We've answered many of your questions repeatedly. Your problem is every time we blow you out of the water and you don't know what to say you just ignore it and move on. You convince yourself later that, because you must be right, we must never have responded!

Who cares how you want the global economy to run? No one. What's your problem with white people, racist prick? You obviously haven't travelled much.

Many peoples around the globe do not have the fundamental respect for human life and (though this one's disappearing) freedom that the West has. This has encouraged advancement at record levels and the standard of living we enjoy today. It's not our problem that you live in a mud hovel and support a fascist government. It's not our problem that whores have record levels of AIDS and it causes them problems. No shit. That's what AIDS does. Don't get it. It's not the easiest thing to catch. It's not our problem that you support fascist dictators and warlords and they steal aid given to their people to profit from. As often as not action against these fascist leaders turns global sentiment against nations for interfering internationally and as often as not the leadership that replaces it is as bad or worse. It's not our problem.

There is not global authority and thus no simply defined "global system." A lot of work is being done on this front today but the most successful of it is usually agreements between private groups, not government.

>>Within 20 years, automated production in the agricultural sector could decrease prices and free people from menial labor so much as to make food essentially free.<<

THE NEWS IS IN: MAGICAL ROBOTS WILL DO ALL OF OUR WORK IN 20 YEARS. DON'T WORRY ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN GETTING AN EDUCATION SO THEY CAN FIND BETTER WORK, BETTER PAY, AND JUST BE BRIGHTER AND LESS ANNOYING PEOPLE THAN XENO HERE; MAGICAL ROBOTS WILL GIVE HIM THE SAME QUALITY OF LIVING THAT MY DOCTOR SON HAS. haha stop taking drugs dumbass. I know you guys love the opium, but it's really not improving your situation any.

xeno syndicated has to be a troll. No one is this stupid.

>>When you first saw one at the store you were confounded by their very possible existence, and ran away from them like a frightened little monkey.<<

...When I first saw a magical robot at the store? I've never seen a magical robot at the store. They do not exist. Only you see figments of your imagination.

>>I suppose the internet is 'magical' to you, too, Kemp, eh?<<

I disagree. I contend that the internet is real. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that I am correct. It's real.

>>Please explain.  Are you saying that the parents prostituted their children?<<

Dirty needles and sexual exchange of fluids transmits HIV. You were talking about the parent(s) having HIV. For the parent to get HIV from prostituting the child is adding a level of incest I hadn't thought that dominant. Is it that bad where you live? That would explain a lot, really. Namely what incestuous relations resulted in your malformed brain and why you haven't been to school to get an education that would count as a "first grade level" in my country.

>>That's your answer?  Pathetic.  Why do I bother responding to such an idiot?<<

That's a response? You cannot feed the world or cure it of all disease. You cannot fight off warlords who confiscate foreign aid to sell for profit at the expense of their people's lives. Neither can I. Pretending that any human being has an obligation to perform the impossible is just stupid.

It is your willful ignorance that is embarassing. In the place of real progress you have self-righteous ignorant psychobabble. You FEEL like you do good! And that self-actualization is MORE important than real progress! How idiotic do you have to be to insult my intelligence after your retarded posts about how wonderful magical fairy robots are going to save their world and the government is constitutionally bound to produce them? You're incoherent and don't respond to subject matter. This has got to be the dumbest thread in my memory on here.

hahahahaha

We're going to continue to live life and make business. Duh.

It was criminal acts, not greed. Greed would have been them MAKING MONEY. LOTS OF MONEY. They didn't.

Enron wasn't greed. It was criminal actions; theft to get a few big money while the rest were left with nothing. And that's just the big one we caught. Think about how many got away since then (most of them wouldn't do it without a means to get away!). If Greed was all we had, CEOs' bonuses would be for MAKING MONEY that year, not losing it. I think Greed needs a big comeback.

>> I know for a fact that if you said that to a panel-member at a university debate, you'd be heckled by the audience, and security would come and ask you to leave<<

Stop talking out your ass. You sound like one. I wouldn't have made a statement like that at a university debate. But then, even the most outrageous and insane iuniversities rarely see garbage of the magnitude you've piled up here.

You've completely glossed over justifying your statement that having 100% leisure time (not counting eating, sleeping, hygene... of course, more magical robots could remove the need for these as well! so why not!) is ideal for "self-actualization." You discount work as NOTHING but an impediment and detriment to self-actualization and declare that 100% leisure time is ideal for self-actualization.

I already inquired about why this does not assist the children of the rich who have little but leisure time become much more fully developed human beings than those who have to work; and often the opposite happens. You did not respond to this particular question. It's just one example. If you wanted to engage in a "university" level debate, you would have had to satisfy my questioning your lack of justification of this declaration before I had to ask it repeatedly in varied form. Hell, you OUGHT to have noticed it was missing sometime in post one, not page 6. You would be eager to improve your positioning statements and include the strong reasons you must think you have. In a university level debate, you would have had to satisfy my questions, not repeatedly ignore them. In a university level debate, repeatedly ignoring (aka hiding from) questions shows that a person doesn't have an answer and is just wasting everyone's time.

How many degrees do you have? Are you presently taking grad courses? You're clearly more familiar with University level thinking than I!

>>The notion is based on the assumption that we develop technology to free us from doing menial tasks, improve the quality and living standard of our lives, and increase our leisure time, all so as to pursue more intellectual endeavors and / or self-actualization pursuits (This IS what humans have used technology for since the invention of FIRE after all).<<

Fire did a lot more than "free up some time to think." Your notion is flawed. Your intellect is underdeveloped. What you propose would cause underdeveloped intellect in others. It's like an intellectual disease! Gross.

>>First of all, why do you say 'we'?<<

Because we're all humans, and NO ONE HAS IT. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

>>I cannot understand why you would say 'we' and not 'them' or, more accurately, 'it'.<<

Because WE don't have IT. Because IT doesn't exist. You wouldn't understand. BS more.

>>We need such an international NGO, Kemp.  Yes it needs to be above corruption.  Yes it needs to remain non-partisan.  And, yes, it needs to be international.  I know it may seem an impossibility to you, Kemp.  But, can't you agree that it would be a good thing?<<

No. Have you ever worked for or with nonprofit organizations? I have. They're NOTORIOUSLY horribly run. The majority of them are run awwwwwfully. The larger you make this NGO, the more power it has, the more currupting sources for its handlers. And we've seen how corrupt people get on the local and national levels already. Yes, let's give them MORE power and trust them MORE. GREAT idea!

I do not believe technology is the key to "solving" social problems. Too many corrupt idiots have been in charge for too long. Globalization has many advantages for developing nations, but the rich tend to bribe the leaders of the poor, who are as corrupt as the leaders of the rich.

>>I'M TALKING ABOUT LOCAL, AUTOMATED PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CLEAN WATER AND FOOD FOR ALL PEOPLE IN NEED!!<<

And homes. And power. And, presumably, many other things.

>>>>This is really a non-issue, as it doesn't exist.<<

Prove it.<<

We don't have the technology to automate farms. It's a fact. To ask me to prove this is [w00f!]. Pardon my French.

>>No, i am not.  It would not be provided by any sort of taxes.  There would be no labor involved in the process.  It would be fully automated.<<

So everything necessary to maintain it will be both produced and itself maintained by the robots. Who will also produce and maintain everything necessary to maintain the primary production. Who will also produce and maintain everything necessary to maintain that which maintains the primary production. And all of this, ONCE WE DEVELOP IT (you claim we will, some day), is going to be paid for how? Who would intitially create this army of robots capable of producing more robots and maintaining themselves? You don't think the initial costs would be astronomical for this cutting-edge technology that doesn't even exist yet?

Couldn't be more in agreement on social services than I am, xeno syndicated. I'm not against having a safety net out there. Not everyone was lucky to grow up with a supportive family and shit happens. Their aim is totally wrong. If you get a lot done and go under budget, your budget is reduced. Your section doesn't need that much and the cut can go to aid those who "need" it more. WHAT DO YOU KNOW, EVERYONE CAN'T GET SHIT DONE. EVERYONE NEEDS MORE. Surprise. Never saw it coming. Great system.

>>So, Kemp, prove the technology to provide virtually free (de to automation) basic needs for all people on Earth isn't locked away under some multi-national corporation's patent<<

It isn't. No one has it. It wouldn't be a single idea or patent, it would be a WHOLE lot of different HUGE advances we would need. And they would most likely come from the private market anyway. Many companies are making big money by innovating electronics constantly. TV, phones, computers. Everything's getting smaller and faster. Whoever comes out with the next divice that does more things faster and is smaller (but with a bigger screen!) makes a lot of money. I know I'm buying my new Blackberry Storm on monday!

I totally agree that these mega corporations would do everything they can to protect their livelihoods. But automation is good for them. As long as they protect it, any efficient automation cuts production costs (that's why they do it!) and they keep upping the price on a product they continue to make cheaper as they automate as much of its production as possible. They just don't have NEARLY the capacity for what you're talking about here. And I'm still not buying that they'll ever be making MICROSCOPIC batteries, processors, modems, and motors all functioning together. We DON'T have the technology to manipulate individual atoms anywhere NEAR the extent necessary to construct any such nanotechnology. We're not even close.

>>An individual can be happy only if he or she at least has basic needs fulfilled AND, therefore, the opportunity to pursue his or her personal, higher needs.<<

I would argue that your perspective on this question reveals an insufferable ignorance and experiences lacking from your life. You speak as if rich children must be the most complete human beings, whereas they're as often dysfunctional as anyone else. Wealth is built out of lower middle class values. Creating wealth leads to a satisfying existance -- THIS is self-actualization. Being happy with one's life to the fullest degree. Being aware of the world and one's place in it and smiling. Having to perform labor to provide for one's (and one's family's) basic needs is a basic fact of life. There is no God giving us everything. We are not living in Eden. Ignoring this basic fact and thinking it is an impediment to self-actualization is just setting up a huge roadblock keeping yourself (and proposing to keep many others) from it.