paid a lot of money to keep the hush up on the SR71. But even though, the Russians still had even the basic idea figured out in a few years. We should know if such things existed.

Onions. Layered like onions. With "need to know" firmly in place. There is much that is NOT hidden so much as ignored. And if it is ignored, it can be plain as day and no One will have a clue except those few with personal experience. There is little that has leaked that They didn't LET leak.

Sorry, but you have to explain where your energy is coming from because it all comes from somewhere. Lets say you used VPs. Those might be gravitons, that by hitting and getting energy from, you prevent from getting to their proper location. The Earth then falls out of orbit because the information for its orbit is loss.

Um, again. VP are, by and large, pairs of particles that "pop" into being and annihilate one another, giving off a burst of energy in the process. THAT is where the energy is coming from. It is "dark" energy. Zero Point energy. The energy in the plenum.

What you describe is the same thing that a molecular engine would use. A molecular engine could ride on the energy used to transmit genetic messages between cells. But that information then is loss, and cells become uncoordinated. And die.

No it isn't.

Hate sorry, I'm not so sure about. Nobody I know ever hated gays. I never saw anything wrong with it. But I cannot deny that by choosing one faith, I have to disagree with the life style. Even so, these two sides were always met with the feeling of disgust in my mind. I was born with that disgust. In many ways, it came about from nothing more than my own choice. That it's simply gross. Go and be gay if you want, but I still find it gross. I won't try to ban it, I won't try to stop it.

See, now THAT is as it should be. If One is not into something...don't partake. Sadly, some think They have a right to dictate these things to others. So I applaud You for Your stance.

But because that sense of grossness came about by nothing but random chance, another may grow to hate what is gross by the same random chance. I can say the same with Muslims. There was a time I actually loved the religion for its culture and its ways. But as I grow older, and learn more about it, I'm different. I'm becoming more prejudiced. Not because of anything I was told, but out of choice based off what I learn about other cultures and ways of life. I no longer think all cultures and ways of life have merit. I honestly think some are just plain evil and have no worth being in existence. Surely you must agree, because you display a hatred of the CEO-type. Not that its wrong to hate corruption. Still, your hatred is from your choice. Some times these are just random acts. And under your system, well, what stops such a man?

Well, I know several Muslims who disagree fully with the interpretation of jihad and other violent "solutions." They are quite happy to live and let live. So I cannot paint everyOne in that very broad category as violent and "anti-Human." In fact, I suspect a whole load of propaganda has whipped the Muslims into a frenzy. I mean, if They could do it to Us with 9/11, They can do it to Others to help instigate war (to Their profit, of course).

I find ANY belief that supports the three Laws to be valid enough. And even in the Koran there are lines which speak of peace being the primary goal. So... If an Individual agrees to follow those three Laws with Me and Others, as I agree to follow them as well, whatever other trappings anOther wishes to place in Their view of things, I'm all good. Most Humans follow these Laws - except where propaganda has led Them into war. Sure, there's the occasional psycho. They're there regardless of what We do - We won't be LESS safe from that. So when considering whether it would be better, I don't consider "psycho" situations as representing the overall effect.

Rather I look at it as having some element of rationality and communication. I do suspect They will take down the web soon. I bloody hope I'm wrong. So several scenarios might be played out here. We shall see, shall We not? [smile]

Perhaps war today is motivated by wealth and scarcity.

And wage slavery, sapping the time/energy from the work of that flesh... Ethical issues.

But lets go back in time to the first wars

Well, I'd rather not. You have admitted the possibility that today, We are involved in war solely because of the possible money/power/energy scarcity paradigm. That is the paradigm I am trying to change. That We, as Humans have in Our hands Now. IF We offer it up for thought widely.

I keep hoping more will bring more to consider what I offer. All I can ever say is, "*I*'m surely trying to help."

between, say, the Greek city states. Or perhaps even later on with Latinum. Rome never had anything to gain from taking over Italy. It just wanted power.

Um... money/power/energy ring a bell? Yes. The energy of the People and the power to control Them, but in the end costing something so money, too, was in there, I'm sure.

In fact a large number of wars Rome fought were for no other reason than to prove themselves as Romans and men. No needs. Just to prove they were better than some other group. It's not that war today isn't about scarcity. It's that the idea of war can be re-birthed by your society.

Who's going to "rebirth the idea of war?" Sweetheart, the "wars" will be holographic, simulated, and some with warnings will be very graphic. But believe Me, if One chooses to follow the three Laws and yet lusts for war...less common these days as most would MUCH rather do it in a video game than real life...Those who so lust will have Their simulated joy. Off They go, then. [shrug]

I mean, go back in time far enough and you will find periods of no war. War came from somewhere. It didn't just pop out of nowhere. It may have a relationship to scarcity, and many wars are for that. But sometimes people go to war for no other reason than power. For the simply glory of it. That's a problem. because your society makes all people essentially happy and blissful. Some people, believe it or not, like being miserable. And want to destroy.

Righty-o. Well, I'm thinking that Our view of making war to "prove your manhood" is shifted a bit. In fact, it's rather gauche overall. True Humans do not choose to break the three Laws. Now We prove Our Beinghood in how We better the universe around Us. Do We bring betterment at all? Most of Us try to, and when We are not, virtually always money/power/energy is involved.

I'm guessing that might be true of You, but when I place Myself in that position

Exactly. Don't base a system off your own standards. It can never work. It is impossible to change everyone.

Oh. But it's not My STANDARDS I base this on. It is a fractal seed I offer and its chaotically created structure through a society of Beings in abundance - using wisdom from past thought. The three Laws were not written by Me. It just became clear that in such abundance those were the only three that mattered.

Most laws are written expecting theft. In abundance theft is merely frowned upon as there's only specialty pieces - those crafted by Human hand and ingenuity - that would even matter. As in, "I don't NEED it. Why would I steal it? No One else would take it if the word and pictures got out on the web... No. I'll admire it, and maybe it will be gifted to Me." Or at least get the name of the Creator to get My own. Why would I risk being known as One who breaks the second Law?

No, not that the rich can handle being rich and the poor cannot. That very few can handle either. I kind of have a thing against inheritance for that very reason. I can handle self-inflicted poverty pretty well, and self-motivated wealth. But I have given entire semesters to try and build a person up to something more, only to see them fall into the same errors that got them in the bucket the first time around. It's not that I don't think humanity is epic win and beautiful and so much more capable. It's that I think most people simply won't do those things. Simply cannot handle a corporation, or a small household.

And that's the beauty of abundance. Those who can lead will, Those who can follow follow from the heart, and Those who would rather be sailing can be.

That most people cannot handle leading their own lives.

Really. Where're the data on THIS claim. What defines success in this effort of leading a life?

doesn't come from something I've been taught. This was learned.

Wow. Again, how are You defining "handling" and leading life?

Mainly in college.

Well, that sounds like a rather limited social sample. You might be interested in the concept of the wanderjahr. College more or less equates to that practice.

Believe me a couple years ago I would agree with you on your views. But like I said. I spent entire semesters educating, building up, and working to make someone a self-motivated, self-disciplined, active and smart human being, only to see them fail very shortly after I left them to solve their own problems.

So Your whole evaluation of Humanity is based on one "failure?" In a society where things are stacked against One to begin with? No wonder You cannot see. I base My assessments on many and many, around Me and across the globe. Humans are beautiful, creative Beings stifled by a system of slavery though scarcity. Nearly everyone has a dream and most will not be lucky enough to see it become a reality for Them.

Worser still is seeing them get a "free" day card from the education system. knowing that they'll fall ever more in the future.

This sounds like an exception to the rule - especially if other pressures, such as survival and even discomfort, have been abated. If most were as bad as You describe this One to be, there would be no society, no universities, no governance, no effort.

That said some people do respond. But an overwhelming majority of people simply are not capable of doing anything beyond basic works.

How do You know that? Have You offered Them all the education, the tools to practice with, the access to prove Themselves? No. No, most have never had the opportunity to SHOW You what They can do. So it is a great fallacy to paint a picture of People "unable" when what holds Them back is not talent, it's a chance to shine.

Luck of the draw, baby.

But I maintain that all people deserve the right to at least try and improve themselves. But I cannot agree to your claims that all humanity are beautiful creatures that will do their pert.

1. No One has a "part" to play. So I don't claim that any will "do their part." I will say that as problems arise, leaders in solving them will emerge. If it is a problem, there is discomfort or discord. Discomfort is a good motivator. And without money, problems will be real and not manufactured to sell products and war.

Sorry, sometimes God makes an ugly evil person for his own reasons that I cannot claim to know.

Yeah, so? Rare it is, and it will be no more common. My point is that if We paint the picture with a psycho as the example, We are surely NOT looking at overall expectations.

Most of the time he makes a poor man with nothing that I think is to work with his fellow man in a good community. I simply do not believe, however, that most of humanity is independent and capable of leading itself. I was taught the opposite. I learned the truth in the world.

And I was amazed to see all I have seen about the nobility, the yearning for betterment, the willingness to get along (complicated by money/power/energy). The sensational news bits are aberrations, though They use those incidents to instill fear. Most of Us are just fine. In fact, given the twists and pinches of the money yoke, it's awesome to see so many who live and let live.

No... They are FREED of slavery into the opportunities that presently exist for only the lucky few who are rich and can pursue Their bliss. And who would They be "slaving" for as They live life as today's elite live?

You don't have to be doing something to be a slave. Sometimes it's easier for evil men to do what they want if they can get the majority of the population out of their hair and on some bread and circuses. They become their own slaves. The opportunity you present is good. But without the right challenges they will not be motivated.

"Right challenges?" What are the challenges the rich are overcoming? Having a hand in shaping the world? Look for ways to better things? Follow the three Laws? Do what Thou wilt within these Laws? All those paintings You might have wanted to paint but for the lack of paint, brush and canvas. Or catching a gnarly wave in Hawaii. Or spending time teaching Your child. Or making feasts for Your family.

Allow me to explain. There was a time in my life when I was young when I had everything I wanted. Everything I ever dreamed. I did live the life of the elite. I had everything. A good meal every day, 3-4 times a day. A warm bed, etc etc. Everything. Was I happy? No. And from that day onward I lived a stoic life with the occasional feast. It's not that having everything was good, it was that having everything destroyed my humanity. That's why I tell you now that I only want to do my skill, have some food and water, and create. Because honestly, it's a happier life.

[smile] I appreciate that, and many will find, as You have, that material wealth is irrelevant. They will take only as They might deem needed for basic comfort. That will be the norm, in fact. Sure, at first, there will be a joyous foray into the material by many - but not such that there will be any strain. Soon, the material will only matter if heart is in it. A crafted chair, a house design, a kitchen tool, a helping hand, a video game, an excavation, these things will have value and be offered as gifts.

Oh, I doubt that very much. They would be too busy finding Their own bliss. Too busy partaking of all the advancements no longer suppressed for profit. Too busy enjoying Their time on this planet as Each is also accorded. Who would hate that?

See what I just wrote before I read this? idk, have you ever been unimaginably wealthy with everything? The happiest I ever have been in life was a life with little to no technology, a beautiful woman as my best friend, and working on my "bliss", as you call it. See that's why your system is partially right. People won't fight each other if they are too busy on what they love doing. But they will fight each other when it gets boring.

Only via holograms and video games... [smile] I have IMAGINED being wealthy (and I come from upper middle class upbringing), and you're right that material wealth is less important than social interaction. That is why in abundance it is social aspects that define wealth, not the material.

When they find no joy in what they are doing because they have everything they want.

Except that once the material abundance no longer holds its sway, there are parties to throw or to attend, problems to solve, mysteries to solve, learning to do, projects to start, games to play, the Interweb social "scene," and more. It will be in the social interaction that profit will be gained.

I was happy not because I was working on my skills. I was happy because I didn't have constant bliss. I had to work to understand architecture in those early days. Work on my projects. Struggle, cry, and hurt to understand it. I was happiest when I was in pain. because I still had friends and people to share it with and talk.

Oh, I am sure that material richness will not detract from the effort to learn and the struggle to grasp. And friends are still available to share with. You seem to misunderstand bliss. Bliss does NOT mean, necessarily, no pain, no struggle, no tears. If One is HAPPY doing what One is doing - painful or not - One is in One's bliss.

So Your bliss might frequently come in the form of learning, struggling through the effort and anguish that can entail. Sharing the trials and tribulations with friends and family. I never said bliss had any form specifically. Each knows Their bliss and each's bliss will differ.

Rethink your system. I do like struggle and hardship. I enjoy the problems. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy your world. It's that it would get boring.

Struggle is not removed in abundance - there will still be struggles with nature, struggles with learning, struggles to better things. What WILL change is the opportunity Each has in choosing what Hume wishes to struggle with. Many would like to find cures for ills. Or better ways of doing things. Or just personal edification. Presently, most have no opportunity to do these things. And if You became bored...You could always contact a teacher and ask for lessons, or go traveling (the world, if not the universe...), or throw parties, or join with Others trying to solve a problem... Boredom is more a function of a lack of opportunity - most who are bored can think of things They would LIKE to do but the opportunity is not there. In abundance, it will be.

Sometimes I have these things. I don't know. Hot flashes? Of the need for battle and mayhem. Not against some foe, but against a topic. Against a system. "fighting the war of architecture" some call it. The ideal adult life I want to live is literally a hilltop house with barely any technology. I cannot deny my desire for a holograph room, but that's really it. I would spend my days reading, talking, and thinking. Hell, you might learn a thing or two if you ever just decided to go and take an architectural course somewhere. We have said in close circles that architects could solve all the world's problems.

I am tested as a genius in spatial perception, and would thrill to architecture - have even done a bit of study. But I radically suck at math, and so though I can intuit forces and support needs, I cannot lay it out mathematically. So I have an idea of what it takes to design and build structures, but could not show mathematically how one might work.

Um... It's only about 7 billion, and They don't have to "agree." Release the plenum energy extraction and They can stay as They are or live more richly. Their choice. They will find that They can afford more. And then whatever They want. And then - "affording" things will be ancient history.

But it would grow. [You said it yourself. And there you have it. Not everyone would agree. Like I said. Some people would learn how to improve it, others would not be able to run it for as long. repairmen would be needed.

Yes, it might grow a bit - but I also said that higher standards of living are connected to a lower birth rate - AND that this planet has plenty for ten times the number - AND that many will leave the planet to explore the universe. Repairmen will be robots - and any whose bliss it is to repair things.

inventors and engineers.

Oh, there will be plenty whose bliss it is to learn and perform in these capacities.

People would seek profit and security.

Well, in abundance, security is assured, and profit will be in social standing, not money.

And God help us all when some people organize to make a government around it.

Well, with the Interweb We can "e-govern." There is no structure but as problems arise, leaders of the moment will emerge to handle the problems. Read The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform to see how the governing through chaotic input would work.

I'm going to give you one basic example of this. America, circa 1890. America was the good guys back then. They fought foreign wars to liberate, not to colonize. They used their technology to improve life, not to destroy it. Maybe a few cities were the exception, but the rich back then actually used their wealth to help others get wealthy. What happened? A bubble formed. and broke. Then another. Money became the equivalent of your free energy. It was everywhere. Anyone could have it. America was rich enough and powerful enough to throw it away and let anyone have it. So what happened? about 20 years went by where everything was just great. Then another 10 years where there was hardly a poor man. But then people mismanaged things. The bubbles grew too much, and they all broke. 1929 came. THEIR Free energy ultimately became their own undoing. And the rich took what they had to secure their riches, while the poor got poorer. Wars broke out. Evil men came. And the world hasn't been the same since.

It may seem as if You are describing the same function - and in some ways You are, as money is but one aspect of the money/power/energy triad. However... The love of money is what destroyed things. NOT the money itself. And with abundant free energy, Human energy is not a requirement but a value added aspect, power is removed from Others and given to the Individual, and money is moot. There is no need to "manage" the plenum energy, as unlike money it is limitless. There is no way to "love" it in the same sense that some now love the finite money We use.

So I want you to tell me that. How was money in the year 1925ish any different than free energy in the year 2025ish?

Money = finite, "love" object, allows control of others
Plenum energy = effectively infinite, not conducive to being "loved" therefore, allows autonomous control of Self and no others

reply to post by hawkiye



Suggest you better RE READ what the NASA guy said because you are totally delusional

what he said

A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place

So please show were he says fusion is taking place!

reply to post by wmd_2008
Thank you!

Not only is the NASA guy not agreeing with Rossi about what is happening, but Rossi says the NASA guy doesn't know what the heck he's talking about, that it's definitely fusion, contrary to the NASA guy's claims that it's not.

With supporters like this NASA guy, he doesn't need attackers. They completely disagree about the existence of fusion.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Sterling Allan already explained that in his article.

The NASA guy simultaneously admits that the technology works, but denies that it's "cold fusion" or "nuclear fusion" - to sweep the fact that they've been suppressing the technology for over 20 years under the rug and save face.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Suggest you better RE READ what the NASA guy said because you are totally delusional

what he said

A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place

So please show were he says fusion is taking place!

You should read more carefully. No where have I said the NASA Chief claimed the E-Cat was cold fusion. In fact I have said now a couple of times on this thread he stopped short of saying that. What I did say was that the NASA Chief says cold fusion is the most promising emerging technology. And he has confirmed the E-Cat is working. He just won't say it is LENR that is happening in it.