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

I'm glad that someone mentioned the science fiction quality of this theoretical "type" civilization index. It is a pure fiction and although like many theories, it sounds nice on the surface, it is impossible to prove empirically.

We have no evidence of any type civilizations that fit into this mold.

Mr Kaku is a very good physicist, but he is no social scientist. I love listening to this guy, and he is mostly always honest in explaining that the "theory says such and such". I always appreciate that. But I am constantly reminded that quantum physics people are deeply entrenched in "meta physics", the branch of science/philosophy that deals with intangibles. Meta physics is a good breeding ground for theoretical development, but good sounding stories are not proxy realities.

When creating a type 1 civilization, one must be sure that the fallacy of the science of confirmation theory is not pawned off on any society, in order to create a false sense that the theory is somehow right. Any theory that cannot accept paradigm collapse, or the falsification process just is in layman terms: a bogus theory.

We can hope, and wish, and pray for our collective development into a Type 1 thingo...but the moment we push and pull and foist it off on a world in general, we are no better than conquerors, and therefore violent in the pursuit of one man's fantasy to shape the world in his/her image. It is better in my opinion to work on the internal development of human kind so that this development into any level of "type" existence becomes a natural occurrence emerging from the true desire of all our kind rather than the bullying technique of the same old lame old slavers that always seem to be in charge. That part of humanity must be exterminated before there can be any real progress for us. Our violent ways have never really worked out. It's always been a smashing, a changing, and then a stupidly "calling it good".

Just my thoughts. truth in the matter is optional.

A few minutes later:

I certainly would like to state that my theory about kaku is that he wouldn't hurt a fly, and so he is not in any way suggesting anything sinister. I think he's a good guy.

Did you know that Einstein was a very large proponent for a one world government?

is micho saying a class1 would be totalitarian,undemocratic society?

reply to post by takethat


No, I don't think so. (anything BUT, I would presume) He's talking about a higher level of sophistication and technology than what we are using now. He is also suggesting that we would all need to work in concert and in assent to this. At least that's my take on it.

It's a short video and spiel. We can't really get a lot out of that. I'd have to hear more and hear good questions posited toward him.

Should we hold our breath for the folks that will "control" earthquakes and volcanoes and the like? Will we ever obtain "control" over natural events?

We already have a world government, it is run by corporations, health, finance, military, social conditioning. The fact that the government is trying out different governing styles in different country's is irrelevant and temporary until it decides which one to fully implement.

It seems that the eventual style of the current government will be a dictatorship disguised as a democracy but still run by the same corporations.

World government is a great idea, I have no qualms about it. I am not patriotic though I love the country I live in, I loath the leadership. I don't even like the culture. I do think that the current world government is unhealthy, corrupt and immoral.

I will be very happy when a better system is found.

Personally I believe the larger a government becomes, the more representation is needed, and when there is more representation the word of the individual matters less.

Just think how much each country runs its police system, court system, political system, and its military to name a few.

Maybe, along time in the future, one world government can work. It will just take a democratic socialism that is simple, fair, and equal. With everyone's vote having real and equal meaning.

However, to accomplish those things will take everyone understanding each others differences and working together.....aka. world peace. Which is rather unlikely. And it is not just terrorist that don't understand each others differences. All the different cultures of the world clash in their beliefs in so many ways.

Monopoly is illegal in the trade industry, because it limits the diversity of ideas and forces the little guys out of buisness. This is what they would be doing to our world. Because we have diversity in this world we have different races, cultures, foods, art styles, music styles.
They are trying to create the tower of babylon with a one world government.

What if we all took the same medication lets say Flouride for example(the main ingredient in paxil and prozac) What kind of diversity would there be?
it seems like diversity is being less and less favorable because control is more desired than diversity.

reply to post by frazzle


Read this part very closely:

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

fromthetrenchesworldreport.com...

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I wold like this smart guy to give us actual examples of Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 civilizations that exist.

Does he know anything about the economics of "alternative energy"? The fact that they are not economically feasible at this time? What does he expect? The government to subsidize inefficient power sources so we can all "feel better"?

He is the dumbest smart guy I have ever heard speak.

----

A word about the inefficiency of alternative fuels. The day that you can smelt steel and aluminum using only wind and solar power, let's talk about being a Type 1 civilization.

edit on 3-5-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

We can smelt steel using energy gather by wind and solar power not to mention Geo thermal. You do know that not everywhere is backwards enough to still be using finite energy sources do you? The only reasons why we are still using fossil fuels is because of greed and ignorance.

There is no money in the next civilization so the economics of alternative fuels is a useless argument.

Money has nothing to do with it. Do you know much electricity an arc furnace consumes? That is of course if you are smelting scrap with an arc furnace. If you are using a blast furnace, you're using coke, and where do you get that? Here's a clue: coal production. Fossil fuels are pretty much irreplaceable at this stage of our civilization. The first thing we need to do is increase efficiency and cut our fuel consumption across the board before we waste money on windmills and all that.

By the way, I have nothing against solar, wind, or geothermal power. I just think it needs to be done on a small scale at the point of use rather than large-scale utility projects. If you're going to go this route, you should disconnect form the huge utility companies and their profit motives. Screw them.

Kaku, Go inject yourself with anthrax you piece of sh*t.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
The "terrorists want nothing to do with it"....
And the aliens want nothing to do with shills like him.

Michu- "Yes masters, I'll say whatever you want me to say on camera, thank you for this fake money. I will say whatever you need me to masters, thank you, thank you, snarf snarf."

He is definately a First Class shill all the way. I wouldnt believe anything he says.

reply to post by Phage


Not many times I fully agree with you phage, but... nicely written.

Thanks for that insight!

reply to post by Juggernog


I am all for a one world government.

HOWEVER.

There is no way the human race can pull that off currently without creating a totalitarian fascist controller.

reply to post by Phage


Well, that is your interpretation of what was said but I dont agree and judging by some of the replies, im not the only one.

reply to post by Juggernog


please listen more carefully.
He's not saying "terrorists" but "terrist".
While this difference might not be that big, it's still a difference. One some will suggest that this choice of words has the intention of confusing people.
mind you: I don't like the FOX-professor at all. And I don't like him pushing agendas that should be in the political arena.

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
reply to post by Juggernog

 

please listen more carefully.
He's not saying "terrorists" but "terrist".
While this difference might not be that big, it's still a difference. One some will suggest that this choice of words has the intention of confusing people.
mind you: I don't like the FOX-professor at all. And I don't like him pushing agendas that should be in the political arena.

Mate... "terrist" isnt even a word...

Whats that all about? "Terrist"?

reply to post by Outofcontrol


okay, let's call for some crowd-funding so we can buy you a dictionary
"mate"

we really don't do any good in opposing this guy and his ideas (as I stated, I don't like him pushing political agendas) if we can't be careful in interpreting what he's saying.

Terrist

A terrist is a radical environmentalist or a self-proclaimed green anarchist who sees her or him self as heroically defending the Earth, or "Terra" (Latin), from humans or other forces acting through humans - typically ideologies or technologies, which they see as out of control. They may or may not profess the 'Earth immune system' ideology of Gaians.
There is so far no openly stated ideology called "terrism". That may be deliberate, as terrists usually see it as unnecessary to discuss, explain or agree. Instead they act.

Many terrists oppose capitalism as inherently dirty and destructive of the natural world. Others view technology as the enemy, and some state that they seek human extinction, e.g. through suicide, cannibalism, abortion, euthanasia, and other means. A notable group of this sort is the Church of Euthanasia. Some consider the Anarchist Golfing Association to also be taking a basically terrist position, as they offer a relatively weak rationale for attacking the game of golf, itself a symbol of what they oppose. Both groups might also reasonably be called situationist.

Critics of such groups often consider them insincere or mentally unbalanced, and believe that extreme goals and visible actions are nothing but a publicity stunt. As evidence they point to the fact that the term "terrist" was openly coined in deliberate mockery of the term terrorist, which is sometimes pronounced (especially with certain American accents) as "terrist". A web search will verify that this is the most common use.

Radical environmentalists don't usually openly state that they are terrists, but seek some socially acceptable rationale for their actions. As with the word "terrorist", if someone says they are a terrist, they probably aren't, but are just seeking publicity.

See also: ecoterrorism radical environmentalism, political ecology, anarchism, Gaians

source

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


Ok... so neohumanism.org says it exists, therefor EXISTS.

Well... Merriam-Webster dictionary says it doesnt exist. So... I'll stick with the dictionary if you dont mind. Not that I have anything against neohumanism.org, but... it kinda lacks the credibility the Merriam-Webster has you know?

He says "terrorists" like "old fashion, stuck to old habbits, ppl with no interest in society to evolve either because of their business, faith or personal belief - anything that is a threat to their way of life whatever that may be"

"Terrists"... sure, whatever.

Originally posted by Phage

where he states that those that are against this movement are the terrorists...

No. That is a gross distortion.
Kaku does not say that those who are against the development of a type one civilization are terrorists. What he says is that present day terrorists are against the changes involved with such a transition, changes we are currently experiencing. This is not the same thing as saying "If you are against world government you are a terrorist."

This is the equivalent of turning the statement "there are Muslim terrorists" into "Muslims are terrorists."

BTW, where does "world government" come into it? Did I miss that part?

edit on 5/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

euh, Kaku (a guy whom I respect for his theoretical work but dislike as a media type) isn't even saying "terrorists" but "terrists".

reply to post by Outofcontrol


as this is really going nowhere I suggest I'll refrain.
whatever you dig, "mate"

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
reply to post by Outofcontrol

 

as this is really going nowhere I suggest I'll refrain.
whatever you dig, "mate"

Nice of you to "refrain" since the dictionary you so arrogantly suggested I get, doesn't have "terrist" has a word. That must have hurt a bit. So... maybe I'm not the one who needs a dictionary.

Thanks for giving up and further humiliate yourself over something as simple as a word.

EDIT: And please, may I suggest you stop with the "mate" also? Cause it seems like you've just discovered another new word. (mate exists in Merriam-Webster btw, just in case you just found it out)

cheers mate.