It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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)
Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
reply to post by Outofcontrol
as this is really going nowhere I suggest I'll refrain.
whatever you dig, "mate"