Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief!

reply to post by hawkiye


Its NOT WORKING so its not what people think, is it! Been hearing this BS for 40+ years and if I am lucky or unlucky depending how you look at this subject I will be posting the same replies for another 40!

reply to post by Amaterasu


You are saying your solution offers a lot, but in actuality, it doesn't. It's offering an idea. And like EVERY Idea that has every existed, some will follow, some will abuse, and some will fight it. You cannot stop this fundamental fact in the grand diversity of humanity.

Worse still you act as if it solves all the world's problems. Most of the problems of the world were caused by people who thought the thing they did that caused that problem would solve all the world's problems. You simply don't know. You don't know the affects of the technology and culture you affect. You are acting from a person from this era. Not thinking along the consequences.

Everything you're answer ignores so much and goes into its own circular logic. You assume everyone will live where they are, when in fact people will move, change, force changes, give up changes, and resist changes. Simply out of human nature.

It is your standards, like it or not. You expect all of humanity to go rank in file. Leaders will lead, followers will follow, and sailors will sail. Well what if a sailor wants to lead, though he sucks at it. But he's great at moving people to follow him. How do you stop such a leader? A leader good at organizing, but fails at leading. No one's there to remove him from power. How does your system deal with democracy? Democracy is the great evil of man. As long as you can get more than half the people with you, you can do whatever you want. And you're system has no checks and balances? Worse still, you speak of parties and what nots as equivalent to social needs. This is foul-hearty Party =/ social health. In fact, it more than likely leads to social degeneracy in too much mass. Plenty is not security. In fact, plenty is just the average. You can give people all the food in the world, and someone will have more, and they will be jealous. Plenty is an average. Looks at America. Our poor are some nation's rich. Yet they are poor because our standards are higher. And then you simply say, as if you're words are God, that you're view of population growth is correct. You are looking at westernized secular nation as the example of what everyone will become. The westernized secular rich person example is but one cultural bi-product of having plenty. Look at the 1920s again, when people had plenty. They had 5+ kids. Look at Rome, at its height. The city of Rome went from 4 million people to 5 million people in just 4 decades around the turn of the millennial. You have to look at all cultures, all peoples, and all ways of life and what they become when they have plenty. European secular rich people tend to have few kids, but Religious poor people in China tend to have just as many because of the government. Rich religious people who come from poor places like Hugo Chavez have huge families. You can't take one culture's rich people and paint it as the defacto face of the future. That's gross. That's imperialistic, that's just disgusting at the highest order or saying "my way or no way".


Hell, you're attitude makes me want to bring down your system simply because of your arrogance of the real world. Not because I don't like your system. because I don't like the people it would produce. Hell I might as well declare war on your system right here and declare I will do all in my power to prevent it. You're just not experienced with the rich, with the poor. With the middle class Muslim person, with the lower class Catholic, with the rich Jew, with the revolutionary Latino. With the people. You're living in a dream world where everything is as you think it is.

reply to post by Gorman91


If you'd like to continue this mud slinging fest I arranged a thread for it:

HERE

I invite all the tin-foil hats to join and talk about how they think antigravity,free energy, alien hybrids and the like are real. And I also invite the rational people like yourself that have a foundation in reality.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Its NOT WORKING so its not what people think, is it! Been hearing this BS for 40+ years and if I am lucky or unlucky depending how you look at this subject I will be posting the same replies for another 40!

IT IS WORKING it has been confirmed, tested for trickery, and measured for input v output by several prominent scientist who have put papers out etc..There have been several threads on it on ATS documenting the evidence.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Gorman91

 

If you'd like to continue this mud slinging fest I arranged a thread for it:

HERE

tin-foil hats to join and talk about how they think antigravity,free energy, alien hybrids and the like are real. And I also invite the rational people like yourself that have a foundation in reality.

Your blind presumption and excessive self-esteem do not make to see you beyond your nose, boncho gheddafi!

If you'd like to continue this mud slinging fest of "NO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!" posts, I invite all the "Nay sayers" like you to join and talk about scientific tests, documents and proof that this new device "E-Cat" is real and it works fine!

If you search, I've arranged some threads for this...

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Its NOT WORKING so its not what people think, is it! Been hearing this BS for 40+ years and if I am lucky or unlucky depending how you look at this subject I will be posting the same replies for another 40!

IT IS WORKING it has been confirmed, tested for trickery, and measured for input v output by several prominent scientist who have put papers out etc..There have been several threads on it on ATS documenting the evidence.

Lets see one of these MACHINES do some real work then ? will that happen no!!!!! they CLAIM fusion, the TITLE of the thread CLAIMS fusion you read the link and guess what its NOT FUSION so please explain ?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Do your homework, no one is going to do it for you, links have been posted including in this thread. The OP article link itself links to most of the evidence. Search ATS don't expect others to do it for you.. I'll not respond to non substantive remarks if you haven't done that.

reply to post by Arken

Your blind presumption and excessive self-esteem do not make to see you beyond your nose, boncho gheddafi!

If you'd like to continue this mud slinging fest of "NO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!" posts, I invite all the "Nay sayers" like you to join and talk about scientific tests, documents and proof that this new device "E-Cat" is real and it works fine!

If you search, I've arranged some threads for this...

The thread I created was for people talking about electrogravitics and people like Bearden et al. actually.

I already made a Rossi thread.

Rossi = Dr. Evil ?

reply to post by boncho

Rossi = Dr. Evil ?

You are really a superstitious!

That is the way The powerful Oil Companies like it!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Do your homeworks!

Use the "Search Button"! it is your friend....

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by boncho

 

Rossi = Dr. Evil ?

You are really a superstitious!

That is the way The powerful Oil Companies like it!

If you read the other thread you'd see that Rossi is planning a self-destruct mechanism in his e-cat. That's a little James Bond, Austin Powers-ish don't you think?

Next thing you know, he'll be guarding his 1mw factory with sharks that have lasers on their heads.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

You are saying your solution offers a lot, but in actuality, it doesn't. It's offering an idea. And like EVERY Idea that has every existed, some will follow, some will abuse, and some will fight it. You cannot stop this fundamental fact in the grand diversity of humanity.

Aside from the elite, who would fight a rising standard of living for everyOne...?

Worse still you act as if it solves all the world's problems. Most of the problems of the world were caused by people who thought the thing they did that caused that problem would solve all the world's problems. You simply don't know. You don't know the affects of the technology and culture you affect. You are acting from a person from this era. Not thinking along the consequences.

It DOES solve virtually all the problems - it eliminates the need for money (and thereby the love of it - which is the root of all evil), it raises the standard of living for all, it strips the motivation to sicken to make profit on "medicines," and will lead to cures unsuppressed, and other boons to civilization.

Everything you're answer ignores so much and goes into its own circular logic. You assume everyone will live where they are, when in fact people will move, change, force changes, give up changes, and resist changes. Simply out of human nature.

No. I never thought that people will stay put. In fact I rather expected many would choose to move. And the only real change I offer is the addition of plenum energy. And a site whereat all can participate. And if Yopu think there is something "circular" in My reasoning, give an example.

It is your standards, like it or not.

No it's not.

You expect all of humanity to go rank in file.

No I don't. All people have to do is accept energy influx making good cost less. You really think people will fight this? (Not counting the elite.)

Leaders will lead, followers will follow, and sailors will sail. Well what if a sailor wants to lead, though he sucks at it.

If the sailor wants to lead, heh. Hume can try. But if Hume is a bad leader, no One will follow. No One is forced into any slot.

But he's great at moving people to follow him. How do you stop such a leader?

Stop Hume from what? Leading people? No issue there - unless any break the three Laws.

A leader good at organizing, but fails at leading.

Then no One will follow.

No one's there to remove him from power.

If people don't like what Hume suggests...They ignore Hume.

How does your system deal with democracy? Democracy is the great evil of man. As long as you can get more than half the people with you, you can do whatever you want. And you're system has no checks and balances?

In a sense it is a democratic system, but a true democracy that does not ""vote itself money" because there is no need for money.

Worse still, you speak of parties and what nots as equivalent to social needs. This is foul-hearty Party =/ social health. In fact, it more than likely leads to social degeneracy in too much mass.

This was unintelligible to Me.

Plenty is not security. In fact, plenty is just the average.

Average??? LOL! The average Human is going to bed hungry. Plenty means EVERYONE may have what They want. You think that is the way it is now? The average Human does not need to worry about whether there is food on the table?

You can give people all the food in the world, and someone will have more, and they will be jealous.

[sigh] If they are "jealous," They can go get more, too. You are very unclear on the concept.

Plenty is an average. Looks at America. Our poor are some nation's rich.

Uh, right. I'm speaking of the WHOLE PLANET. If you want to use a fraction of it to make it look like You have a point, whatever.

Yet they are poor because our standards are higher. And then you simply say, as if you're words are God, that you're view of population growth is correct.

No, I say what I say because I have studied.

You are looking at westernized secular nation as the example of what everyone will become.

Considering that I expect no One to "become" anything except better fed, better clothed and better sheltered, it becomes evident that You're talking out Your tail end here. I expect people to do what gives them bliss - but beyond that, there are no expectations except in general. (People will solve problems the BEST way, not the cheapest/most profitable.)

The westernized secular rich person example is but one cultural bi-product of having plenty

It's an example of having plenty in scarcity. I am unconcerned with the presently rich. My concern lies with billions who will go to bed hungry.

Look at the 1920s again, when people had plenty. They had 5+ kids.

Not the rich Ones. The Ones who needed hands on the farm? Yeah. They had lots of kids. And still, that was a scarcity paradigm.

Look at Rome, at its height.

In its scarcity paradigm glory, yes...

The city of Rome went from 4 million people to 5 million people in just 4 decades around the turn of the millennial. You have to look at all cultures, all peoples, and all ways of life and what they become when they have plenty.

Except... There was poverty and as long as We are trapped in scarcity, there always WILL BE poverty. My aim is to end poverty. And the population was not all rich and able to do anything but work and have sex...

European secular rich people tend to have few kids, but Religious poor people in China tend to have just as many because of the government. Rich religious people who come from poor places like Hugo Chavez have huge families. You can't take one culture's rich people and paint it as the defacto face of the future. That's gross. That's imperialistic, that's just disgusting at the highest order or saying "my way or no way".

[sigh] You clearly don't grasp what having opportunity does to people's sex life. Sure, some minor cultures may persist in having many children. But overall, with new found freedom, birth rates will drop.

Hell, you're attitude makes me want to bring down your system simply because of your arrogance of the real world. Not because I don't like your system. because I don't like the people it would produce.

What kind of people do You see being produced? People with enough food? People with opportunity? People with choices?

Hell I might as well declare war on your system right here and declare I will do all in my power to prevent it. You're just not experienced with the rich, with the poor. With the middle class Muslim person, with the lower class Catholic, with the rich Jew, with the revolutionary Latino. With the people. You're living in a dream world where everything is as you think it is.

Hell, I might as well give up trying to explain to you how it works. I do have experience with rich, poor, and most nationalities You might mention. But You make stuff up (as above noted), and then claim I said it. Go ahead and fight the elimination of poverty and the freeing of Humanity from wage slavery. I guess You'll be popular for that.

Meh. Have a nice life.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I wouldn't fight the rising standards as an elite if I were one. You assume too much right in your first statement there. Also, there's more to the world besides poor middle and elite. And the fact that I don't know testifies to the fact that you don't either. You cannot plot out who will do what. That's an error on your behalf. For instance, saying all people have to do is accept this or do that. That's a dictatorship of the mind, believe it or not. And there is a rule. Everybody never accepts the same thing. How does your system make people accept?

No, you're system, like I said, merely makes people their own money. A person who learns would be worth more than someone who just teaches and eats. Worth is undeniable among humans. All humanity is worth the same, but all humans grow or lessen in worth from that standard. How does you system stop this?

You say it's not your standard. How? Words are worthless. Facts need to prove your claims.

Suppose a leader breaks the laws and nobody cares because they're still happy and have what they want? What then? Suppose the rule of democracy happens and everybody just hates one group of people and few stand in the way? What prevents your ideal society from hating one group of the other. For instance, abortion. I refuse to accept a society that allows it for no other reason than because the mother feels like it. Others refuse to accept a society that would only allow it if the mother's life is in danger. This is a social cleavage. What does your system do to prevent war in that cleavage?

Then no One will follow.

Hitler
Bush
Obama
Bush1
Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Ulysses S. Grant

Just to name a few.

If people don't like what Hume suggests...They ignore Hume.

No, they don't all ignore him. Once again your spout your words like you are the mind of the people. A true dictator are you. Yes, believe everyone will do what you say they will do. Can't have dissent eh?

In a sense it is a democratic system, but a true democracy that does not ""vote itself money" because there is no need for money.

The Federal Reserve
Tiberius Gracchus's social reforms.
Caesar's mission

Just to name a few.

Average??? LOL! The average Human is going to bed hungry. Plenty means EVERYONE may have what They want. You think that is the way it is now? The average Human does not need to worry about whether there is food on the table?

This statement does not change the fact. The average, no matter how high or how low, is still the average. People don't like being average.

[sigh] If they are "jealous," They can go get more, too. You are very unclear on the concept.

There's an old saying. The needle that broke the camel's back. You're not very clear on the concept apparently.

No, I say what I say because I have studied.

Book ideals fail in the real world.

Considering that I expect no One to "become" anything except better fed, better clothed and better sheltered, it becomes evident that You're talking out Your tail end here. I expect people to do what gives them bliss - but beyond that, there are no expectations except in general. (People will solve problems the BEST way, not the cheapest/most profitable.)

It's an example of having plenty in scarcity. I am unconcerned with the presently rich. My concern lies with billions who will go to bed hungry.

It's an example of having plenty in scarcity. I am unconcerned with the presently rich. My concern lies with billions who will go to bed hungry.

Unconcerned. huh. And do tell. What happens when others become unconcerned about you? Some ideal world.

Not the rich Ones. The Ones who needed hands on the farm? Yeah. They had lots of kids. And still, that was a scarcity paradigm.

*assumption that not having a lot means they have a problem.

Except... There was poverty and as long as We are trapped in scarcity, there always WILL BE poverty. My aim is to end poverty. And the population was not all rich and able to do anything but work and have sex...

*assumption that most people would want to so anything but. I don't. My family doesn't. In fact, most people I know would call "work and sex" and ideal life. Once again, you apply your standards to the whole of humanity. Fail.

[sigh] You clearly don't grasp what having opportunity does to people's sex life. Sure, some minor cultures may persist in having many children. But overall, with new found freedom, birth rates will drop.

*assumption

What kind of people do You see being produced? People with enough food? People with opportunity? People with choices?

People with apathy because of their greed.

Meh. Have a nice life.

And there we have it. This phrase in ans of itself proves the failure of your system. Meh, have a nice life. It sums up why your ideal can never succeed. And why really, there's no hope for your claims. Meh, have a nice life is the mentality of the apathetic, and the stubborn. The wrongfully righteous, and the elite. You, in those words, have sealed your fate. You are no different than those you preach against.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I wouldn't fight the rising standards as an elite if I were one. You assume too much right in your first statement there. Also, there's more to the world besides poor middle and elite. And the fact that I don't know testifies to the fact that you don't either. You cannot plot out who will do what. That's an error on your behalf. For instance, saying all people have to do is accept this or do that. That's a dictatorship of the mind, believe it or not. And there is a rule. Everybody never accepts the same thing. How does your system make people accept?

What are They "accepting?" (Except a higher standard of living?) The three Laws? As I said, the Laws are the foundation of virtually ALL society. Virtually all of Us accept those Laws already. Organic farming? Most would eat organic in a heartbeat if They had the choice. The ability to participate in problem solving directly? It's not mandatory. So They don't have to "accept" it... Um.... What else? All people don't have to accept anything - They can go about Their business as usual if They so choose. It's not about HAVING to do ANYTHING. It's about the OPPORTUNITY to do so vastly much more with One's life IF ONE WANTS TO.

As it stands now, virtually ALL of Us have little or, mostly, NO opportunity beyond struggling to ensure food is on the table (and the struggle does NOT equate to food on the table - just increases the likelihood).

No, you're system, like I said, merely makes people their own money. A person who learns would be worth more than someone who just teaches and eats. Worth is undeniable among humans. All humanity is worth the same, but all humans grow or lessen in worth from that standard. How does you system stop this?

Huh? Worth more HOW? Sure, people who improve things, better the world greatly, will have more respect/prestige/fame/glory/etc. (the new, social "currency"), but there is no requirement. If One chose to be a couch potato so what? But most couch potatoes these days are that way because TV is all They can afford for entertainment. They can't go out to world because They can't afford to, so They sit and let it be brought to Them.

You say it's not your standard. How? Words are worthless. Facts need to prove your claims.

Because it's NOT a "standard." It is a structure within which virtually all standards will fit. If You believe all food should be kosher - You may eat and produce ko0sher foods. But if that is not Your standard, You may deviate as You wish. The only standards that WON'T fit are those which allow breaking of the three Laws. And virtually all "laws" are based in these three Laws. Except where money/power/energy has prompted the passage of bad "laws."

Suppose a leader breaks the laws and nobody cares because they're still happy and have what they want? What then?

Well, since the three Laws are so important, I can't see People not caring...but if no One cares, where's the problem?

Suppose the rule of democracy happens and everybody just hates one group of people and few stand in the way? What prevents your ideal society from hating one group of the other.

Nothing preventing hatred of another group - and as long as the Laws are not broken, there is no problem. Once the Laws are broken, society will frown. And do something. What depends greatly on who and how and what and when the Laws are broken (by).

For instance, abortion. I refuse to accept a society that allows it for no other reason than because the mother feels like it.

And I prefer a society that ensures every child that results from a pregnancy is wanted. There is a great deal of data that shows that unwanted children are the largest part of who breaks the three Laws. Also, I use the benchmark provided through the Talmud of what the Christian God said was when the soul enters the body (and also so stated in many other traditions, as well): the soul enters the body at first breath.

[shrug] Yes, We will still have bones of contention. But they will not be bones We don't already have. And meanwhile, We can live richly as We address these issues - as opposed to most of Us living in poverty.

Others refuse to accept a society that would only allow it if the mother's life is in danger. This is a social cleavage. What does your system do to prevent war in that cleavage?

Well... War breaks the three Laws... But if people want to break the Laws, I guess society will dissolve. (I doubt that it will... Most people prefer peace and prosperity and will work hard to maintain that.)

Then no One will follow.

Hitler
Bush
Obama
Bush1
Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Ulysses S. Grant

Just to name a few.

Did any of These You mention lack the stranglehold of scarcity? Did They get followers strictly on ideological agreement? Or did They pay some, promise to others, force yet more? The fact that You can find leaders that had power (money, energy) over others to begin with that did poor things does NOT equate to the same expectations when ALL One has is One's ideas and Others much accept those ideas as good ones before change is affected.

If people don't like what Hume suggests...They ignore Hume.

No, they don't all ignore him. Once again your spout your words like you are the mind of the people. A true dictator are you. Yes, believe everyone will do what you say they will do. Can't have dissent eh?

Sure They do. Hume has no other power over Others but in what Hume can offer through communication. If One has opportunity, One is very difficult to control. If One has no opportunity, One can be manipulated. "Bought out," propagandized, controlled. Without that, each One must convince Others to follow - and that is how the leaders will emerge. They will offer the best plans, They will organize and People will follow.

In a sense it is a democratic system, but a true democracy that does not ""vote itself money" because there is no need for money.

The Federal Reserve
Tiberius Gracchus's social reforms.
Caesar's mission

Just to name a few.

What have these scarcity paradigm controllers to do with abundance? The Fed will vanish. And the others are past scarcity paradigm controllers. What's Your point?

Average??? LOL! The average Human is going to bed hungry. Plenty means EVERYONE may have what They want. You think that is the way it is now? The average Human does not need to worry about whether there is food on the table?

This statement does not change the fact. The average, no matter how high or how low, is still the average. People don't like being average.

Only if They are aware They are "average..." And it depends on what it is we're talking about. And the average - planet-wise - is that People are in poverty. People don't like living in poverty - but that has to do with comfort and opportunity, not because They are "average."

[sigh] If they are "jealous," They can go get more, too. You are very unclear on the concept.

There's an old saying. The needle that broke the camel's back. You're not very clear on the concept apparently.

Huh? What has that to do with having plenty for all to have what They want? And I do believe it is the STRAW that breaks the camel's back. You're not clear how it is irrelevant.

No, I say what I say because I have studied.

Book ideals fail in the real world.

LOLOL! I have studied books, and People, events, news, psychology, and made copious observations.

Considering that I expect no One to "become" anything except better fed, better clothed and better sheltered, it becomes evident that You're talking out Your tail end here. I expect people to do what gives them bliss - but beyond that, there are no expectations except in general. (People will solve problems the BEST way, not the cheapest/most profitable.)

It's an example of having plenty in scarcity. I am unconcerned with the presently rich. My concern lies with billions who will go to bed hungry.

Unconcerned. huh. And do tell. What happens when others become unconcerned about you? Some ideal world.

Yes, I have no need to offer a rich life of opportunity and plenty to Those who already have those things. Ergo, I am not concerned with Them. And in abundance, I don't need anyOne's concern... If You're asking about the present setup - no One is really concerned about Me as it is. So rather than living on what $58 a month can offer, I could have what I want, go where I want, believe as I wish, do what I want - within the three Laws.

Man You love to twist words, don't You. (Leads Me to suspect You have an agenda here...)

Not the rich Ones. The Ones who needed hands on the farm? Yeah. They had lots of kids. And still, that was a scarcity paradigm.

*assumption that not having a lot means they have a problem.

Huh? I pointed out that the People having children in the time frame you mentioned (the 1920's as I recall) were the poor people, the farmers who needed hands on the farm, mostly. NOT the rich. And now you bring this irrelevant comment in (while stripping mine of its context). Are You certain You have no agenda?

Except... There was poverty and as long as We are trapped in scarcity, there always WILL BE poverty. My aim is to end poverty. And the population was not all rich and able to do anything but work and have sex...

*assumption that most people would want to so anything but. I don't. My family doesn't. In fact, most people I know would call "work and sex" and ideal life. Once again, you apply your standards to the whole of humanity. Fail.

I'm not following this at all. If They want "work and sex," more power to Them in abundance. Nothing to STOP Them - as long as They stay within the three Laws... My point is that as long as there is maintained a scarcity of energy, power over Others can be exerted, control can be maintained, and many, many live and die dreaming of a better life. I want to change that. I want each Human life to have the opportunity to make a difference, to live comfortably, to be comfortable.

No standards I apply - only a structure within which many standards fit.

[sigh] You clearly don't grasp what having opportunity does to people's sex life. Sure, some minor cultures may persist in having many children. But overall, with new found freedom, birth rates will drop.

*assumption

Unsupported comment.

What kind of people do You see being produced? People with enough food? People with opportunity? People with choices?

People with apathy because of their greed.

How does that greed manifest? Why would They be apathetic? Why would They not be thrilled to have the opportunity to do the things They have merely been able to dream about? Please answer these three questions.

Meh. Have a nice life.

And there we have it. This phrase in ans of itself proves the failure of your system. Meh, have a nice life. It sums up why your ideal can never succeed.

Hahahahaha! Wishing someOne well is now a flaw in My structure (which You keep erroneously calling a "system"). Trying to bow out of a fruitless communication is somehow evidence that what I propose will not work. Sure. Ok. Believe that if You wish.

And why really, there's no hope for your claims. Meh, have a nice life is the mentality of the apathetic, and the stubborn.

Or the response when it becomes clear that the One I am trying to communicate with likely has an agenda to the point of stripping context, telling Me what I am saying, claiming that wishing another well is an example of how My ideas will not work, and, in giving up on the likelihood of honest communication, I want to end the discourse, as it is pointless and a waste of time. It is not that I am apathetic towards You. I am merely done with You..

The wrongfully righteous, and the elite. You, in those words, have sealed your fate. You are no different than those you preach against.

Hahahahaha! Yeah. You're right. Have a nice life.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Well if they're not accepting anything then how is it any different than today?

What you have designed has no guarantee there will be food on the table either, for you assume all would accept your way.

If One chose to be a couch potato so what?

I am worth more than he is. And if he demands the same as I , I will intend to stop him when times get hard. And they will get hard. Like I said, you're designing a weak system. We have no idea what happens if a solar flare or huge flood comes along and wipes out half your food. In our world, we would at least have money to impress and make things happen. In your world? Meh, have a good life. Wore still, you assume people want more than a tv. My friends want more, I don't. Not everyone is the same.

Nothing preventing hatred of another group - and as long as the Laws are not broken, there is no problem. Once the Laws are broken, society will frown. And do something. What depends greatly on who and how and what and when the Laws are broken (by).

You assume people would do something. because the thousands of cop brutality cases certainly has made people do something. You assume. Just like everything else. A frown doesn't mean action, and by all means, if you're going to be an imperialist, we can just look at how active rich western secular folks are right? I mean it's always Ted Turner and Donald Trump who rush in to help their fellow man right? You couldn't possibly be assuming anything there right?

And I prefer a society that ensures every child that results from a pregnancy is wanted.

Assumption based on our own standards. In fact, forcing all to accept your way or no way.

There is a great deal of data that shows that unwanted children are the largest part of who breaks the three Laws. Also, I use the benchmark provided through the Talmud of what the Christian God said was when the soul enters the body (and also so stated in many other traditions, as well): the soul enters the body at first breath.

And I don't make governments that recognize the soul or religion. Not to mention you are wrong. The Christian God makes it quite clear fetuses are alive, seeing as they do things and react to the people around them in the Bible. Your flawed understanding of religion aside, you just based your own interpretation of religion for your own way in government. So, Führer, do tell me. What happens when 46% of the population rejects your beliefs and millions storm the capital demanding change? Because I can certainly tell you that this one cleavage is enough to bring down an entire civilization given enough time. So what happens when one group of people refuse to live under your ways and break off? What happens if they demand to change you for your sins? What happens when they want money and become stronger than you? Energy doesn't matter at this point. It's all differences of opinions. Congratulations Führer, you've just designed a never ending war. limitless energy in the hands of two blocks in the same society that refuse to live together. Oh boy, Goldstien would be proud.

[shrug] Yes, We will still have bones of contention. But they will not be bones We don't already have. And meanwhile, We can live richly as We address these issues - as opposed to most of Us living in poverty.

Don't shrug this off. There are people who will bomb other people over this issue, and your system does nothing to stop them. What happens? My Führer, you cannot simply shrug this off. Poverty or riches will not make people not kill each other over this. If anything, the limitless availability of knowledge and materials only makes bombing more likely.

Well... War breaks the three Laws... But if people want to break the Laws, I guess society will dissolve. (I doubt that it will... Most people prefer peace and prosperity and will work hard to maintain that.)

Most people will set aside their desire of prosperity to go fight a war that they think is right. We saw that with the crusades. Like it or not but everyone was poor in those days except a few papal. losers. But everyone, king and peasant, became brothers for the one goal of exterminating their common foe. Society would dissolve. Because it did back then. Good men, both king and peasant, on both sides, became horrible people that butchered countless and left both sides poorer and horrible. There was no scarcity before the crusades. People lived under their fair lords, and there was enough food for all. Feasts where many and all were happy. After the way, people were changed and destroyed. They gave up plenty for war. And nothing was gained.

Did any of These You mention lack the stranglehold of scarcity? Did They get followers strictly on ideological agreement? Or did They pay some, promise to others, force yet more? The fact that You can find leaders that had power (money, energy) over others to begin with that did poor things does NOT equate to the same expectations when ALL One has is One's ideas and Others much accept those ideas as good ones before change is affected.

The fact that they were bad leaders with nothing but their ability to organize proves your society would collapse. The issue is not money. The issue is if people would follow bad leaders. Don't add straws because you lost the argument. Just admit the fact that people follow bad leaders irregardless of food and money or not.

If One has opportunity, One is very difficult to control.

Because that worked out so well when Hitler took power, right? Plenty of opportunity. Every one of them controlled.

What have these scarcity paradigm controllers to do with abundance? The Fed will vanish. And the others are past scarcity paradigm controllers. What's Your point?

No, and if you think that you haven't looked up them. The Federal Reserve was created to keep people rich, not to control. What it is today is irrelevant to what it was in 1935. Tiberius Gracchus and Caesar both created wealth to save people from poverty and change the world. Again, don't add straws to your lost argument. The issue was if a democracy would vote itself money. All three examples are of those. All three were created in worlds close to discovering the irrelevance of money, and in all three, the society voted to create money in a world where it was barely important. For example, with Tiberius Gracchus, he was leading a penniless mob of homeless soldiers. They had no money. He was elected, he shut down the city of Rome (the first government shutdown in history perhaps), and created money where it previously did not exist. People were a mob, self sufficient and helping each other. His actions introduced money and land into the issue and let people have fair rights in Rome. Tiberius Gracchus voted to create wealth, and was killed for it. But to prevent all out riot, the senate did as he was trying to.

Only if They are aware They are "average..." And it depends on what it is we're talking about. And the average - planet-wise - is that People are in poverty. People don't like living in poverty - but that has to do with comfort and opportunity, not because They are "average."

No, that has to do with dictators. And if all those people had food and energy, they would not change. This is quite evident in many nations like Indonesia and Iran, where the nations went from poverty stricken to economic growing powers. They did not forget the hatred for their enemies int he process, even though they have more.

Huh? What has that to do with having plenty for all to have what They want? And I do believe it is the STRAW that breaks the camel's back. You're not clear how it is irrelevant.

You cannot have unlimited food on limited land. Ergo, you cannot have unlimited population growth. In fact, what you are doing is no different than the eugenics movement of the 1920s. Back then they decided to mass produce humanity in order to breed out weakness. They imagined that if they could blast the population up (then it was a just over 1 billion), that the weak and impure would die off and only the viable would survive. Now with 7 billion people, it's clear they were wrong. And they only affect it has has has been more hungry people and more people suffering. You're actions will just blat that population up until the same thing happens. Until the sheer number of people prevents plenty.

LOLOL! I have studied books, and People, events, news, psychology, and made copious observations.

And yet your ignorance is profound. Evolved indeed.

And in abundance, I don't need anyOne's concern... If

Then what happens when some blight or problem wipes out half your food supply? I guess the other half of the food supply owners just don't care and let them die. You cannot have your society without invested interest in your fellow man.

Man You love to twist words, don't You. (Leads Me to suspect You have an agenda here...)

I do. To destroy your ideal.

Huh? I pointed out that the People having children in the time frame you mentioned (the 1920's as I recall) were the poor people, the farmers who needed hands on the farm, mostly. NOT the rich. And now you bring this irrelevant comment in (while stripping mine of its context). Are You certain You have no agenda?

Yes the rich too. Rothschild's are perhaps the best example. They've got themselves a whole little family court. Rockefeller family, J. P. Morgan had four kids. I can go on, you know.

I want each Human life to have the opportunity to make a difference, to live comfortably, to be comfortable. No standards I apply - only a structure within which many standards fit.

I thought you said you weren't offering a structure? And you've not yet supplied an answer to the huge waste produce from the huge failures that will happen in it all. How many people would fail to get anywhere in their pursuits? How much waste?. Hell, what about waste in general? You never really did give an answer to that, now that I think about it.

Unsupported comment? How so. You are assuming all people's cultures will be a certain way. That's an unsupported comment.

How does that greed manifest? Why would They be apathetic? Why would They not be thrilled to have the opportunity to do the things They have merely been able to dream about? Please answer these three questions.

Greed is never gone. It manifests in anything. And you're convenient " they can just have the same" is not enough. The waste, the demand, and so much others. You cannot shrug that off with "take some more". If everyone took some more, the camel's back breaks. Apathy comes from your own example. Why should you care for the rich. If you cannot care now in little, you certainly won't care in plenty.

reply to post by Gorman91


Round in circles again. Have a nice life.

(And I do have a STRUCTURE. I do not have a SYSTEM. Meh. Why do I bother even now?)

EDIT to add: What? What do I take from the rich? I take nothing. They can keep Their houses and boats. And go to Their parties, and enthuse in One anOther's company and sports and so on.

They can get Their slavery from machinery, and meanwhile, as the energy flows into society, more and more can be available for every Human to do the same. And red tape will vanish. And We can move and eat local fresh organic foods prepared...

Just read The Abundance Paradigm.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Because you say so right? I mean, you wrote it right? So it must be true.

No, sorry. The last round of answers put the nail in the coffin of your system. And your lack of answer for it only reinforces this fact.

So long as we disagree on just one deep issue, like abortion-and you're opinion is very unscientific and flawed, just saying-, your society can never exist. To quote the bible, I will strike at your head and you will strike at my heal. It will never end.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Because you say so right? I mean, you wrote it right? So it must be true.

It's illustrative, not "fact" oriented. It is science "fiction." A "day in the life," as it were. But it shows how people will live in abundance. Read it. Don't. I don't care.

No, sorry. The last round of answers put the nail in the coffin of your system. And your lack of answer for it only reinforces this fact.

If You want to believe that, be My guest. I do not lack for answers. (Such as, it's not a system. It's a structure under which many systems can coexist. But... I have said that to You what? Three? Four times now?) I lack for energy to deal with the same stuff over and over, round and round, again.

So long as we disagree on just one deep issue, like abortion-and you're opinion is very unscientific and flawed, just saying-, your society can never exist.

I see. If any two Individuals fail to agree on specifics, society cannot exist. Got it. Makes sense to Me.

To quote the bible, I will strike at your head and you will strike at my heal. It will never end.

Um... Sure. We cannot have society. Why bother.

reply to post by Amaterasu

It's illustrative, not "fact" oriented. It is science "fiction." A "day in the life," as it were. But it shows how people will live in abundance. Read it. Don't. I don't care.

At least you are finally representing your ideas for what they are, fiction.

I see. If any two Individuals fail to agree on specifics, society cannot exist. Got it. Makes sense to Me.

Society exists, it's not perfect but it exists. You are claiming somehow it would be perfect or people would obtain "bliss" with your crazy ideas.

But that just isn't happening. Same shiza different toilet.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters

the Nazis never even finished building the atom bomb.....

Says WHO?

The Nazi's made the first remote control bombs which were taken from them and used by our bombers against Japan when we retook Guam and the Pacific.

Do you think anyone would tell you those nuclear bombs used on Japan weren't indeed Nazi bombs? There might have been a reason for our mad rush to take Berlin and sacrifice our air force to whittle them down FAST.

Maybe we didn't want them using them first. Maybe they made them first. you'd never know.