Why are 97% of the members of ATS unemployed?

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

We can just save a lot of time by not agreeing. Because this can only go one way.

You: We can have unlimited everything with free energy, anti-gravity and robots that the government is hiding from us.

No... Me: We can all have more than enough to live on and live richly. Never said we can have "unlimited everything."

Me: No, science fiction. There will always be things that are scarce. Free energy is not going to breed dolphins, whales and bring back endangered species. Disease doesn't disappear with energy.

We don't eat dolphin as a rule, or whale - or most of the endangered species, either. What's these have to do with the price of tea in China? So to speak. This is irrelevant.

And, no, disease does not disappear, however... With money no longer a motive for maintaining illness (pharmaceutical companies LOVE illness), the many cures that have been suppressed and hidden will come forth, and most disease will vanish.

You are making an uneducated guess as to what the world would be like if it had all the elements you wish it had. I suggest writing fiction, because that is what it is.

I am not making an uneducated guess. I am making a very educated analysis based on elements present today which at no time in the past have been available. That you won't believe in some, and cannot put the pieces together has no bearing on whether they are available and what we can accomplish with them.

A realistic view of the world would keep you from making such outlandish presumptions about the world.

LOLOL! It's not realistic to see the Interweb. It's not realistic to see the state of robot development. It's not realistic to take knowledge I have of electrogravitics and put these pieces together. I guess, dude.

If you didn't notice, there are many groups of humans on this rock. Not all of them want robots and flying cars.... It is a little arrogant to say you've figured out the entire Earth's population.

The neat thing about abundance is that IF YOU DON'T WANT IT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT. It is no arrogance. It is an understanding that CHOICES will be available. Nothing will force anyone to have something they don't want, but if it's there they can have it if they want. It's a little arrogant to say that, because some don't want these things, no one may have them.

Hypothetically: If the government was hiding all the things you say it is, why would your opinion matter if they released it? All the things you talk about need to be done through central leadership.

No. You are not reading or being deliberately dense. The Interweb allows self governance with NO central control. Leaders will emerge as any problem crops up. And with money out of the picture as motivation, the problems will be solved efficiently, honestly and with betterment always foremost.

Your outline is the equivalent of a futuristic hippie commune, and if you didn't notice, hippie communes didn't last long and they applied to a small group of people, not the entire population.

Communism is - again and for the hundredth time - a scarcity paradigm. This is NOT a situation of a scarcity of energy. It is something new to Human society. For the first time Humans will have a surplus of energy available. So flinging out scarcity paradigm analogies is pointless.

But since you are so sure of this, rather than flinging it out, show how this is so.

Alright guys, let's take it easy and consider letting chemist in on the big secret that we all know about work. I mean he's obviously not ready for such knowledge yet but he seems to be at his wits end. Are we going to give him a break or not? Just remember how it was when we all didn't know the secret.

reply to post by Amaterasu

We don't eat dolphin as a rule, or whale - or most of the endangered species, either. What's these have to do with the price of tea in China? So to speak. This is irrelevant.

Those are just two examples. Cod, Tuna, Pollack, etc.

And, no, disease does not disappear, however... With money no longer a motive for maintaining illness (pharmaceutical companies LOVE illness), the many cures that have been suppressed and hidden will come forth, and most disease will vanish.

Fiction.

LOLOL! It's not realistic to see the Interweb. It's not realistic to see the state of robot development. It's not realistic to take knowledge I have of electrogravitics and put these pieces together. I guess, dude.

Taking my words out of context. I'm referring to the human condition. And not everything that is in theory/prototype stage is ready for mass development. So if you think we would have flying cars within a few weeks because they have a new energy source you are sadly mistaken.

The neat thing about abundance is that IF YOU DON'T WANT IT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT. It is no arrogance. It is an understanding that CHOICES will be available. Nothing will force anyone to have something they don't want, but if it's there they can have it if they want. It's a little arrogant to say that, because some don't want these things, no one may have them.

We already established there can be no abundance. Do you get it, your opposite of abundance is scarcity. And there will always be scarcity. If energy is unlimited there are still limited numbers of other things in the world. The whole idea is flawed.

The Interweb allows self governance with NO central control. Leaders will emerge as any problem crops up. And with money out of the picture as motivation, the problems will be solved efficiently, honestly and with betterment always foremost.

Where does this come from? It's like saying, oh things will be great, this will happen and this and this and this. It's just blah blah blah. How is the leadership working on the internet now.... oh wait, it' s messed up cause were in a scarcity paradigm, right...

t is something new to Human society. For the first time Humans will have a surplus of energy available. So flinging out scarcity paradigm analogies is pointless. But since you are so sure of this, rather than flinging it out, show how this is so.

Wow, another crackpot asking people to prove them wrong. Since this is your theory, and you developed it, show us the work you did to come to your conclusions. Why is it every time someone makes something up it is up to everyone else to show them they're wrong? Because this is a social change you are proposing, just show instance in history where it works. (Oh but you can't cause everything was in a scarcity paradigm...) Convenient...

Your very argument that, the human condition will change because we have unlimited energy is flawed. There is no basis on reality for that assumption. It was cooked up in your head. It's like saying, "if I had a million-ca-jillion dollars I'd be super happy"

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

We don't eat dolphin as a rule, or whale - or most of the endangered species, either. What's these have to do with the price of tea in China? So to speak. This is irrelevant.

Those are just two examples. Cod, Tuna, Pollack, etc.

More irrelevancy.

And, no, disease does not disappear, however... With money no longer a motive for maintaining illness (pharmaceutical companies LOVE illness), the many cures that have been suppressed and hidden will come forth, and most disease will vanish.

Fiction.

There you go again, spewing without support. I KNOW that cannabis flower produces a marvelous anti-cancer oil. Can we use it? No. Is it heralded in the media? No. Is it thereby suppressed? Yes. Why? Because the pharmaceutical companies want you paying for "treatments" they have patented and don't want this threat to be known.

LOLOL! It's not realistic to see the Interweb. It's not realistic to see the state of robot development. It's not realistic to take knowledge I have of electrogravitics and put these pieces together. I guess, dude.

Taking my words out of context. I'm referring to the human condition. And not everything that is in theory/prototype stage is ready for mass development. So if you think we would have flying cars within a few weeks because they have a new energy source you are sadly mistaken.

A few weeks? No. Months from the time the tech is released, though. I mean, they have had 50+ years to R&D in electrogravitics - and you can bet your ass they've been doing just that - so I expect marvels. (And, no, I didn't take your words out of context. Maybe a re-read would help...)

The neat thing about abundance is that IF YOU DON'T WANT IT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT. It is no arrogance. It is an understanding that CHOICES will be available. Nothing will force anyone to have something they don't want, but if it's there they can have it if they want. It's a little arrogant to say that, because some don't want these things, no one may have them.

We already established there can be no abundance. Do you get it, your opposite of abundance is scarcity. And there will always be scarcity. If energy is unlimited there are still limited numbers of other things in the world. The whole idea is flawed.

We have done no such thing. Do you get it? We have a number of things NOW that Humans have never had before. I never said "unlimited everything" (how many times, man, how many times do I have to say?). Abundance means we can feed, clothe and house everyone richly and still have plenty left over. You just can't get past nitpicking specific commodities. In tropical places, tropical fruits and plants will fill the needs, in temperate areas, temperate crops, and if some places fall short they can call out via the Interweb and excess will be moved to where it is needed.

Man, it's as if you WANT poverty for most.

The Interweb allows self governance with NO central control. Leaders will emerge as any problem crops up. And with money out of the picture as motivation, the problems will be solved efficiently, honestly and with betterment always foremost.

Where does this come from? It's like saying, oh things will be great, this will happen and this and this and this. It's just blah blah blah. How is the leadership working on the internet now.... oh wait, it' s messed up cause were in a scarcity paradigm, right...

If I could, I'd code a site and put it up and call people to it to begin governing themselves. But that is not MY forte. So someone else can put it up - and we can spread the word that that is the place to go to solve issues. Right now, we don't have that site.

Man, you are very shortsighted.

t is something new to Human society. For the first time Humans will have a surplus of energy available. So flinging out scarcity paradigm analogies is pointless. But since you are so sure of this, rather than flinging it out, show how this is so.

Wow, another crackpot asking people to prove them wrong. Since this is your theory, and you developed it, show us the work you did to come to your conclusions. Why is it every time someone makes something up it is up to everyone else to show them they're wrong? Because this is a social change you are proposing, just show instance in history where it works. (Oh but you can't cause everything was in a scarcity paradigm...) Convenient...

Wow, another shill...er...individual playing the name-calling-instead-of-tackling-the-request game. Why is it every time someone offers ideas to solve things, when such...individuals...make blanket statements and are asked to support them, snide name-calling is the response - NOT an honest attempt to show their thinking?

Convenient? I think not. Would LOVE to show you, but I can't - again, for the bazillionth time - THERE HAS NEVER BEEN THESE ELEMENTS AVAILABLE TO HUMANITY BEFORE.

Your very argument that, the human condition will change because we have unlimited energy is flawed.

Oh, good! Tell me how!

There is no basis on reality for that assumption.

Nope. That was a blanket statement... (And the deduction comes from the FACT that money represents accounting for energy expended and infinite energy effectively means infinite money which has no social application... No basis in reality my foot!)

It was cooked up in your head.

Another blanket statement - still not telling me the rational path to "Your very argument that, the human condition will change because we have unlimited energy is flawed."

It's like saying, "if I had a million-ca-jillion dollars I'd be super happy"

How is it like that?

OP the way things are going it might not be too long untill you join this supposed 97%, it can happen to anyone. I just hope if it happens to you you receive a little more sympathy than you display.

reply to post by Amaterasu

More irrelevancy.

Food is pretty relevant. You want to get rid of money but how does that work with a limited food supply? Everything is abundant... right, except food.

I KNOW that cannabis flower produces a marvelous anti-cancer oil. Can we use it? No. Is it heralded in the media? No. Is it thereby suppressed? Yes. Why? Because the pharmaceutical companies want you paying for "treatments" they have patented and don't want this threat to be known.

If you know than why don't you make the oil and cure cancer for everyone. It's pretty hard to reject something when it works.

A few weeks? No. Months from the time the tech is released, though. I mean, they have had 50+ years to R&D in electrogravitics - and you can bet your ass they've been doing just that - so I expect marvels. (And, no, I didn't take your words out of context. Maybe a re-read would help...)

For one, you don't have any knowledge about electrogravitics, you have a belief and opinion. If you want to build me a spaceship than by all means go for it. I'll be your number one supporter. That would be if you had knowledge about what you claim.

We have done no such thing. Do you get it? We have a number of things NOW that Humans have never had before. I never said "unlimited everything" (how many times, man, how many times do I have to say?). Abundance means we can feed, clothe and house everyone richly and still have plenty left over. You just can't get past nitpicking specific commodities. In tropical places, tropical fruits and plants will fill the needs, in temperate areas, temperate crops, and if some places fall short they can call out via the Interweb and excess will be moved to where it is needed.

See this is where your theory falls flat on it's face. We are supposed to be 'abundant' but there will be things that are not? So nitpicking.... is considering more than one factor.... hmm... crackpot ideas always leave out variables...

I'll give you an example, when oil was first discovered it was abundant, energy was abundant, and all it did was spur population growth. Oh, but we didn't have robots then... or antigravity cars... (according to you we have them and they are ready for everyone)... So what about third world countries? Are they trained to program, maintain and control robotic systems...?

You food theory is nonsense. We just pass the food around to everyone... You admit that food won't be abundant but then you say we can just spread it around to everyone....

If people are limited by their regional jurisdiction how does that fit in with your 'everyone can have everything idea'

Wow, another shill...er...individual playing the name-calling-instead-of-tackling-the-request game. Why is it every time someone offers ideas to solve things, when such...individuals...make blanket statements and are asked to support them, snide name-calling is the response - NOT an honest attempt to show their thinking?

I've poked tons of holes in your theory and so has any critical thinking person with a half-brain on this forum who has decided to debate with you. You have an argument that never stops because any time you hit something contrary to your belief you simply make things up.

Convenient? I think not. Would LOVE to show you, but I can't - again, for the bazillionth time - THERE HAS NEVER BEEN THESE ELEMENTS AVAILABLE TO HUMANITY BEFORE.

There have been lots of things that were never available to humanity before, and when they got them, look what they did with them. Seriously, try and factor in the human condition into your little fantasy.

Oh, good! Tell me how!

Throughout history there are people that have had abundant everything. Look at old monarchs for one. It never changed their outlook. And we have already established that not everything will be abundant in your world, meaning it is still a scarcity paradigm

Nope. That was a blanket statement... (And the deduction comes from the FACT that money represents accounting for energy expended and infinite energy effectively means infinite money which has no social application... No basis in reality my foot!)

Strange I could have sworn money existed before electricity was understood and used.



Oh right but we have infinite energy now? Except that you can't hook up electrodes to the human body, people have to eat food and expend energy to function. People still have to think, breath, move, repair things, build things, etc, etc.

Another blanket statement - still not telling me the rational path to "Your very argument that, the human condition will change because we have unlimited energy is flawed."

Just give me one example of humans acting completely rational throughout a lifetime. Coming from such an irrational argument, it is ironic that you think people will all of a sudden embrace love and piece because they got a new toy.

How is it like that?

1. Because it's not realistic.
2. Because it's not backed by anything.

reply to post by Amaterasu

A few weeks? No. Months from the time the tech is released, though. I mean, they have had 50+ years to R&D in electrogravitics - and you can bet your ass they've been doing just that - so I expect marvels. (And, no, I didn't take your words out of context. Maybe a re-read would help...)

With such a bold statement I assume you have some experience designing and constructing factories? Maybe you have retro fitted some old ones for new technologies....

Months - BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - to give everyone unlimited energy, a personal robot and a flying car....

Yes, it will take months to create a new industry that solves all the worlds problems? Really, maybe you should take a whack at business because it seems you have plans that would outdo the world leaders in business.

What about rare earth minerals, plastics and ore that go into making all your systems. Are they abundant too?

reply to post by woodwardjnr


yes I find that interesting as well as this

[night is coming when no one can work]??

and think these are related in some way





I'm still trying to put it all together though

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

More irrelevancy.

Food is pretty relevant. You want to get rid of money but how does that work with a limited food supply? Everything is abundant... right, except food.

Cute. Nice jigger-polkary. Food is important. Any specific food item is NOT. There is plenty of food for us on this planet. That's my point. Food is vastly abundant.

I KNOW that cannabis flower produces a marvelous anti-cancer oil. Can we use it? No. Is it heralded in the media? No. Is it thereby suppressed? Yes. Why? Because the pharmaceutical companies want you paying for "treatments" they have patented and don't want this threat to be known.

If you know than why don't you make the oil and cure cancer for everyone. It's pretty hard to reject something when it works.

Um, there's a guy in Canada that was (is?) doing just that - giving it away to those in need. He did a piece called "Run From the Cure." The Canadian and US (!) governments harassed him and tried to arrest him and otherwise cause him grief. Most have never heard of him. Why? Because the media never cover widely any real cures. Their corporate masters would never allow it.

EDIT to add: Here. Here is the film I speak of: www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for me doing it myself? You know I have no money - and that it's illegal - and that I would be treated just like that guy in Canada (who shows HOW to make the oil in "Run From the Cure..."). What a stupid remark.

A few weeks? No. Months from the time the tech is released, though. I mean, they have had 50+ years to R&D in electrogravitics - and you can bet your ass they've been doing just that - so I expect marvels. (And, no, I didn't take your words out of context. Maybe a re-read would help...)

For one, you don't have any knowledge about electrogravitics, you have a belief and opinion. If you want to build me a spaceship than by all means go for it. I'll be your number one supporter. That would be if you had knowledge about what you claim.

No. I have MEMORIES. And analysis based on MEMORIES. And knowledge based on documentation and MEMORIES. If you'll be my number one supporter, finance my work and I'll make sure you have one. Otherwise, such infantile comments are best left unsaid.

We have done no such thing. Do you get it? We have a number of things NOW that Humans have never had before. I never said "unlimited everything" (how many times, man, how many times do I have to say?). Abundance means we can feed, clothe and house everyone richly and still have plenty left over. You just can't get past nitpicking specific commodities. In tropical places, tropical fruits and plants will fill the needs, in temperate areas, temperate crops, and if some places fall short they can call out via the Interweb and excess will be moved to where it is needed.

See this is where your theory falls flat on it's face. We are supposed to be 'abundant' but there will be things that are not? So nitpicking.... is considering more than one factor.... hmm... crackpot ideas always leave out variables...

Dude, it falls apart because, though everyone can eat organic fruits, vegetables, legumes, roots and meats, they cannot eat lobster everyday? Get real. Tell the starving child that he gets nothing to eat if he wants lobster. Say, sure, we have food - good wholesome food - but no lobster, so you must starve to death.

I'll give you an example, when oil was first discovered it was abundant, energy was abundant, and all it did was spur population growth. Oh, but we didn't have robots then... or antigravity cars... (according to you we have them and they are ready for everyone)... So what about third world countries? Are they trained to program, maintain and control robotic systems...?

Bonzo... I am so sick of you putting words into my virtual mouth. Energy was only apparently abundant. There were (and are) still those who controlled the energy, and only some got rich. Most stayed in poverty. I NEVER SAID ROBOTS AND ANTIGRAV ARE READY FOR EVERYBODY. Geez. But YOU say I did. As for third world countries - as they have the chance (as we bring the means to them) to ask for things, they will be given.

Have you read my book, The Abundance Paradigm? You might want to read that. Maybe you will grasp the abundance paradigm.

You food theory is nonsense. We just pass the food around to everyone... You admit that food won't be abundant but then you say we can just spread it around to everyone....

There you go telling me what I admit to. Just quit it. I NEVER SAID FOOD WOULD NOT BE ABUNDANT. I said the exact opposite. What I said was that NOT ALL commodities would be abundant. But combining all the sole, the tuna, the cod, the apples, the carrots, the wheat, the corn, the rice, the hemp seed, the peanuts, the (insert food item here) - the sum is far more than we can consume. We ALL can feed ourselves richly with what this planet provides.

If people are limited by their regional jurisdiction how does that fit in with your 'everyone can have everything idea'

No limitation per se. If there is a need, it can be covered from anywhere with surplus.

Read my book. media.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow, another shill...er...individual playing the name-calling-instead-of-tackling-the-request game. Why is it every time someone offers ideas to solve things, when such...individuals...make blanket statements and are asked to support them, snide name-calling is the response - NOT an honest attempt to show their thinking?

I've poked tons of holes in your theory and so has any critical thinking person with a half-brain on this forum who has decided to debate with you. You have an argument that never stops because any time you hit something contrary to your belief you simply make things up.

No you haven't you have stood around making blanket statements (like you have poked holes in my theory...). You have pulled absurdities out your rear end and claim that because my ideas don't accommodate absurdities, my ideas are untenable. I haven't met these others you mention - I have had answers for them, too. And mainly they stuck to the blanket-statement claims like you and presented nothing of substance - like you.

Who is making things up? (So far you have made up at least two things THIS THREAD that "i" said - which I never said. Yeah. I make things up.) And rather making the "you simply make things up" blanket statement, why don't you try LISTING them.

Convenient? I think not. Would LOVE to show you, but I can't - again, for the bazillionth time - THERE HAS NEVER BEEN THESE ELEMENTS AVAILABLE TO HUMANITY BEFORE.

There have been lots of things that were never available to humanity before, and when they got them, look what they did with them. Seriously, try and factor in the human condition into your little fantasy.

It's all ABOUT the Human condition and making a radical change for the better by virtue of guidelines set in the Ethical Planetarian Party platform. While, you're at it...instead of being rude and calling my ideas "fantasy" in that blanket statement - PROVE IT.

Oh, good! Tell me how!

Throughout history there are people that have had abundant everything. Look at old monarchs for one. It never changed their outlook. And we have already established that not everything will be abundant in your world, meaning it is still a scarcity paradigm

You are looking at money aggregated to SOME. NOT (effectively) EVERYBODY with money. That is what infinite money does. It gets rid of the need for money such that everybody may partake of the abundance on this planet. The monarchs held the energy (which was scarce for virtually all) and reveled in their power over others. And you are just not getting it. Just because there will not be enough lobsters to feed everyone daily, does NOT follow that there is no food. FOOD is abundant. Geez.

Nope. That was a blanket statement... (And the deduction comes from the FACT that money represents accounting for energy expended and infinite energy effectively means infinite money which has no social application... No basis in reality my foot!)

Strange I could have sworn money existed before electricity was understood and used.

Now you're showing how very poor your reading skills are. Look at my statement. Do you see "electricity" there anywhere. Look really closely. Nope. Just "energy." Energy - as in the sweat off one's brow energy. Energy as in what you can get your mule to do energy. Energy as in what the water provides as you float your crop downstream to market energy. Energy.

Oh right but we have infinite energy now? Except that you can't hook up electrodes to the human body, people have to eat food and expend energy to function. People still have to think, breath, move, repair things, build things, etc, etc.

Yes, the universe is FULL of energy and we can extract it and we can build robots to organically tend our fields and deliver the produce. People will still do all of that list of yours - just not motivated by money.

Another blanket statement - still not telling me the rational path to "Your very argument that, the human condition will change because we have unlimited energy is flawed."

Just give me one example of humans acting completely rational throughout a lifetime. Coming from such an irrational argument, it is ironic that you think people will all of a sudden embrace love and piece because they got a new toy.

Humans are loving, PEACEful Beings. Money twists them away from that. And what "irrational argument" are you talking about? Or is that more of your blanket statement penchant?

How is it like that?

1. Because it's not realistic.
2. Because it's not backed by anything.

How is it not realistic? How is it not backed up?

No. Nevermind. This is way off topic here. Don't bother to reply. Any reader can see your tricks - your blanket statements with no substance, your underhanded insults that mean nothing, your putting words into my mouth. I am done with this here. Let's take it to the debate forum (if it's still around...).

Originally posted by jackflap

Alright guys, let's take it easy and consider letting chemist in on the big secret that we all know about work. I mean he's obviously not ready for such knowledge yet but he seems to be at his wits end. Are we going to give him a break or not? Just remember how it was when we all didn't know the secret.

How about you guys stop commenting and see if he is going to respond? I mean, this is the best troll thread ever. He made 1 post and he now has a 7 page thread.

Ridiculous.

reply to post by Amaterasu

Cute. Nice jigger-polkary. Food is important. Any specific food item is NOT. There is plenty of food for us on this planet. That's my point. Food is vastly abundant.

Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation

So in your abundant food supply scheme, are you taking into account staying with GM vegetables that are highly dependent on petroleum products or were you hoping to go back to older crops that produce less yields. Also, did you factor in natural disasters or were you planning to control the weather as well?

Like I said, no basis on reality.

Um, there's a guy in Canada that was (is?) doing just that - giving it away to those in need. He did a piece called "Run From the Cure." The Canadian and US (!) governments harassed him and tried to arrest him and otherwise cause him grief. Most have never heard of him. Why? Because the media never cover widely any real cures. Their corporate masters would never allow it.

The guy is well known in Canada. It is my country after all, which has been very liberal in treating people compounds from Hemp and its sister plant.

The same study that he touts is his proof to a cancer cure also shows that it accelerates growth of certain cancers. The study focused on the positive effects THC has on lung cancer. But you failed to mention it causes a higher growth rate in others.

I'm not going to defend the drug industry, but a statement of 'oh this cures cancer' is false. It is a little more complex than you give it credit for.

No. I have MEMORIES. And analysis based on MEMORIES. And knowledge based on documentation and MEMORIES. If you'll be my number one supporter, finance my work and I'll make sure you have one. Otherwise, such infantile comments are best left unsaid.

Send me your schematics and I'll find an engineer. You toss around infantile comments when you are stating that you can build a spaceship but have nothing to back it up with?

Dude, it falls apart because, though everyone can eat organic fruits, vegetables, legumes, roots and meats, they cannot eat lobster everyday? Get real. Tell the starving child that he gets nothing to eat if he wants lobster. Say, sure, we have food - good wholesome food - but no lobster, so you must starve to death.

See: first reply in this post.

I am so sick of you putting words into my virtual mouth. Energy was only apparently abundant. There were (and are) still those who controlled the energy, and only some got rich. Most stayed in poverty. I NEVER SAID ROBOTS AND ANTIGRAV ARE READY FOR EVERYBODY. Geez. But YOU say I did. As for third world countries - as they have the chance (as we bring the means to them) to ask for things, they will be given.

Have you read my book, The Abundance Paradigm? You might want to read that. Maybe you will grasp the abundance paradigm.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. Do you or do you not believe that antigravity, unlimited energy and robots are going to solve the worlds problems in a matter of months?

The only thing abundant in the "abundance paradigm" is fiction and nonsense. I suggest your market it as fiction because it's not a bad idea in itself if that's how you want to represent it. It is make believe fantasy that takes nothing into account for its conclusions.

the sum is far more than we can consume. We ALL can feed ourselves richly with what this planet provides.

You have numbers and figures to back up that claim? And again, were you planning to continue growing food with petroleum based chemicals or did you want to revert to lower yield crops....?

No limitation per se. If there is a need, it can be covered from anywhere with surplus. Read my book. media.abovetopsecret.com...

How do you get away with plugging your book every thread you are in? Did you make a deal with ATS? I thought this was against the T&C.

Who is making things up? (So far you have made up at least two things THIS THREAD that "i" said - which I never said. Yeah. I make things up.) And rather making the "you simply make things up" blanket statement, why don't you try LISTING them.

SEE: The Abundance Paradigm = Made up.

It's all ABOUT the Human condition and making a radical change for the better by virtue of guidelines set in the Ethical Planetarian Party platform. While, you're at it...instead of being rude and calling my ideas "fantasy" in that blanket statement - PROVE IT.

I am not the person trying to start a Cult-like movement. You created the platform so either back it up or defend it. You overlook all criticisms with "facts" that are pulled from nowhere. Why don't we need money? "Because there will be no need for it." What is a rational person supposed to say to statements like that?

You are looking at money aggregated to SOME. NOT (effectively) EVERYBODY with money. That is what infinite money does. It gets rid of the need for money such that everybody may partake of the abundance on this planet. The monarchs held the energy (which was scarce for virtually all) and reveled in their power over others.

Were you planning on orchestrating a violent coup against all the major powers in the world? Why would unlimited power systems change any of the long standing power bases? What keeps them from monopolizing the new system.

Now you're showing how very poor your reading skills are. Look at my statement. Do you see "electricity" there anywhere. Look really closely. Nope. Just "energy." Energy - as in the sweat off one's brow energy. Energy as in what you can get your mule to do energy. Energy as in what the water provides as you float your crop downstream to market energy. Energy.

Well, you baited yourself into this one. So how does the scarcity paradigm go away if you now admit that energy is more than electricity....

You had a better argument if you were talking about electricity. Where is your unlimited energy coming from now?

Yes, the universe is FULL of energy and we can extract it and we can build robots to organically tend our fields and deliver the produce. People will still do all of that list of yours - just not motivated by money.

This reminds me of Jules Verne and some other great science fiction writers. Remember we were supposed to have flying cars by the year 2000....

Humans are loving, PEACEful Beings. Money twists them away from that. And what "irrational argument" are you talking about? Or is that more of your blanket statement penchant?

All known recorded history contests that statement. Tribal societies contest that statement. In fact, children contest that, they have no money to worry about but still hurt each other.

What about mental illness? Borderline personalities, schizophrenics, megalomaniacs, etc. Money cause all these problems?

All murders throughout history, jealousy, rage, insecurity, inferiority complexes, etc, etc, etc. THIS WAS ALL CAUSED BECAUSE OF MONEY?

Or is money a tool that is used by people of a certain condition? And take money away the same person uses something else.

Get a grip on reality.

Originally posted by DevilJin

Originally posted by jackflap

Alright guys, let's take it easy and consider letting chemist in on the big secret that we all know about work. I mean he's obviously not ready for such knowledge yet but he seems to be at his wits end. Are we going to give him a break or not? Just remember how it was when we all didn't know the secret.

How about you guys stop commenting and see if he is going to respond?

I mean, this is the best troll thread ever. He made 1 post and he now has a 7 page thread.

Ridiculous.

He scored big with that one didnt he?

What about those who are paid to post here?

Don't they count?

Originally posted by TheChemist187
I would like to know why? I see them here rambling on illegal immigration and on dumb as conspiracy's about the lamest # like whats behind the new US Air force commercial when they save people off a bridge they think because the city is destroyed there is something behind that. I see of katie perry and E.T. now I mean seriously WTF? I saw one about hollywood about how movie predictions have come true about the golf and japan. I mean those are #ing movies, there are bound to be some similarities.

I think those people should stop all this bull# and look for a job.

I went to school to learn how to spell and structure a sentence, and have been employed for more years than you are old.

What's your excuse for that lack of learnin' ???

Even if this was true, why is it so important to be employed.
It's crapola to say we 'd need to have a job, people just need money to live,
not a job !

not unemployed, just in school.
sounds like you (op) need to get a job yourself