xeno, still no response to me?

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.

Way to skip the content, dumbass.

"We're only a decade away from manipulating individual atoms?" was really hard to find. It was only the first sentence of the post.

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.

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.

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!

> 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.

>>I pwned by saying that surely there must be some billionaires out there (who certainly have their basic needs already taken care of) who do still go about trying to improve.  Therefore, it is clear that having basic needs taken care of does not entirely diminish a person's drive to improve.<<

They're able to accumulate more and more. They enjoy obtaining more and more power. They can always get more power, and since most people would love to be as powerful as possible, they continue to work for more no matter how much they have. Your no-money system doesn't give them much to accumulate. "Therefore, it is clear..." that you are uneducated.

>>Therefore, pwned.<<

I'm sorry if "crackhead" offended you. It's either that or you're the most arrogant ignorant fool I've ever encountered in life. You think you're infinitely more educated than you are. And you're eager to show it.

Way to spam the thread with all kinds of things which were neither responses to you or directed toward you, Zarf BeebleBrix. You say clever things like "no argument behind it" when the statements are simple and irrefutable. Good job.

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

I repeat, for a third time: We're only a decade away from manipulating individual atoms?

>> I'm responding to the arguments that clashes with me.  I've done my homework, and you've sat around and called people crackheads.<<

And repeatedly asked a simple question. And we both know the answer is "No. I was lying."

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

I was just giving you a hard time because you have absolutely nothing to entertain or engage in here. Don't blame me for wasting your life and spamming the forum.

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

I think you're a rambling fool and my lack of desire to have any sort of meaningful exchange with you is coupled with my comfort in that you're not going to post anything of any value that I might overlook in not really caring what you post.

>>For future reference: When you decide not to respond to an argument, in the context of a political debate, that is the equivalent of agreeing with someone, since their claim is left with no opposition.  May want to rethink that.<<

(I know it was directed toward fantasy-land dude, but I think your advice is good for you too.) Don't worry. I already know I'm right. You can cry all you want that you read 2 books about nanotechnology (which does not exist.) so clearly those authors were right and not making money by selling books. I don't blame them. They're not making any money marketing nanotechnology. Damn I'm a funny guy!

Get an education or a sense of humor; at least one. Yeah I give people a hard time. TONS of posts on here are stupid, ignorant BS. Taking the time to point out outright false statements/lies/buuuuuulls***, etc. doesn't really appeal to me. Make a stupid post, watch me quote it or parts of it until it gets too disgustingly stupid, point out why they're stupid, and call you names. You can respond to the content (there's always specific content. I'm very specific.) and SHOW THAT I'M WRONG (and call me names if you want. I don't make the retarded posts that warrant it [not usually. I haven't been drinking [[god damn I'm funny!]. I definitely can't compete with fantasy land taken as reality.] like a man, or cry repeatedly that I was mean to you while ignoring content over and over and over again. After it's repeated 2 or 3 times I really don't care to repeat it any more in the hopes that some sort of dialogue might actually take place. That's the definition of insanity right there. I might be a little crazy but I can hold a conversation. That's more than I can say for a lot of the residents here.

Kemp, we can make this much easier.

List your arguments in your next post.  That way, we can bury old hatchets and get back to the real debate.  Maybe there's something I'm missing.

Remember, the only issue at which we are at odds, really, is whether nanotechnology is real.  Go ahead and make your arguments, or copy and paste the old arguments that I overlooked.  Maybe you're right and I'm missing something.  Show me where I'm mistaken.

>>The issue facing nanotechnology is how to ensure it is used ethically.  I would suppose that an automated rice-farm would use nano-tech and robots.  The question is whether or it would be ethical, given that technology would get to a point when food production costs were virtually nil, to continue having a monetary economic system based on scarcity of basic needs.<<

I take it, zarf, that you agree with this, then?

we dont chain people to a farm and force them to work there. they work there because its the best option for them.

we dont have the technology to fully automate rice farms. and even if they did, it would cost insane amounts of money to build and upkeep.

capitalism makes better systems pervail. once robotics is the better system, it will come into being.

how about you answer my point? why do you think reducing human labor would make the world any better? why do you think people reading conspiracy theories and mmorpg's online all day is better then an honest day's work?

> V.Kemp wrote:

>Remember, the only issue at which we are at odds, really, is whether nanotechnology is real.<<

It doesn't exist. Until it does, I am right on that point. Period. End of discussion. You can propose that we will be manipulating individual atoms in the future or even near future. You'll be wrong, but at least you won't be as factually wrong as when you say nanotechnology is a reality.

Enough with the 9 year olds. I gots meetings! I'm doing my part in inflating prices!

Define "reality" within that statement.  When I use "reality," it simply means "is feasible."  I NEVER claim that nanobots are running around today.  Your own quotes of me claim that, at my most optimistic level, nanotechnology is possible at 10 years, assuming a giant research program, and I dare you to find a quote from ME (not xeno) that claims such technologies exist today.

And if you're making the claim that nanotechnology is fake until developed, you've essentially declared every scientific "theory" that isn't "law" to be false, since they haven't been 100% proven.

Theory of continental drift?  Cell theory?  Hmm... does anyone else see the problem in this?  Like that most of science would be dismissed, and the only thing scientists could believe would be gravity?  (Then again, even Newton's law of gravity is forced out the window when we get into extrasolar objects)

> V.Kemp wrote:

> >>When I use "reality," it simply means "is feasible."<<

I was talking about reality, not the future. I dispute your claims that we'll be manipulating individual atoms in the next ten years or twice that time, but claiming something "is a reality" just because you personally think it'll exist in the next few decades is an assault on the English language and the rational use of that language. When you have to say things like "Define 'reality' within that statement" you're way too vague and crazy for me.

I may destroy English, but you destroy science.

According to you, atoms weren't real until we proved they were real.  Cells weren't real until we decided they were real.  The world was flat until we realized it wasn't.

Considering that language is a subjective entity anyway, I would rather be the one who mangled English than the one who mangled physical science. 

EDIT: Let me explain this better, because it sounds ridiculous when I originally said it. 

You base your stance in the infallibility of the English language.  X means X.  Y means Y.  "Chair" means "chair."  Sounds straightforward and logical enough.  However, the English language (and all language, for that matter) doesn't work that way because it's entirely subjective.

However, the sciences are an absolute.  The world is round.  Gravity exists.  Atoms exist.  Natural sciences are rooted in physical realities that just are true.

Your stance (that something which can be possible in the future, but isn't around now, can't exist) creates a fundamental disconnect between what science would say about the world around us and the reality of the world around us.  People who claimed that living things were made of cells would be ridiculed as idiots.  People who claimed they could split the atom would be laughed at.  Hell, people who claimed the atom existed would be laughed at.

So... it's a question of what should be preserved more: science or English.  My vote is science because English is pretty screwed up anyway. 

It sounds like a Mafia-style "favor" exchange. 

Ok avo:

>we arent saving them from horrible jobs, we're taking away the best job available to them.<

Let's look at the long-term process of how the automated rice-farm integrates into a monetary-based economy, because, realistically, we cannot expect the monetary system to fade away completely until, of course, the resource-based economy becomes all-encompassing.  This wouldn't be possible for many decades or even hundreds of years. 

Envision a future period in which the international NGO I have spoken of has succeeded in implementing a system that provides enough food-stuff to every human citizen in the vicinity, along with a 900% surplus over pre-automation levels.  Moverover, imagine that there are such fully-automated, self-sufficient, sustainable 'agri-complexes' using robotic and nano technology in many countries all around the world.  They are all functioning at virtually no financial cost (the equipment is built to function on its own with no or minimal replacement or maintenance needed). 

Realistically, an agri-complex might go offline once every couple years due to some minor problem, but there are always volunteer-technicians willing to devote some time to solve each problem, especially technicians in the nation where the agri-complex is situated.  Even if there are no voluteers, governments still see the value of the agri-complexes and are willing to hire the occasional technician when necessary. 

Envision, therefore, that there simply isn't a need for much maintenance of these complexes.  The agri-complexes and local technicians basically take care of any problems.  The system has thus been decentralized, and the international NGO doesn't have much to do with any of the countless projects.  They only have to deal with arranging for the shipping of the occasional replacement parts from where they are manufactured (if they aren't manufactured locally) and establishing new agri-complexes in other parts of the world.

What has happened to all the farmers?  Well, they are still there, in the farm houses.  Nothing has changed except the need to expend their labor to harvesting the product.  The farm-hands still live in their own huts in the vicinity.  The only thing that has changed is that now instead of exchanging the use of their land for a monetary salary, the equivalent portion of 'food-stuff' is made available to them.   As automation has increased production by 1000%, his share is 1000% pre-automation levels, and there is now a 900% supplementary surplus of food stuff over pre-automation levels. 

This 900% extra amount of foodstuff is then distributed freely to anyone who wants to devote his labor to the transportation of the foodstuff to highly-populated areas such as cities, where there is no food production surplus.  Now, a resource economy would not yet have become all-encompassing at this point, and so those people transporting food from the agri-complexes would still probably accept a monetary exchange for the labor and costs associated with transportation.  They would exchange the surplus of food-stuffs for money so as to buy whatever products or services that are still exchanged within the monetary system (refined food-stuff, or gourmet wines, ethanol, etc.).  Nothing would change except that the price of ethanol gasoline would be 900% lower due to it being derived form agri-complex bio-waste, resulting in lower costs for all products and services; deflationary trend, rather than an inflationary trend.  Food, if distributed freely from agri-complexes, would cost 900% less  and be 900% more abundant in highly-populated areas than in pre-automation levels. 

Thus, the rice-pickers and combine drivers of the world would find new labor in distribution sector of the industry.  Mind you, they wouldn't have to if they didn't want to.  With a 900% more food-resources available to them than before, they could exchange their personal surplus for whatever other products they might want or need, or even money.  They would not be forced to exchange their labor for exchange for the basic needs necessary for their survival anymore!

Then, as the international NGO commits its resources to establishing a full-automated, global mass-transportation system connecting agri-complexes to distribution centers in densely-populated areas around the globe, food-stuff would no longer be exchanged for money at all anywhere that the transportation system extended.  Those who had exchanged their labor for money in transporting foodstuff would then move up to do other forms of employment, or again, just accept the benefits associated with sustainable, self-sufficient automation. 

But, of course, this NGO would not be forcing it's agri-complexes, or transportation system on anyone.

I suppose, if some people just really liked rice-picking, they could always vote to be left alone on their rice-paddy.  If you voted with the minority you could certainly migrate to nations of the world where the majority of its citizens had voted NOT to have the international NGO provide BASIC NEEDS services for FREE.  I'm sure there'd be plenty of room.