reply to post by mOjOm
Concerning free energy and free food...
Removing the conspiratorial elements, I'm simply looking at the psychological motivations behind human activity. Part of our motivation comes from
reward, compliments, and how our image changes in the eyes of those around us. Pride, ego, confidence, self-esteem: whatever you choose to call
it—and whether you believe it is "good" or "bad"—we all strive off of praise, accomplishment, and reward. When you remove the necessity to earn
something, you cut off our connection to the morale boost that attaining it brings. Giving free energy and free food to the whole planet would remove
two extremely basic motivators: self-sustenance, and our desire to create.
If you turn away from the psychology of the situation though, another very big problem also arises.
15% of the American work-force are farmers. If you suddenly give everyone free food, then 15% of American workers suddenly have no jobs. Similarly,
about 5% of the American workforce are engineers, and 395,000 people are technicians; both fields that deal with energy, technology, and the
advancement of both. If free energy and free food were suddenly introduced into the equation, nearly a quarter of Americans would no longer have a
Even the idea that the farmers, produce-sellers, electricians, engineers, and technicians could all just devote their energies to a different field is
an unsound solution, as it doesn't take into account the average age of farmers, their education level, skill-set, or that most engineers and
technicians spend a good deal of their formative years in colleges and universities learning their trade. The same way that a seamstress cannot
replace an electrician, neither can an electrician or a farmer suddenly drop all they've learned and be a medical surgeon.
Free food and free energy would cripple America's economy alone, without even looking at the economy and labor force of the rest of the world.
Concerning option # 2...
It is wrong to think that whomever is selected to decide who is "worthy" and "unworthy" would not let their personal biases dictate their decision. As
I pointed out already:
A right-wing Conservative politician would banish all Democratic, Liberal, and non-right-wing Conservatives as "unworthy" because their political
persuasions disagree with his/her own. Imagine if somebody from the Tea Party were elected.
Putting a religious figure in charge, like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or a High Priest/ess would result in faiths which disagree with their own, punish
their adherents, or have an "unworthy" philosophy being exiled. Consider how much violence already inhabits our world because of Christians, Muslims,
Buddhists, Sikhs, and so on. Given the power to vanquish all opposition, someone from the Joy of Satan ministries would not even bat an eye before
declaring it. Same with the likes of Fred Phelps, or the Dalai Lama, whose caste once enslaved those of the country where they lived.
It is human nature to segregate ourselves. Spiritually, politically, philosophically, ethnically, nationally, even based on things as insignificant as
what sports team we root for. No human could be trusted to determine for us who is, or is not, worthy of being a part of the human population, who is
beyond redemption, and who is "good" or "evil".
Such discrimination only gets worse when you apply an extraterrestrial, or divine element to the equation. Our religious books are full of examples of
one god demanding the wholesale slaughter of the adherents/idols of another. And, almost universally, when we, as a species, have discovered a people
whom we deemed "savage" or "primitive" it has unanimously resulted in the superior race committing genocide on the inferior people.
In this case we would be the Native Americans to an alien Christopher Columbus.
Option # 3: go home and let us solve our own problems collectively, as a still-growing species.
~ Wandering Scribe
edit on 5/11/13 by Wandering Scribe because: spelling error