Deleting: Zarf BeebleBrix
Inactive: Zarf BeebleBrix
Napbreaks: Zarf BeebleBrix (In my defense, it wasn't a nap, per se.  It was more of an alliance)
Spamming: Zarf BeebleBrix

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Stop smoking crack before you question my intelligence. Try responding to the content before crying that I'm being mean. I'll make fun of you plenty more if you're not going to touch the content. Without a content-driven discussion, what else am I going to do? Make fun of you, that's what.

Alright, I'll take the Pepsi Challenge on this one.  I've taken the liberty of copying every post you have made in this thread since I posted as proof that I have responded to the stuff that applies to my arguments.  Have fun!

> V.Kemp wrote:

> I'm glad that that nanotechnology will never exist.

Responsive.  No justification, but oh well.  That should come up later.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Horseshit, Acolyte! His was an "extensively thought-out" question!

Responding to Acolyte, not me.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> We have a resource-based economy. We trade currency for resources (ie, goods and services) we desire.

I think you mixed up "resource-based economy" and "communism." Check out your local library for clarification.

Wasn't responding to the issue of nanotechnology's feasibility.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> >>As per whether or not the level of technology is currently available to establish a robot-based labor force:  Look at how cars, computers, and other things are manufactured today.  We are clearly heading down the road to an age where robotics (nano and macro) could, potentially, do all tasks necessary for providing for the basic needs for each and every human on the planet for a minuscule financial cost.<<

I'm ashamed to post on the same board as such an idiot.

>>As per how the resource-based economy would work on a day to day basis:  with no need for one to sell his or her labor anymore, there simply wouldn't be any need for money.  There would have to be a resource-based economy.<<

Well I have more needs than you. If you deny me what I want you're oppressing my self-actualization. How many $40,000,000 yachts can there be in your dream world? Do we all get one?

Stop smoking crack kid. You'll never be able to hold a job.

Wasn't responding to me, and wasn't responsive to nanotechnology's feasibility.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> xeno syndicated, you are a retard. I feel obligated to point this out to you. There are huge gaps in your posts. Other things you post are completely impossible but you presume they almost exist today and surely soon will.

You say that anyone working and providing for themself and their family is being exploited. You claim that welfare bums are having their self-actualization goals infringed upon by society, which is not GIVING them enough for nothing in return. You say that a massive NGO, which would effectively be a government branch, for all of the funding and regulation it would require from government directly, would magically provide everything for everyone. Because you require magic, you pretend that any sort of nanotechnology to make steak from dogs**t will exist soon and robots can do everything for humanity, including work requiring thinking (which is most work, to some degree. Every mined for anything? yeah.).

Please. Stop smoking crack. It ruins a lot of lives. I guess I can understand your empathy to support welfare bums, now that I know about your crack habit, but you still have a computer and you seem to be able to type moderately well. You can beat the habbit! We all support you!

Still not responsive to nanotechnology.  (Remember, I'm talking about nanotechnology.  Xeno is talking about robots.  Two different things.  However, I'm pretty sure you're aware of this, given your later posts.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> lol. I think he's brilliant. He proposes giving everyone everything they need without taxing anyone. How awesome is that!

Not responsive to nanotechnology, and no argument there, really.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> He's talking about a magical land where all work is done by a magical force. Don't encourage him. He can go anywhere he wants after he accepts magic. Why help him write his next B sci fi movie?

Responding to xeno, not me.  In addition, has no argument behind it.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> You'll have to get your own robots. But that'll be hard. Because you won't have money. And anything you produce will go toward the hive. I mean nanny NGO. And they will provide you with all that you need. Which will be rice.

I do not think we should strive for the impossible. Investment in t he impossible is waste. Waste is stupidity. Costly stupidity.

You probably believe we're going to have nanites in your lifetime so small they are invisible to the eye yet somehow packed with microprocessors, memory, a wireless modem, power source, and some sort of motorized means of movement/manipulating their environment. Keep dreaming. But wake and act in the real world.

avogadro, you do make a good point. Now that I read your whole post, I do acknowledge the inherent honor in reading and talking about conspiracy theories and playing mmorpgs all day and growing fat. I love mmorpgs over strategy games because you can succeed just as well if you're stupid as a smart person. The more of your valuable time you invest in the productive game, the more you succeed. That's how life should be!

Okay, first response to nanotechnology's feasibility.  But there's no justification behind why nanotechnology is infeasible.  And I did respond to this earlier.  My "nanotechnology is an extension of nature" thing?  Remember?

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Back it up? I'm the one siding with science, technological development, and common sense. I have nature and science against me? No. You're the one making stuff up.

Please give us ANY indication that leads you to believe that all of those necessary components will EVER be developed on a microscopic scale. If science is with you, you'll surely have some research or achievements that suggest ANY of this is on its way, to ANY extent.

Here we go.  Your request for me to prove nanotechnology is feasible.  If you recall, I made a post responding to that shortly afterwards. 

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Forgive me I forgot this is the 9 year olds' playground thread where magic is going to be invented in the next year or two and all the grown-ups will be shown wrong!

Funny comment, but no argument.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> >>What is magical about a fully-automated rice farm?  The technology to have it is already available.<<

False.

Large parts of many jobs are now automated. In entirely controlled environments like factories where the parts going in are precisely crafted and the machines which perform modifications/assembly/etc  on them are precisely crafted to do precise work on these parts automation is possible and the price of such products falls. This allows more people to have and enjoy them. Raised standard of living for all through more efficient production. Hurrah. Jobs in the production of this product are lost, but other fields benefit from this net gain in economy and standard of living.

Much work does not take place in factories nor start with precisely measured parts nor perform precise tasks on  those parts to produce a product. Yay we can automate factories to a pretty large extent. Big deal. The next step is not robot utopia. Sorry. You skipped a few steps.

Not responding to nanotechnology.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> We're only a decade away from manipulating individual atoms? Great. 2 crackheads in one thread.

>>Surely, there are billionaires out there with no NEED to accomplish anything or improve, but still do so.<<

They do it with the incentive that it will improve their lives. You pwned yourself for missing such an obvious base of human nature. You pwned yourself when you made this thread. At the base of it all, you pwned yourself when you smoked that crack.

There we go, now we're back to the present, where you ignored my post and just said "you're a crackhead."

So, it comes down to a simple point: I'm responding to the arguments that clashes with me.  I've done my homework, and you've sat around and called people crackheads.

> V. Kemp wrote:

By the way, "you're a crackhead" is a statement, not an argument. It's just a fact. How could I argue with someone who doesn't respond to content, only cries about mockery of them because they don't respond to content? I couldn't.

Okay, so I loosely justified your post as an "argument," when it is actually a waste of a reader's life.  Okay.

> V. Kemp wrote:

This is definitely the place for me. I've been posting here since beta round 2. I may well be the last of my kind!

If what you're doing with me right now is the type of debate you see as legitimate, please become extinct.

My primary source backing up the feasibility of nano-scale machines would be a book called "The Age of Spiritual Machines," by Ray Kurzweil.  It goes extensively into the feasibility of nanotechnology.

Two other authors would be Eric Drexler (one of the first scientists in the field) and Richard Smalley (although he is much more conservative about his views of the technology's future).

Obviously, I can't give you the exact pages.  I'm looking online to see if I can find some online sources, although I know a couple websites that take very liberal views of nanotechnology's future.  Kurzweilai.net (Ray Kurzweil's website) and crnano.org (a policy research institute on nanotechnology).

Essentially, it's a simple issue: Nanotechnology is simply an extension of nature.  Cells are constructed one atom at a time.  Amino acids are essentially complex atomic machines.  Nanotechnology simply attempts to recreate what nature has proven true.

I'm not claiming we'll be seeing (figuratively speaking) nanobots running around in the next week.  It would probably take a decade at the bare minimum, assuming very impressive research over the next few years.  But ruling out nanotechnology as "magic" either means you don't know what the issue is, or you simply don't accept the possibility of extremely advanced technologies being a possible reality.

Here's a random quote:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=18

"Nanotechnology derives its name from the nanometer, or a billionth of a meter, and refers to the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular level. The ideas behind nanotechnology are simple ones: every substance on Earth is made up of molecules composed of one or more atoms (the smallest particles of elements). To describe the molecules that constitute a physical object and how they interrelate is to say nearly everything important about the object. It follows, then, that if you can manipulate individual atoms and molecules and put them together in certain configurations, you should be able to create just about anything you desire. And if technologies like computers and the Internet have empowered individuals by giving them drastically more control over the organization of information, the impact of nanotechnology

I'm sure his comment was "Excuse me, but the oppression of Saddam's regime resulted in me not being able to obtain an education, which means I'm unable to read what size this shoe is.  Could you read it for me?"

(Then again, the President did say that the shoe he threw was a size 10)

Stupid: Zarf BeebleBrix

Xeno, you haven't answered a single thing I've said... in this entire thread.

I'm going to go smash my head against a wall a few times.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> 1: Nobody qualified to determine self-actualization goals?  Yeah, that was my point.  It means your NGO is inherently bad.

It frees people to have the time to pursue their self-actualization regardless of the means by which they might try to attain it.  Without the time to pursue it, and if for some it IS ONLY with leisure time that they CAN attain their self-actualization goals, having an NGO providing everyone's basic needs would be a good thing.

Perhaps it is one's self-actualization goals to make vast populations of people work 20 hours a day 7 days a week (only to be paid enough to barely have their basic needs fulfilled) and make billions in profits off their labor.  But that person's self-actualization goal infringes on the opportunity of self-actualization of those he employs.

The NGO would ensure than everyone's basic needs are met first. so that such exploitation of labor doesn't happen.

Fair enoough.

2: The barter economy falls because resources are valueless, that's nanotechnology.

We need to determine what can be classified as 'resources'.  One's knowledge and ability to impart this knowledge to students as a teacher is a kind of resource, for instance.  In a resource-based economy, a teacher would offer this service in exchange for other resources, like, for instance, clothes, perhaps one that one of the students' grandmothers knitted, or a painting that one of the student's cousins painted, or a set of skis that one of the students' fathers crafted. 

All of these crafts are resources created by humans, but, likewise, there could be some other items or 'resources' exchanged that have been created by nano-bots and have simply been passed-down or passed along in this form of resource / barter exchange system. My point is that an NGO ensuring and providing all basic needs to all people would be a necessary pre-requisit for this sort of economy to work.

Here's the problem, though: All resources of all kinds will be readily available.  Knowledge is already free (the internet).

Physical goods (i.e. clothes, food, medicine) WON'T be crafted by humans.  They will be crafted by nanotechnology.  And since nanotechnology can produce further nanotechnology, the prerequisite to develop those products become readily available.

It's simple economics.  You can't sell a good that isn't subject to scarcity.

1: Elites can replace humans when possible, and can bribe humans when replacement isn't possible, which means oppression is inevitable because the elites don't have a dependence on masses.

Elites can replace humans when possible, and can bribe humans when replacement isn't possible, and, yes, this does mean oppression is inevitable.  But gauge the level of 'oppression' we face today as opposed to the oppression faced by humans in Ancient Egypt.  You must admit there is a trend towards a more equitable state of human dignity, human rights and liberty.

Your empirical evidence is conceded.  However, I would say that all advances up until today have been before a key technological advance: artificial intelligence, which I have brought up later.  If future technology is a unique challenge in the future, the past isn't a good determinant.

The cause of that was an increasing need for individuals as a result of technology.  World war 2 proved that we need special individuals (scientists, in that case) for the state to retain power.  Mass media and other tools become other "special individuals."  The transition between Ancient Egypt and today isn't just an increase in knowing.  It was an increase in specialization.  Remember, in ancient Egypt, a slave was a slave.  Farm, build pyramids, whatever.  Now, however, specialization makes each individual special.

But in the same sense, it also makes some individuals less valuable.  If I was the best crossbow-builder in 1700, and traveled to today to build crossbows, I would probably be a poor guy with lots of crossbows next to his cardboard box home.  (But you better not try to steal my tin cup or I'll mess ya up, biotch!)

Now we're headed toward a technological shift: when technology forces people out of many niches into others.  Low skilled labor is replaced with technology, which means the government isn't dependent on that low-skilled labor, so they're not representative of them.

  Hold on a second here.  You are suggesting that the only reason people became more 'specialized' in their activity is because the elite allowed them to.  Are you suggesting that every innovation, every specialization, every 'improvement' was and is allowed to occur by the elite.  Would you say the only way for technological innovation / increased specialization of labor to occur is for the elite to allow it?  What convinces you that the elite controls - to such a complete extent that you suggest - the development of technological innovation / labor specialization / societal development?

No, I'm not making that claim in the least.  Market forces allow technology to be developed (if people want a technology, that technology will eventually be produced because an incentive is created).  What creates this shift is that a demand (by pretty much everyone) for more streamlined, efficient production creates an incentive for said developments.

Now in regards to more skilled labor, that's slowly going out the window.  If there's any job that requires human intuition to fill, two words respond to that: artificial intelligence.  Bam, the elites no longer need the people, even the highly skilled people, and they can do whatever the hell they want.

It's interesting you use the word 'human intuition'.  What I think you mean by human intuition is the complex decision making process of which only humans are currently capable, a process based not only on rationality and observation, but also on moral and ethical notions, philosophical and political ideas, social and cultural ramifications, and a whole slew of other abstract, high-level thought processes, the very processes by which the elite justify their superiority.  Let's also suppose that A.I. will be constructed in the future so as to be able to conduct such higher, abstract thought processes as well.  Wouldn't the elite themselves be the ones rendered obsolete in such an event?  The elite would no longer be able to justify their place at the top of the pyramid structure with the development of A.I..  It would be the maintenance technician in charge of repairing and the research scientist in charge of creating further innovations for the A.I. machine that would replace the elite, and would, in fact, create the innovations in the machine so as to usurp the elite and install themselves as the new elite: those who control, maintain and innovate the A.I. machine would become the new elite, and, as we saw in the Matrix, could only be usurped by the A.I. machines themselves.

Now we end up branching off into one of two issues:

Either:
A: The elites would be able to control AI in the future, which means they would not be rendered obsolete.  On the contrary, they would solidify power by being the tamer of technology, or
B: The elites can't control AI, and you can go watch The Matrix now because I'm too lazy to tell you what happens.

Either way, an elite would still have power.

2: The elites won't make the transition because, despite what may be best for society, it's in their interests to retain power.

The elites will make the transition, albeit far too often it is done too late, which results in wars, which results in their being killed off anyway, albeit along with millions of humans, too.

Justification?

One fact remains: If elites already have an advantage over us in technology, they can live through the war, which means the rest of the losses are mere pawns at most.

Mere pawns in a game of chess, eh?  I do not agree.  I think you over-estimate the level of control the elites actually have over our society.

Based upon?  When humans increasingly become liabilities for government, then they become an expendable resource.

4: The elites have more weapons than simply brute force.  Economic, political, or cultural warfare can exact the same goals as military warfare, and give the same power.  Control of any important resource, spreading of a message, etc., can coopt your movement by fighting it tooth and nail.

But what good does this do them?  New technologies are always re-engineered by the humans to suit their purposes rather than the elites, when, of course, the LAW allows them to.

Answered in the below section.

But technology can serve good and evil at the same time, as long as there are markets for each.  Let's use an example I personally love: nanotechnology.  I can develop disease-curing microrobots if I like and give it to the public, or I can create an airborne disease that kills all non-white people.  Or... I could create the disease-curing microrobots, then someone else could reengineer that to create the airborne disease.

The demand for both good and bad technology exists at the same time, which means both can be constructed at the same time.

Let's remember what this post is all about.  This is about whether or not actual, beneficial social change can be expected as a direct result of Obama's presidency.   My premise is that such change shouldn't really be hoped for very much because it is the politician's mandate - EVERY politician's mandate - allotted to him by the very social system which allowed him to attain political power in the first place to retain the societal circumstances as they are, so as to be able to retain political control of that society in the future.   It is the essential quality of the politician to hinder rather than promote ANY kind of societal change.  What ends up happening is that the politician only allows those social changes to occur which will allow him to retain political power rather than lose it.  It is only at the last critical moment when he MUST allow change or lose his control over society that change occurs.  The political system - any political system - is like a dam on a river of innovation, technological development and social change.  The pressure for new technologies and their resulting changes on society builds up during so called 'wet seasons' when rapid technological development is possible and desired by the population, and the pressure diminishes during 'dry seasons' when innovation and new technology is either feared or unnecessary due to either complacent-in-fear and/or materialistically satisfied population.  The politician's job is to release the gates or close the gates of the dam during the appropriate times of wet and dry seasons, and only to open or close them to a certain, pre-calculated extent.  The politician would never allow the flood-gates to be opened completely, nor closed completely, for if either the former and the latter case were to occur the utter uselessness of the political system, the redundancy of the dam-system, would suddenly be apparent to all as it either overflows or dries up, for - and now we come to the heart of the matter - it is the purpose of the political system - any political system - to regulate technological development and the social changes that result.

What has been made clear to all thanks to the internet, is just how much water there is in the reservoir.  We can now, with a couple clicks of the mouse, and a couple keystrokes, see just how much potential there is for technological innovation and social change.  Yes, the water can flood us and destroy us all, and yes it can also bring water to countless of dry fields downstream.

But it is incorrect to assume that the elite make the water and are able to control it.  You see, in fact, it is the opposite.  They can't control it, for the damn is always over-flowing.  There is simply too much human potential in the reservoir for it to be regulated any longer.

They cannot, you see, stop the rain; they cannot control the river.  The river occasionally radically shifts its course, you see.  This is just natural.  This is just what rivers tend to do, you see.  They take the path of least resistance.  And although they might try to build more dams on the new courses of new tributaries, it is simply a futile effort.  For, whenever new solutions and innovations to problems are desired by populations, one of them always comes up with a solution and creates it, and even one simply innovation of this kind can cause the whole river to shift, and, yes, it could cause a flood; it could cause the extinction of the human race in fact, or, it could be an innovation capable of freeing us so that every individual could suddenly travel to any  star in the universe at will.

Um... non-responsive in any way, shape, or form?

Once greater numbers, including their own population, becomes the enemy of the state, restraint for the purpose of protecting populations is meaningless since everyone is guilty.  If the government wanted to, they could pick any number of ways of taking down populations, including:
A: Direct warfare.

This usually ends badly for Elites.

Answered above.  Empirically, yes, it does.  But when power can be consolidated due to technology reducing dependence on individuals, bam.

B: Control of food supplies or other key resources.  Can't endorse a post-modern, harmonious society when you're all starving!

Yes.  Which is why technology needs to be released by relaxing intellectual property and patent laws to allow humans to create an abundance of basic needs.

It will happen anyway, mind you, but it would be a nice gesture by the developed world.

Now we get to something interesting.
A prerequisite for stopping elite power is for the elites to surrender their power willingly.  Notice a problem with that?

No.  In fact, it is natural if you think about it.  Any ethical professional physician, as an example, will have it as their mandate to cure the ill person and send them on their way, not keep them in the hospital indefinitely.

That doesn't answer whether the GOVERNMENT would do it.  Your "elites?"  Obama?  Remember, the guy this topic was originally about?  That justifies my two threads below:

If not, I'm making two new threads today:
1: I know how to stop terrorism globally, and
2: Alot less people would have been killed during the Holocaust if the Holocaust didn't happen.

As for the "it will happen anyway," explain that further, please.  Maybe a justification as to how resources can be decentralized and can be prevented from being taken over by authorities if, as you say, those authorities actively work to stop that from happening.  Example: alternative energy.

  I think I have explained how it will happen anyway (read above).

is not me.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> What's your problem? My buddies in the auto industry want to get a few more big bonuses before their companies run out of funds. Damn you if you don't support their private jets, $40 million boats, multiple mansions lifestyles. We owe it to them for running their companies so well.

The Senate put restrictions on all that crap as an addendum to the bailout.  Read the fine print. 

Don't forget that the primary goal of the second amendment is much different than simply protecting against homicidal maniacs.  The original idea was that accessibility to firearms allowed the citizens to essentially be able to overthrow a government in the case that it abandons democracy.

Essentially, the individual right to bear arms (and the right of states to maintain a militia) is meant to ensure the federal government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force in a nation.  However, with the National Guard increasingly integrated into the federal government, the role of the 2nd Amendment is increasingly important because, assuming the government became tyrannical, there would be no other check against its actions.

Light switches