I'm just going to say "What the hell?" and call it a day.

> avogadro wrote:

> there are no winners in war, you sick bastard

Hippie! 

But seriously, care to explain how there are no "winners?"

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "very powers that be which you complain about originally are the very entities which make the transition possible"

The powers I complain about are not the very entities which make the transition possible.  The whole human race is the entity which makes the transition not only possible but a blatant and unambiguous fact.  The human race as a whole is always changing the system incrementally, day in and day out, each and every single person a catalyst for change by effects of the day-to-day choices they make: what foods they tend to buy for what prices / what sort of barter-based exchange, the places they tend to settle in, the number of children they have, the stories they tell, the amount of water / energy they consume.

The cumulative catalytic actions day-to-day actions of each and every human being IS the system, the only system; is TRANSITION, and always will be.

The system = transition

and please don't confuse 'the powers that be' with 'the system' anymore, for it is an erroneous concept.

Fine.  At the very least... they're your allies, one way or another.  Obama helps facilitate the transition, which means you're essentially throwing one of your own in front of the bus.

Whatever...

> avogadro wrote:

[ something that better not EVER appear here again]

That smiley I had earlier got wiped out of my face pretty quickly.

I did the following:
1: Lots of questions answered in the questions forum, especially in December
2: An Easter egg hunt a couple years ago
3: Lots of points from random games in general
4: Some parts of the FAQ are from me

There may be other stuff... I don't remember...

> Black_Wing wrote:

> Xeno believes him a Good US President.

And how is that related to the original topic?  Unless your discussing his original topic, this doesn't disprove the argument and thus becomes a de facto ad hominem attack.

That's kind of like if you made a post about oil prices and I spent three pages saying how your use of the word "the" in the original post is somehow morally reprehensible.

> Fysh wrote:

> Pompieompiedom!!!

*Pompiedompiedom

You fail!

How the hell did Jimmy Carter become the subject of this thread? 

Okay, time for my magical, mystical, "condensing the debate in order to prevent another Zarf/Smartys, enormous re-posting of old posts debacle!"
My responses have before them.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> 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 toward more equitable state of human dignity, human rights, and liberty.

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.

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.

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 them being killed off anyway, albeit along with millions of humans, too.

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.

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.

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.

>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?

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.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Zarf BeebleBrix

Do you think I have i been 'owned' by you?

See above.  Aside from that, not necessarily, though I like the praise from Justinian. 

:d

> [RPA] Arocalex wrote:

> 1: The oppressed don't have the technology of the modern oppressor.  Fighters, nuclear weapons, etc.
2: Don't even think of using Iraq as an example of how the oppressed can fight the oppressor, because the US is showing restraint.  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.
B: Control of food supplies or other key resources.  Can't endorse a post-modern, harmonious society when you're all starving!
C: Isolating regions, which prevents organized movements.
D: Screw it... just nuke em!  Technology allows us to replace humans with machines when possible."

And then everyone capable of using machinery escaps the land, teachers leave, anyone educated leaves and you are left with a country filled with shitbags.

People are replaceable.

1: Low end workers are replaced by machines.  Yes, that means we become reliant on those who can use machines.  That brings us to step 2.
2: Knowledge in fields already exists outside teachers.  We have these awesome things called books and software which mean information is stored in places other than the minds of teachers.  And don't think the movement, transition, what have you (screw it... I'm calling it "BOB" from now on) can destroy that knowledge: there's backups in libraries.
3: "Okay, go ahead and leave.  Hope you can run your machines while we're taking down your power networks with our high tech weapons!"
4: "Alright, we're willing to negotiate.  Anyone who agrees to adhere to our movement will also be given the added benefit of being allowed to eat."
5: Beyond that, simple bribery does the trick.  Promise irreplacable people greater power in light of the shortage of workers.  A few should probably get corrupted, which only solidifies the superstate because they rely less on the masses.

Remember, that "anyone educated" would have to include the elites themselves.