Michio Kaku: "If you are against world government you are a terrorist"

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Sure in theory a one world government would sound nice but for it to work we would have to presume we could first all get along enough to the point where we could agree on how to conduct it and carry out over a long period of time. The we would have to assume it wouldn't become corrupt.


its pretty amusing a man as old as kaku is still holding on to such wishful thinking.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


back in the 90's when I had some direct discussions with Michio, he seemed like a pretty straight up guy. We did have differences of opinion on experimental energy methodologies, but he leaned towards massive energy experiments like particle colliders, I leaned towards adiabatics and fusion through string entanglement. It's expected that if you put a bunch of scientists in a room, it is not necessarily probable you'll get consensus just because they are all supposedly logical and reductionist.

I have been watching Kaku change over the last 10 years or so, ever since he was absorbed into the MSM as a talking head for science. Since he has been probably been initiated into the wonders of our economic overlords, it stands to reason he would tow the party line. Seems a little overzealous though in the way he spits out his statement at around 3:25.

I can understand his position in that we do have to be unified in order to eventually cross the gap into a Type I civilization. But with that crossing, it requires that the constant reaching for material wealth and power (greed and avarice) must stop. In addition, the surveilling of the world's population would also have to stop or there would have to be independent watchdogs (or something better) for the watchdogs. Meaning basically that we must divert away from becoming a totalitarian or fascist society first because if you curtail freedoms and have everyone under surveillance for the psychological wellbeing of greedy and power mad leaders, it will bring about revolution anyway, which of course sets us back even further. Another problem is the lack of transparency and that no one in government is responsible for anything it seems. Things are going to have to change first.

Our "leaders" need to wake up. It is better to be loved and respected, rather than hated and feared. The nice thing about love and respect is that it doesn't cost that much, you don't need all that extra security.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by paganini
Sure in theory a one world government would sound nice but for it to work we would have to presume we could first all get along enough to the point where we could agree on how to conduct it and carry out over a long period of time. The we would have to assume it wouldn't become corrupt.


its pretty amusing a man as old as kaku is still holding on to such wishful thinking.


Well, I think that, that is the sound logical point that michiu kaku is making, if we want to actually transition from being a primitive barbarian species ; type zero civilization and actually advance to the point of moving out into our solar system, we will have to figure out how to get along and work together.

And really I would say far from being fantastical or wishful thinking it's just logical and sound. It's actually sad that the only thing that makes it wishful thinking is that humanity as a whole is; primitive, barbaric, ignorant, shortsighted, selfish, illogical and apathetic and that we would rather choose to fight and get over on each other, then actually work together as one species and race for the good of all humans, including future generations.

And I would say we will either learn to work together at some point or we will all die together and become the fossils of future aeons. So, really far from being some crazy notion, the man is only saying what needs to be said.
edit on 2-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
How funny as I am all for a one world order,...
Just as soon as I have proof that we can handle it.
A good start would be, free sustainable energy, END world hunger, A bill of rights that does not get trampled all over, after we have had all of these for say a thousand years then we will be ready.
We must be sure that we have bred all of the greed out.
Yeah, I'm for one world government!

I fear greed will always get in the way however.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
How funny as I am all for a one world order,...
Just as soon as I have proof that we can handle it.
A good start would be, free sustainable energy, END world hunger, A bill of rights that does not get trampled all over, after we have had all of these for say a thousand years then we will be ready.
We must be sure that we have bred all of the greed out.
Yeah, I'm for one world government!

I fear greed will always get in the way however.


No offense but that is having the cart before the horse. I mean free energy, really? As long as their are individual governments and corporations that make profit of energy, they will always fight against it. Feed the world, really? As long as their are governments that hold up their standard of living on the backs of poor and starving nations, they will always fight against that. Maintain that state for a thousand years before humanity can even try to unite together, really? As long as humanity remains divided we will never reach that state for even one day let alone maintain it for your arbitrary one thousand year period. The idea that we will have either free energy or food for everyone before humanity actually unites together as one species is a fantastical idea.
edit on 2-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos
edit on 2-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Its hard enough to get peace in a family of four.

People aren't happy with the government(s) they already have, but want to add another level of it?


Of course the US is for it, but what happens to those who disagree? Bomb them into submission?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Look at U.S. politics and you will see a microcosm of the problems produced by just such a transition. A confederation of states became a single country and it took a civil war to force nationhood on the half of the country that prefered not to cooperate. And even today the Tea Party (Confederates) are fighting with all their might not to be forced to move forward into the 21st century.

I think Kaku is right, but I wonder about his 100 year time frame. I think it will take dozens or perhaps hundreds of generations to affect cultural change significantly enough for people to cooperate on a global basis. Perhaps in 100 years we will be making the first, tentative steps in that direction.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


I get what he's saying.

It's fun to theorize these future possibilities.

He's always been an interesting and jolly futurist, but I think it's a bit much to say that today's terrorists are those afraid of and those that want to block this assimilation and ascendency to more advanced beings. Some perhaps, but others are just radically and genetically pissed. lol

I think he practices wish magic. I know I do.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


Ok so let's say we create an entity to govern the world right now.
We could draft it's "mission statement" and say we will end all wars, make sure everyone has human rights, maintain law, and promote standards of living (new tech Etc).
I think this would pretty much cover all I have discussed in my first post.
We could make the world a better place.
Oh wait a minute, "they" already did that in 1942 and called it the United Nations.
It seems that since before that and much more since, none of these goals have been met but have in FACT become worse.
They have had 70 years to get something done but it has turned out to be a money shuffle.
The UN bombs their way to "peace".
My way is clearly not putting the cart before the horse, if you cannot see this I will leave you to your hopes.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


You are VERY correct!
However, if you look at some civilizations that work for the good of the tribe, community and use little or no currency, you will find that people get along quite well.
It is AMAZING how people get along when their life is not a constant ratrace to get ahead of the next guy.
People only dislike their government when the government is not for the People but is oppresive toward them.
If energy was free and the majority of people were farmers, hunters, craftsmen, or just whatever their heart wants, there would be peace for the most part.
I cannot say one hundred percent as there will always be greedy little people.
But if the majority did not care about greed, the greedy would go hungry and have to fall in line or die off.
It is hard to sell an idea of comfort to someone who is already comfortable.
Kind of like trying to make a person who is in love, fall in love with someone else.
Almost impossible.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I think I've already been trained.

Look at two games I played in the past.
Crusader No Regret and Crusader No Remorse
www.wcnews.com...

You are a renegade silencer fighting against the world economic consortium, ie world government.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by paganini
Sure in theory a one world government would sound nice but for it to work we would have to presume we could first all get along enough to the point where we could agree on how to conduct it and carry out over a long period of time. The we would have to assume it wouldn't become corrupt.


its pretty amusing a man as old as kaku is still holding on to such wishful thinking.


Kaku started turning to the dark side in the early 2000's when he started picking up TV spots. At that point, the PTB had him.

I think we could all get along if there wasn't this competitive BS thrown in our faces all the time through commercialization and consumption. People should really just want to be the best they can be for themselves. We don't need competition, we need cooperation.

Your second point though is the BIGGIE! Look at the EU, a bunch of unelected @sshats that skim and lose a couple of billion in audit a year. Yeah, they took it, but nobody is responsible, nobody is accountable, there is no transparency, it's actually *so far* a fairly quiet dictatorship. They are just stealing for now and killing is limited and surgical. That can all change in a heart beat however if their authority is challenged. I'm thinking that is going to happen either in the summer or fall of this year, the BIG S is gonna hit the fan.

I could be wrong, but all the signs are coming together, meaning we don't have infinite resources and because of that, growth has to cap and tank at some point. That's going to produce a serious contraction in market size and probably hyperinflation. I just don't think the hyperinflation will last too long before the culling starts since that new airborne bird/swine flue formula was released and the US has an excuse to use it (plausible deniability and all that).

It's a shame we probably won't get a chance to see if we can all work together, I guess we (humanity) will be limited by "tribe" size. See you on the other side....

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 


The need for a world government is simply about coordination, the end of artificial barriers and petty nationalistic sentiments.

As we are we can't continue much longer, from nuclear proliferation, out of control demographics, potable water and food scarcity, idiotic energy policies, etc

One just needs to look to ourselves, our biology, to see that agglutination and centralization of goals is natures optimization to deal with survival facing always changing environment and deal with complexity. As we get more complex we can no longer attempt to understand and ultimately control our surroundings, that requires specialization and specialization requires cooperation, coordination and interdependency.

The short answer to your question is yes if we fail to come together we will spontaneously "combust" (one way or another).

I haven't read Terence Kealey's book The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, but it seems pretty simple that without a sporting social structure and an excess in production to satisfy basic needs there is no science or even much creative thinking, look to the history of human development and it becomes obvious,,,



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 


Ok so let's say we create an entity to govern the world right now.
We could draft it's "mission statement" and say we will end all wars, make sure everyone has human rights, maintain law, and promote standards of living (new tech Etc).
I think this would pretty much cover all I have discussed in my first post.
We could make the world a better place.
Oh wait a minute, "they" already did that in 1942 and called it the United Nations.
It seems that since before that and much more since, none of these goals have been met but have in FACT become worse.
They have had 70 years to get something done but it has turned out to be a money shuffle.
The UN bombs their way to "peace".
My way is clearly not putting the cart before the horse, if you cannot see this I will leave you to your hopes.


Well, first of all the United Nation wasn't really the people or humanity doing anything, but a hand full of governments playing PR games really, why PR games because none of the nations that started it ever intended it to have any power or ever lead to any kind of global government ever. You actually think the United States and the other governments actually intended on ceding their power and sovereignty to the UN? It was basically a big joke from the beginning.

In any case it's irrelevant anyway, because after all just because something fails doesn't mean it can't succed. After all I guess the founding fathers of the United States should have gave up and never bothered trying to build an new republic, because there have been lots of republics and most failed. I guess the wright brothers should have gave up on the flying idea, because hundreds failed before them. Etc, etc. Just because you can point out one failure; and I would add an intended failure, doesn't mean it can't be done.

And second the whole rant on the UN isn't even a rebuttal to my argument that your idea is the cart before the horse. Which it still is. Let's see if I can break it down for you. The cart in this case is free energy and food for everyone. The horse is humanity uniting together under one government. And since I already pointed out quite aptly why you will never get free energy and food for everyone; the cart, unless you get everyone to unite first; the horse, because governments like Saudi Arabia and corporations like BP and Halliburton are never going to let that happen, then actually the old saying of the cart before the horse fits perfectly. You can not have free energy and food for everyone without humanity uniting. If you can't see that I will leave you to your illogical fallacy and your hopes that one day like some technological savior free energy will appear and save humanity. Don't hold your breath though because there are many governments and corporations whose whole lively hood is dependent on that never happening.
edit on 3-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos
edit on 3-5-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
If we had a visitation from aliens from another planet, do you think they would be from just one nation of that planet? Maybe if we try and imagine the future of human space exploration controlled by corporations instead of governments, the aliens would be from the one world corporation of their planet.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Just because someone has a high IQ does not mean they are wise.

As I have said before, I am against the one world government idea at this point in human development because we have not evolved as a species enough. We have had many tyrants in power over the last 100 years. At this point in human evolution a one world government will obviously be self-destructive.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Suranwrap200
Yes, terrorist is the wrong word, but I completely agree, with him. I still don't understand why we are still so segregated, if we all worked together imagine the possibilities. We are divided and therefore conquered, borders help the powerful keep their control.


No, no, no.

Borders and division are intertwined with all the democracies and freedoms. The smaller the government the more influence the people. "Borders help the powerful keep their control" is the stupidest thing I've heard all day, and I've had a few hours of reading. Is it not the powerful who are calling for the world government? I thought it was. I could have sworn it was the powerful elite who are coming together and doing away with their national sovereignty, despite the fact none of the people they claim to represent want it. Or maybe you live in a parallel universe where this isn't the case?

We're conquered because of elitist jackasses like Michio Kaku.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I think that terrorist is the wrong word to use, but I completely agree with what he is saying.

Kaku knows that we eventually will have to form a "one world government" in order to step out into the stars......but some people will be against it even if it is for the best of mankind.


worldwide unity doesn't require a government, it requires people to care about each other and that day will come, but it will have nothing to do with government.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Ah yes, great minds do not utter the difference from one goal or agenda to the next. Thus we are stuck with a certain truth that dictates what it will need to be to further human progression.

It can be seen as both good and bad, alas we humans are not mature enough yet to see the difference and what it implies to do so.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Suranwrap200
Yes, terrorist is the wrong word, but I completely agree, with him. I still don't understand why we are still so segregated, if we all worked together imagine the possibilities. We are divided and therefore conquered, borders help the powerful keep their control.

It just wont work in reality. There are too many cultures, religions that means we will never agree with how the world is going to be run so a world government will most likely just lead to more wars. And what if a country does not want to be run by a world government?? Are you for them taking it over by force, maybe killing a bunch of civilians in the process?
What you are saying is just not realistic and will never work in real world.

Take for example EU.. Let's pretend that this is what becomes the new world government. Do you really want to have some bureaucrats from far away dictate your laws and regulations? This is what EU is currently doing to their membership countries and this is also what will happen with a world governance. How can you trust that these bureaucrats will care anything about you and your people?

It will mean the end to even the little freedoms we have now.

It is funny how a couple of years ago we were called crazy for talking about world government, but now the sheep has been so brainwashed by propaganda that they actually want it.
edit on 3-5-2012 by juleol because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join