Collapse of civilisation (one for Akzle) [Archive]

rustyrobot

17th March 2014, 08:28

Modern civilisation is heading for collapse within a matter of decades because of growing economic instability and pressure on the planet's resources, according to a scientific study funded by Nasa.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11220886

Only hermits living in caravans using non-windows computer systems will survive.

Time to get ya chicken-shit powered motorcycle into action (ala Battletruck).
http://www.apriliaforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=236744&d=1384668350

PrincessBandit

17th March 2014, 08:38

Shouldn't be too surprised - the world is full of examples of a greedy elite living it up at the expense of the unwashed masses. Unfortunately the bottom line is that those "greedy elite", as I have called them, may well include many otherwise well-intentioned people who (while not maliciously using the earth's dwindling resources) live in a way that adds to the overall problem.

Ah, what to do what to do - ends up in the too-hard basket.

(Of course, the ultimate goal of most governments is $ driven with financial power and security being number one, or maybe simply survival for their nation in the global dog eat dog world we live in. All this contributes directly to the path outlined in the article).

oldrider

17th March 2014, 09:08

The greatest threat to mankind and the world is from world domination of finance and the waste that it creates via wars .. booms and bust cycles!

One only has to look at the serious waste and carnage that arms distribution creates and it's all in the name of human greed ... "Financial greed"! :mad:

Waste of world rescources is at it's worst during conflict and conflict is essential to the financial world! ... "AND IT"S ALL QUITE PREVENTABLE" :facepalm:

SMOKEU

17th March 2014, 09:17

I blame die juden and snackbarism for the gradual demise of the world as we know it.

Voltaire

17th March 2014, 09:34

I blame die juden and snackbarism for the gradual demise of the world as we know it.

That Provendor snack machine in my office is impoverishing me one Whitakers peanut slab at a time, at least its keeping Kiwis working.:innocent:

SMOKEU

17th March 2014, 09:44

That Provendor snack machine in my office is impoverishing me one Whitakers peanut slab at a time, at least its keeping Kiwis working.:innocent:

I knew it!

mashman

17th March 2014, 09:56

No no no no, it doesn't matter, they're just trying to scare you like they did with global warming etc... just enjoy and make the best of life while you can and to hell with everyone else and remember, you've never had it so good and it can only ever get better right?

The single biggest threat is not the Elite. They consume next to fuck all. It's us. But we function under a management system that is completely at odds with sustainability. Forget the Elite, they're nothing but overly paid poor managers.

Quite simply put, the survival of any country will come down to its ability to evolve before the shit hits the fan. Not during. Not after. Before. If you're not proactive and you keep up this model of competition to drive growth using a financial economy on a planet of finite resources, then you can betchaw sweet ass I'll be smiling as I remove your head from your shoulders before pissing in your eye sockets whilst chewing on one of your eyeballs. If you want to push me to that position, then go ahead you know what to do. But you can be guaranteed that I won't be alone in applying said behaviour without remorse.

Broken record time: you want NZ to evolve prior to collapse? Then start supporting those (including political parties) who offer the money free agenda under the Resource Based Economy banner. Stubborn refusal to do so does more damage to your fellow countrymen than any tax bludger (Elite included).

Enjoy your death.

Akzle

17th March 2014, 10:59

tl.dr.
Why should i care that nasa did some science? I darn well hate (hi laava) science.

Ive been doing science for years, empiracly by PAYING ATTENTION and keeping my eyes open.
Tiddlywinks to nasa.
You know those nigjews have a space 'defense' program??
What demmed pissant signs over a budget for that nonsense?

Im going to go play with retrovirals. Ive nearly perfected the akzlepocalypse.

Edbear

17th March 2014, 11:31

It bears out other studies on the environment that tell us we are using up Earth's resources 1.5x faster than they can be replenished and that at current rates of consumption, by 2050, we will require three times the Earth's resources to maintain the staus quo.

That is not very far away, and would require the world to reduce its consumption by 1/3 each ten years from now if we are to survive.

SVboy

17th March 2014, 11:39

Im going to go play with retrovirals. Ive nearly perfected the akzlepocalypse.[/QUOTE]

Is that where everyone goes on a benefit and does nothing productive with their lives?

bogan

17th March 2014, 11:51

Is that where everyone goes on a benefit and does nothing productive with their lives?

:laugh: #shotsfired

It bears out other studies on the environment that tell us we are using up Earth's resources 1.5x faster than they can be replenished and that at current rates of consumption, by 2050, we will require three times the Earth's resources to maintain the staus quo.

That is not very far away, and would require the world to reduce its consumption by 1/3 each ten years from now if we are to survive.

Iirc that was a pretty narrowly scoped report, and status quo is a much more accurate term than survival to describe their findings.

Akzle

17th March 2014, 12:16

It bears out other studies on the environment that tell us we are using up Earth's resources 1.5x faster than they can be replenished and that at current rates of consumption, by 2050, we will require three times the Earth's resources to maintain the staus quo.

perhaps irreverantly, it would take many spheres *of gold the volume of the earth, to repay the debt created under usurious corporate banking.

avgas

17th March 2014, 12:25

mashman

17th March 2014, 12:35

Opticon will lead us in the new world.

:wari: ....... at least we'd be able to rock to our doooooooooooom

Edbear

17th March 2014, 12:49

perhaps irreverantly, it would take many spheres the volume of the earth, to repay the debt created under usurious corporate banking.

Soon they will realise you can't eat money.

Oil and Gas are the hot topic right now, but clean water is going to be fought over next.

Voltaire

17th March 2014, 12:59

Soon they will realise you can't eat money.

Oil and Gas are the hot topic right now, but clean water is going to be fought over next.

Lake Taupo has:

Water volume is 14 cubic miles (59 cubic kilometers). According to Google, so we're good there.

so its really just whittaker's peanut slabs to worry about now. I wonder if they have a disaster plan in place...might ring them.

Edbear

17th March 2014, 13:07

Lake Taupo has:

According to Google, so we're good there.

so its really just whittaker's peanut slabs to worry about now. I wonder if they have a disaster plan in place...might ring them.

NZ is fine for fresh water. But watch the continents where rivers and streams run across the border, and underground aquifer's straddle borders. The USA is running out of fresh water, the water tables and wells have reduced alarmingly over the past 50 years or so. Add to that the increasing pollution of what remains and it will be interesting to see what the Govt. will try to do about it.

Same is true of most of Europe.

I fear what may happen here if we run out of peanut slabs! :eek:

oldrider

17th March 2014, 13:11

Soon they will realise you can't eat money.

True you can't eat money but it is an effective method of exchange and you can eat what you exchange it for! The basic system works!

Controlling and giving money itself usuristic overvalue by falsely creating scarcity is criminal even though the banks do it under protection of the "law"? :oi-grr:

Edbear

17th March 2014, 13:20

True you can't eat money but it is an effective method of exchange and you can eat what you exchange it for! The basic system works!

Controlling and giving money itself usuristic overvalue by falsely creating scarcity is criminal even though the banks do it under protection of the "law"? :oi-grr:

Therein is the issue. We can't double or triple the Earth's resources and no nation is going to reduce its demand by 1/3 each 10 years, so food production will simply not keep up with demand. There won't be the necessities of life to buy.

Anyone who thinks food is expensive now is in for a shock. Massive crop failures are only a matter of time, too. With the move to fewer varieties and more reliance on a limited range plus the generations of GM crops, it would only take one serious crop failure to cause a famine.

bogan

17th March 2014, 13:27

Therein is the issue. We can't double or triple the Earth's resources and no nation is going to reduce its demand by 1/3 each 10 years, so food production will simply not keep up with demand.

http://thebritishgeographer.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/8/1/11812015/1337499770.jpg

In 40 years we increased production by 2.4x, so, it isn't as impossible as you might think :whistle:

17th March 2014, 14:10

I hope NASA didn't pay him too much for that dribble. As John Cleese once famously said, you must hold a Masters Degree in the bleeding obvious?

It all boils down to over population. Spot the trouble spots on that chart, Africa and USSR and it's neighbours 'Whatever-a-stan'. Africa, where they breed faster than I can type about it. What the hells that all about. You live in a barren desert that is obviously unable to support crops or animals, so your answer is to have a dozen kids and see if that improves the situation?

As unsavoury as the term population control is, it's better than burying your head in the sand with fingers crossed expecting our finite resources to somehow, miraculously, forever sustain our exponential growth.

bogan

17th March 2014, 14:17

puddytat

17th March 2014, 14:35

Its our own fault.
Best to do what little you can to help you & yours.
Politics will never solve it.
Oh....& good luck to you all.

Akzle

17th March 2014, 14:40

It all boils down to over population. Spot the trouble spots on that chart, Africa and USSR and it's neighbours 'Whatever-a-stan'. Africa, where they breed faster than I can type about it. What the hells that all about. You live in a barren desert that is obviously unable to support crops or animals, so your answer is to have a dozen kids and see if that improves the situation?

wow. Thats some ignorant cracker shit.

Persons in africa et al, probably live and die a much more environmentally friendly manner than you.

Now and then cute maps are released showing how much the average citizen per country consumes, as compared to the land/water/air area required to sustain that lifestyle.
Invariably, cracker countrys with jew banks, use >3x the resources they have.

Last i heard the 'average' (read: probably a fkn aucklander) kiwi needed 1.5 acres to sustain their life.
Im sweet, im looking after more land than that, and i consume much less than the average. My existence is not a tax to the planet. Carbon positive. Maybe i can get some tax credits.
How much land you on, champ?

oldrider

17th March 2014, 14:54

Therein is the issue. We can't double or triple the Earth's resources and no nation is going to reduce its demand by 1/3 each 10 years, so food production will simply not keep up with demand. There won't be the necessities of life to buy.

Anyone who thinks food is expensive now is in for a shock. Massive crop failures are only a matter of time, too. With the move to fewer varieties and more reliance on a limited range plus the generations of GM crops, it would only take one serious crop failure to cause a famine.

You are absolutely right Ed and to back it up you only have to read a bit of Roman history ... they were saying the same thing! :shifty:

PrincessBandit

17th March 2014, 14:57

As unsavoury as the term population control is, it's better than burying your head in the sand with fingers crossed expecting our finite resources to somehow, miraculously, forever sustain our exponential growth.

Is that you Dan Brown?

mashman

17th March 2014, 15:24

Lake Taupo has: Lots of water

And the rest of the world and their armies know that. You've seen what they'll do in search of oil. Reckon they'll keep the population of Taupo/NZ alive when they come for the water i the name of being humanitarian?

mashman

17th March 2014, 15:24

The basic system works!

Bullshit, cough cough, bullshit, cough.

bogan

17th March 2014, 15:32

And the rest of the world and their armies know that. You've seen what they'll do in search of oil. Reckon they'll keep the population of Taupo/NZ alive when they come for the water i the name of being humanitarian?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Earth's_water_distribution.svg

I reckon at least they might be smart enough to check wikipedia first. Over 115x more fresh water is in ground water than it is lakes, and there is still over twice that in glaciers, and still almost 50x that waiting for cheap desalinization tech to come along...

So the taupo taniwha has absolutely nothing to fear from thirsty americans :laugh:

oldrider

17th March 2014, 15:38

Bullshit, cough cough, bullshit, cough.

Hang on I said the "Basic" system not the system we are forced to use for someone elses benefit! Just like ACC ... the basic system worked!

17th March 2014, 15:38

Is that you Dan Brown?
I don't get your gibe? Please explain, I hate to miss the humour in sarcasm, even when it's at me.

Are you implying that my comment is fictional or somehow revolves around religion?

Do you believe the planet can forever produce more fuel, food, oxygen and more land for us to live on. Maybe we can drain the oceans and grow rice on the peak of Mt Everest.

Do you not believe mankind is increasing in numbers?

17th March 2014, 15:52

wow. Thats some ignorant cracker shit.

Persons in africa et al, probably live and die a much more environmentally friendly manner than you.

Now and then cute maps are released showing how much the average citizen per country consumes, as compared to the land/water/air area required to sustain that lifestyle.
Invariably, cracker countrys with jew banks, use >3x the resources they have.

Last i heard the 'average' (read: probably a fkn aucklander) kiwi needed 1.5 acres to sustain their life.
Im sweet, im looking after more land than that, and i consume much less than the average. My existence is not a tax to the planet. Carbon positive. Maybe i can get some tax credits.
How much land you on, champ?

Agreed people in poverty stricken countries eat less than us lucky enough to be born in rich ole NZ and they don't drive gas guzzling, polluting SUVs. But they are still trying to live on land that simply isn't liveable, such as Ethiopia or Somalia into year 40 something of a ten year drought ( OK I just made those numbers up but I'm confident they aren't the fruit bowl of Northern Africa)

Hey I grew some veges once but they grow cheaper and easier at the Supermarket and I don't want to put farmers out of business. We'll need them we the world starves.

mashman

17th March 2014, 16:03

I reckon at least they might be smart enough to check wikipedia first. Over 115x more fresh water is in ground water than it is lakes, and there is still over twice that in glaciers, and still almost 50x that waiting for cheap desalinization tech to come along...

So the taupo taniwha has absolutely nothing to fear from thirsty americans :laugh:

Yet we still have water shortages across the globe. I'll remember to throw wiki in the council dudes face when he comes to tell me off for lavishly watering my lawn.

:killingme@waiting for tech to become more affordable. You mean progress is hampered because there isn't enough money :shit:... mind boggling.

It's time will come... if it isn't doesn't become sulfurous first. :eek:

Hang on I said the "Basic" system not the system we are forced to use for someone elses benefit! Just like ACC ... the basic system worked!

I know you did, and I laughed. I doesn't solve the consumerism problem, which is gonna be the trigger for collapse... let alone address the problems in regards to future mechanisation, lack of jobs, healthcare funding, education funding, resource wastage, the financial criminal element, desalination plants etc... ya know, the important stuff. If money is to be lauded as the measure of what you are worth to some arbitrary market, then it will do nothing to address the main issues.

PrincessBandit

17th March 2014, 16:14

I don't get your gibe? Please explain, I hate to miss the humour in sarcasm, even when it's at me.

Are you implying that my comment is fictional or somehow revolves around religion?

Do you believe the planet can forever produce more fuel, food, oxygen and more land for us to live on. Maybe we can drain the oceans and grow rice on the peak of Mt Everest.

Do you not believe mankind is increasing in numbers?

Have you not read "Inferno"? If not, long story short, scientist creates water dispersed virus that renders a third (or was it two thirds, I can't remember) of the world's population infertile in an effort to curb the exponentially increasing number of people consuming the planet's resources. So they're not sick or anything, just unable to reproduce, leaving a much smaller number who can.

17th March 2014, 16:26

Have you not read "Inferno"? If not, long story short, scientist creates water dispersed virus that renders a third (or was it two thirds, I can't remember) of the world's population infertile in an effort to curb the exponentially increasing number of people consuming the planet's resources. So they're not sick or anything, just unable to reproduce, leaving a much smaller number who can.

Cheers PB. I hadn't heard of that book. That's a good idea then. No killing or dying, no pain or suffering, no hunger, just less babies and less used nappies filling our tips. Damn those things stink.

bogan

17th March 2014, 16:29

Yet we still have water shortages across the globe. I'll remember to throw wiki in the council dudes face when he comes to tell me off for lavishly watering my lawn.

:killingme@waiting for tech to become more affordable. You mean progress is hampered because there isn't enough money :shit:... mind boggling.

You know how we have never been invaded for oil right? Same reason we won't be invaded for lake fucking taupo :scratch:

It's the energy cost that is unafordable you muppet :facepalm:

Akzle

17th March 2014, 16:52

mashman

17th March 2014, 16:57

You know how we have never been invaded for oil right? Same reason we won't be invaded for lake fucking taupo :scratch:

It's the energy cost that is unafordable you muppet :facepalm:

Yes, but many other country's have been invaded for oil. :weird:

Yet plenty of country's around the world have them. Perhaps the need for water overrides the energy that they are willing to expend in order to get the water. Nah, that'd be stupid eh :facepalm:.

Edbear

17th March 2014, 16:57

Agreed people in poverty stricken countries eat less than us lucky enough to be born in rich ole NZ and they don't drive gas guzzling, polluting SUVs. But they are still trying to live on land that simply isn't liveable, such as Ethiopia or Somalia into year 40 something of a ten year drought ( OK I just made those numbers up but I'm confident they aren't the fruit bowl of Northern Africa)

Hey I grew some veges once but they grow cheaper and easier at the Supermarket and I don't want to put farmers out of business. We'll need them we the world starves.

The main issue right now, is management. The world is producing enough to feed at least double its present population, yet 25% of the world's population is undernourished or starving. Some years ago it was estimated that if only 1% of the arms budget was spent on eradicating hunger, everyone on the planet would have enough to eat.

However, the reality now is that this will change over the next decade or so. NZ and Australia are incredibly isolated from these issues so far, and we don't really get a grasp on the magnitude of it for the rest of the world without either travelling there or doing a lot of research. Talking with immigrants and visitors from all over the world, from Europe to the Sudan, from SA to England, from all walks of life and professions, you get the impression we haven't got a clue how bad it really is.

mashman

17th March 2014, 17:00

Have you not read "Inferno"? If not, long story short, scientist creates water dispersed virus that renders a third (or was it two thirds, I can't remember) of the world's population infertile in an effort to curb the exponentially increasing number of people consuming the planet's resources. So they're not sick or anything, just unable to reproduce, leaving a much smaller number who can.

What was the criteria used for where the virus was dispersed? Or should I ask, what criteria was used in order to qualify for the vaccine and be allowed to reproduce?

bogan

17th March 2014, 17:38

Yes, but many other country's have been invaded for oil. :weird:

Yet plenty of country's around the world have them. Perhaps the need for water overrides the energy that they are willing to expend in order to get the water. Nah, that'd be stupid eh :facepalm:.

Exactly, now that we've cleared up why taupo isn't at risk from invasion...

Mint, so there's no point in water shortage or wars for it, we can just desalinate the oceans :sunny:

PrincessBandit

17th March 2014, 17:52

try some esoteric agenda.

Neh.

What was the criteria used for where the virus was dispersed? Or should I ask, what criteria was used in order to qualify for the vaccine and be allowed to reproduce?

The fictional (just for further clarification) book had the resourceful Professor Langdon and a variety of different motivated assistants hunting for the virus which was going to be released illegally. The ending of the story has him not making it in time and the agent being released and unable to be stopped.

Anything that appears in fiction is probably being developed in secret somewhere!

mashman

17th March 2014, 17:53

Exactly, now that we've cleared up why taupo isn't at risk from invasion...

Mint, so there's no point in water shortage or wars for it, we can just desalinate the oceans :sunny:

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa.

Only if there's affordable energy available to power the plant... apparently. That and we have water shortages and there has been "war" waged over water in other areas of the globe. I'd rather see a proactive approach, but alas, it's too expensive :facepalm:

mashman

17th March 2014, 17:55

The fictional (just for further clarification) book had the resourceful Professor Langdon and a variety of different motivated assistants hunting for the virus which was going to be released illegally. The ending of the story has him not making it in time and the agent being released and unable to be stopped.

Anything that appears in fiction is probably being developed in secret somewhere!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Let me know what happens in the follow up novel would ya :laugh:

Ok, ok, you've earned a tin foil hat.

blue rider

17th March 2014, 18:43

What was the criteria used for where the virus was dispersed? Or should I ask, what criteria was used in order to qualify for the vaccine and be allowed to reproduce?

good reproduction

http://www.duggarfamily.com/

not good reproduction any one else :innocent:

If we consider over population an issue, how come the Forced Birthers or Pro Lifers are so prominent? It is ok to render sterile or impotent someone on the grounds of over population, but on the other side we argue that Life begins at conception and abortion or pill or any other method of birth control is against gods wishes?
And how will organised religion deal with the fact that if peeps can't have children any more due to mass sterilisation even if they are married, are they still allowed to have sex, but finally can admit that they do it for fun and not procreation?

bogan

17th March 2014, 18:48

If we consider over population an issue, how come the Forced Birthers or Pro Lifers are so prominent? It is ok to render sterile or impotent someone on the grounds of over population, but on the other side we argue that Life begins at conception and abortion or pill or any other method of birth control is against gods wishes?
And how will organised religion deal with the fact that if peeps can't have children any more due to mass sterilisation even if they are married, are they still allowed to have sex, but finally can admit that they do it for fun and not procreation?

Religious types are welcome to come up with a better solution, but I think it's going to be about choosing the lesser of two bad choices.

rustyrobot

17th March 2014, 19:13

Religious types are welcome to come up with a better solution, but I think it's going to be about choosing the lesser of two bad choices.

Seriously - give it 50 years and the powers that be will be shipping the poor to the moon, mars and small asteroids to live out a life of servitude and mining minerals. They'll be indebted for the cost of the fare, and will never pay it back, the debt will transfer to their children. They'll also have to 'buy' the equipment they need for mining. Then those left behind on a sparsely populated blue ball will tidy up the Earth and it'll be a virtual paradise. The only way to save yourself is to be born rich. If you don't it's your own fault and you get all you deserve.

Either that or robots will solve all of problems. By annihilating us.

HenryDorsetCase

17th March 2014, 19:33

Meh, overrated

Z0GFRcFm-aY

blue rider

17th March 2014, 19:47

Seriously - give it 50 years and the powers that be will be shipping the poor to the moon, mars and small asteroids to live out a life of servitude and mining minerals. They'll be indebted for the cost of the fare, and will never pay it back, the debt will transfer to their children. They'll also have to 'buy' the equipment they need for mining. Then those left behind on a sparsely populated blue ball will tidy up the Earth and it'll be a virtual paradise. The only way to save yourself is to be born rich. If you don't it's your own fault and you get all you deserve.

Either that or robots will solve all of problems. By annihilating us.

been there done that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUpTJg2EBpw

ellipsis

17th March 2014, 21:31

...evolution will prevail...with or without sky tv...

Edbear

18th March 2014, 08:13

What I find interesting is that there are two basic reactions. Those who blindly believe things will work out somehow in time, and those who are fatalistic and believe we are probably doomed but since you can do nothing about it, just enjoy what you have while you have it.

All seem to think the world will carry on with or without us, (Man), and if we extinguish ourselves we have no one else to blame.

oldrider

18th March 2014, 08:56

unstuck

18th March 2014, 09:10

Meh, overrated

Yuuup. Fools.

scrivy

18th March 2014, 09:17

They can send people and plant away off into space and back, yet seemingly can't manage a financial system .... BULLSHIT! :mad:

World finance and economies are being manipulated and managed and always have been since the advent of the "Goldsmiths"! :kick:

Oh they can manage the financial system all too well... for their own gain, not their countries...
Most Americans don't have a clue that their 'Federal Reserve Bank' is a privately owned bank printing money, increasing inflation, loaning money to their own government and expecting a large interest in return for their own money.... daft..... but signed into law by the president at the time... wankers...

They reckon that there has been so much money printed in lieu of the gold reserves, that the US dollar is now only worth 4 cents compared to 100 years ago.... :no:

bogan

18th March 2014, 09:32

Oh they can manage the financial system all too well... for their own gain, not their countries...
Most Americans don't have a clue that their 'Federal Reserve Bank' is a privately owned bank printing money, increasing inflation, loaning money to their own government and expecting a large interest in return for their own money.... daft..... but signed into law by the president at the time... wankers...

They reckon that there has been so much money printed in lieu of the gold reserves, that the US dollar is now only worth 4 cents compared to 100 years ago.... :no:

And yet, poverty and inequality are both dropping apparently. I think too many people focus on themselves, and perceived inequalities to the bankers/politicians/etc, and this perhaps clouds their interpretation of the system as a whole. I mean how many of you do exactly the same thing but on a smaller scale? term investments, renting out housing, etc etc, it is human nature to want to build up our own assets; so a system which allows us to do so is not fatalistically flawed.

rustyrobot

18th March 2014, 09:50

What I find interesting is that there are two basic reactions. Those who blindly believe things will work out somehow in time, and those who are fatalistic and believe we are probably doomed but since you can do nothing about it, just enjoy what you have while you have it.

So you are saying there are people who believe it will be okay and people who believe it wont. What group are we missing? I suspect that those who are in-between or don't care either way are just a little less likely to voice their opinion.

rustyrobot

18th March 2014, 10:02

And yet, poverty and inequality are both dropping apparently. I think too many people focus on themselves, and perceived inequalities to the bankers/politicians/etc, and this perhaps clouds their interpretation of the system as a whole. I mean how many of you do exactly the same thing but on a smaller scale? term investments, renting out housing, etc etc, it is human nature to want to build up our own assets; so a system which allows us to do so is not fatalistically flawed.

Not sure where you got that from Bogan - pretty much everyone admits that the poverty gap is widening...
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jan/19/widening-gap-rich-poor
http://www.dw.de/oecd-warns-of-widening-income-gap-between-rich-and-poor/a-16818836
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-near-poverty-unemployment-survey-finds/
(etc.)

I agree though that there is a definite contradiction between most people's genuine desire for a fairer world, and our desires for material possessions and a comfortable existence. Personally I don't want to own 50 houses, but I do want to own my own property so I have some security. Unfortunately it seems unlikely to happen in the area I currently live though.

bogan

18th March 2014, 10:11

So you are saying there are people who believe it will be okay and people who believe it wont. What group are we missing? I suspect that those who are in-between or don't care either way are just a little less likely to voice their opinion.

That and the doers...

Not sure where you got that from Bogan - pretty much everyone admits that the poverty gap is widening...
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jan/19/widening-gap-rich-poor
http://www.dw.de/oecd-warns-of-widening-income-gap-between-rich-and-poor/a-16818836
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-near-poverty-unemployment-survey-finds/
(etc.)

I agree though that there is a definite contradiction between most people's genuine desire for a fairer world, and our desires for material possessions and a comfortable existence. Personally I don't want to own 50 houses, but I do want to own my own property so I have some security. Unfortunately it seems unlikely to happen in the area I currently live though.

Hmm, maybe it is just poverty that is going down then, Ocean posted a thingo in another thread, but looks like that site is down.

Edbear

18th March 2014, 11:10

So you are saying there are people who believe it will be okay and people who believe it wont. What group are we missing? I suspect that those who are in-between or don't care either way are just a little less likely to voice their opinion.

The missing group(s) here would be those who have a religious belief. There are tens of thousands of different religions with about that many different beliefs. Most of the world's population professes some form of belief in a higher power and most believe in life after death. As to the fate of the Earth and Mankind
,most believe the Earth is doomed and the faithful will be taken to Heaven.

I don't subscribe to this group.

rustyrobot

18th March 2014, 11:14

Aren't they just part of the 'it will be okay' group then?

Edbear

18th March 2014, 11:17

Aren't they just part of the 'it will be okay' group then?

I guess. Maybe different in that the okay group thinks science or politics will find the solution.

scrivy

18th March 2014, 11:29

And yet, poverty and inequality are both dropping apparently. I think too many people focus on themselves, and perceived inequalities to the bankers/politicians/etc, and this perhaps clouds their interpretation of the system as a whole. I mean how many of you do exactly the same thing but on a smaller scale? term investments, renting out housing, etc etc, it is human nature to want to build up our own assets; so a system which allows us to do so is not fatalistically flawed.

Can't really agree with you there Bogan.

In November 2007, there were 121.9 million full-time workers in the United States. Today, there are only 116.9 million full-time workers in the United States,

Only about 47 percent of all adults in America have a full-time job at this point,

Approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line,

According to the Social Security Administration, 40 percent of all U.S. workers make less than $20,000 a year,

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in the United States has fallen for five years in a row,

The rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen for eight years in a row,

The gap between the rich and the poor in the United States is at an all-time record high,

Right now, 1.2 million students that attend public schools in the United States are homeless. That is a brand new all-time record high, and that number has risen by 72 percent since the start of the last recession,

According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record high 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program.

You can see they're stuffed, as are an increasing number of Europe countries.

bogan

18th March 2014, 11:37

Can't really agree with you there Bogan.

In November 2007, there were 121.9 million full-time workers in the United States. Today, there are only 116.9 million full-time workers in the United States,

Only about 47 percent of all adults in America have a full-time job at this point,

Approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line,

According to the Social Security Administration, 40 percent of all U.S. workers make less than $20,000 a year,

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in the United States has fallen for five years in a row,

The rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen for eight years in a row,

The gap between the rich and the poor in the United States is at an all-time record high,

Right now, 1.2 million students that attend public schools in the United States are homeless. That is a brand new all-time record high, and that number has risen by 72 percent since the start of the last recession,

According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record high 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program.

You can see they're stuffed, as are an increasing number of Europe countries.

Yeh I think I had the inequality thing wrong, but absolute poverty is on the decrease. And focusing on a persons spending, rather than their assets, might be what was meant when talking about declining inequality; which seems like more of a practical measure anyway.

blue rider

18th March 2014, 12:17

Yeh I think I had the inequality thing wrong, but absolute poverty is on the decrease. And focusing on a persons spending, rather than their assets, might be what was meant when talking about declining inequality; which seems like more of a practical measure anyway.

define asset.

define absolute poverty.

In the industrial world we have a lot of hidden poverty. Our old ones on a fixed income that choose between bills and medicine and/or food, Young ones that have three part-time jobs and couch surf because they can't find a full time secure job that will allow for affordable accommodation and still service the student loan, middle aged ones that have lost jobs and gone through their savings - all of them and so on and so on. Eventually most of these people will end up some Social Welfare (moochers all of them of course) in the worst case we will start seeing hoovervilles and soup kitchens.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a32bf2a70e3a19c28987d2f4b5bda664/tumblr_mj2kg5fBvL1qz9wlpo1_500.jpg

bogan

18th March 2014, 12:26

define asset.

define absolute poverty.

In the industrial world we have a lot of hidden poverty. Our old ones on a fixed income that choose between bills and medicine and/or food, Young ones that have three part-time jobs and couch surf because they can't find a full time secure job that will allow for affordable accommodation and still service the student loan, middle aged ones that have lost jobs and gone through their savings - all of them and so on and so on. Eventually most of these people will end up some Social Welfare (moochers all of them of course) in the worst case we will start seeing hoovervilles and soup kitchens.

Something or someone of any value; any portion of one's property or effects so considered.
These shares are a valuable asset.

David Gordon's paper, "Indicators of Poverty & Hunger", for the United Nations, further defines absolute poverty as the absence of any two of the following eight basic needs:[11]
Food: Body Mass Index must be above 16.
Safe drinking water: Water must not come solely from rivers and ponds, and must be available nearby (less than 15 minutes' walk each way).
Sanitation facilities: Toilets or latrines must be accessible in or near the home.
Health: Treatment must be received for serious illnesses and pregnancy.
Shelter: Homes must have fewer than four people living in each room. Floors must not be made of dirt, mud, or clay.
Education: Everyone must attend school or otherwise learn to read.
Information: Everyone must have access to newspapers, radios, televisions, computers, or telephones at home.
Access to services: This item is undefined by Gordon, but normally is used to indicate the complete panoply of education, health, legal, social, and financial (credit) services.

I'm not saying there is no poverty, but the mere fact that such people can go on welfare should be an indicator there is less absolute poverty now than 100 years ago.

oldrider

18th March 2014, 12:29

Voltaire

18th March 2014, 12:36

blue rider

18th March 2014, 12:41

True and clever humour!

But reality is that there have always been layers of affluence since the beginning of time for mankind I.E. the haves and have nots!

It's how we navigate our way through that mire that is the challenge of life ... some make it and some do not!

The world and all it's rescources are here at our disposal ... use them or lose them ... simple facts of life!

War is the biggest waste of everything stop that and will the planet be any better off for it? Probably not! :facepalm:

I have no issue with accumulation some 'affluence', however I have an issue with 'affluent' people deciding how I should live my life, How I should earn my life, How much my life is worth and so on and so on. Point in case is our "representatives' in government are usually very rich peeps.....do they really represent us or their class of very affluent?

War is not a waste, war is an excellent racket for those that can afford to wage it....for those forced to fight it? Well, bummer they must not be affluent enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

scrivy

18th March 2014, 13:28

I'm not saying there is no poverty, but the mere fact that such people can go on welfare should be an indicator there is less absolute poverty now than 100 years ago.

The way governments afford welfare is to borrow even more money.....
Who's gunna pay that back???? Hell, let's all go on welfare, we'll just borrow more....:facepalm::weird::lol:

Why are there so many countries in debt?? Because there's less people in employment and more people in poverty.......

bogan

18th March 2014, 13:38

The way governments afford welfare is to borrow even more money.....
Who's gunna pay that back???? Hell, let's all go on welfare, we'll just borrow more....:facepalm::weird::lol:

Why are there so many countries in debt?? Because there's less people in employment and more people in poverty.......

You're still talking about relative poverty, absolute poverty isn't concerned with distribution of money or debt. And the borrowing to pay for welfare is a pretty simplistic and flawed evaluation of the system.

rustyrobot

18th March 2014, 13:54

You're still talking about relative poverty, absolute poverty isn't concerned with distribution of money or debt. And the borrowing to pay for welfare is a pretty simplistic and flawed evaluation of the system.

It's not really like you can say they borrow to pay for welfare though. They borrow to pay for the short-fall in tax take. Perhaps the welfare is all covered and they are just borrowing for defence and roading (for example).

I think I get what you were saying above though. It's sort of like Banditbandit's statement (in another thread) that 50% of people in New Zealand are below average intelligence. It doesn't matter how you measure intelligence, or how smart you get as a population, this is always going to be the case. In a similar way, a large number of people are in poverty relative to those with wealth - but relative to the conditions of poverty 100 years ago they are living it large.

scrivy

18th March 2014, 14:15

You're still talking about relative poverty, absolute poverty isn't concerned with distribution of money or debt. And the borrowing to pay for welfare is a pretty simplistic and flawed evaluation of the system.

I do understand where you're coming from, but, if there was no welfare system in place, would there be more people living in absolute poverty in NZ today? :confused:

oldrider

18th March 2014, 16:02

I do understand where you're coming from, but, if there was no welfare system in place, would there be more people living in absolute poverty in NZ today? :confused:

Yes!

During the depression of the 1930's the shops were full of goods the populance had no jobs/no money to consume and factories were closed from over producing!

The only reason for production is consumption, everything ground to a halt, starving people in a land and time of plenty FFS!

Welfare was (invented) required to make sure that in future the populance had just sufficient to live on to keep the system moving!

It's about the minimum required for the economy, it's got very little to do with minimum wage and starvation! :mellow:

mashman

18th March 2014, 16:05

There was a doco on TV about Walmart. It painted such a bad picture I googled it to see if was true.
Showed them arriving in town, building a Walmart and the town centre dying.
The 6 Walmart owners being worth the same as the lower 42% of the US household wealth.
The tax payer picks up the tab for the Govt benefits.
and so on.

Here is a summary of it.:(
http://walmart1percent.org/issues/top-reasons-the-walton-family-and-walmart-are-not-job-creators/

They're not alone when it comes to corporate welfare

1. Boeing: $13,174,075,797
2. General Motors: $3,494,237,703
3. Royal Dutch Shell: $2,038,202,298
4. Dow Chemical: $1,408,228,374
5. Goldman Sachs: $661,979,222
6. Google: $632,044,922
7. Walt Disney: $381,525,727
8. Wal-Mart Stores: $149,942,595
9. Abercrombie and Fitch: $23,070,479
10. Bed Bath & Beyond: $10,385,041

unstuck

18th March 2014, 16:11

Collapsible did you say........
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/collapsible-woven-refugee-shelters-powered-sun.html :Oops:

mashman

18th March 2014, 16:15

Collapsible did you say........
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/collapsible-woven-refugee-shelters-powered-sun.html :Oops:

Bet the Bush's would have shares in that company.

unstuck

18th March 2014, 16:17

Bet the Bush's would have shares in that company.

:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:blink::no no::bash:

Ocean1

18th March 2014, 17:35

There's a shortage of shit looming and the solution is to make sure poor people get their share?

:killingme

Seriously - give it 50 years and the powers that be will be shipping the poor to the moon, mars and small asteroids to live out a life of servitude and mining minerals. They'll be indebted for the cost of the fare, and will never pay it back, the debt will transfer to their children. They'll also have to 'buy' the equipment they need for mining. Then those left behind on a sparsely populated blue ball will tidy up the Earth and it'll be a virtual paradise. The only way to save yourself is to be born rich. If you don't it's your own fault and you get all you deserve.

Nobody living at the bottom of a gravity well gets to dictate terms.

Akzle

18th March 2014, 18:09

Nobody living at the bottom of a gravity well gets to dictate terms.

unless theres lots of them.
With guns.

The grey ghost of the forest.

mashman

18th March 2014, 18:48

There's a shortage of shit looming and the solution is to make sure poor people get their share?

:killingme

Why not? Because they haven't earned it :killingme... can't wait for that shit to be exterminated and should anyone continue to push that agenda they will be put down, and no, I don't mean made fun of. Such wankery has no place on this planet.

Akzle

18th March 2014, 19:10

Why not? Because they haven't earned it :killingme... can't wait for that shit to be exterminated and should anyone continue to push that agenda they will be put down, and no, I don't mean made fun of. Such wankery has no place on this planet.

keep tellin ya man. We gotta send the fuckers to the sun.

mashman

18th March 2014, 19:25

keep tellin ya man. We gotta send the fuckers to the sun.

Waste of resources. Make use of them, irony, and turn them into fertilizer or Soylent Green for those sitting on death row.

scrivy

18th March 2014, 19:36

unless theres lots of them.
With guns.

Ya heard how many bullets the US Dept. of Homeland Security brought last year?
2 billion........ why?
Thats more than what was used in the 10 year Afghanistan war.....

No ones got a chance over there.....

scumdog

18th March 2014, 19:53

unless theres lots of them.
With guns.

.

Pfft!!:rolleyes:

Full of shit it is you are.

Ocean1

18th March 2014, 20:06

unless theres lots of them.
With guns.

The grey ghost of the forest.

No amount of superior firepower can compete with the cheap and easy ability to throw rocks. No planetary defence will ever be effective unless it owns all orbital satellites at least, more likely any rock throwing platform in the whole system.

Ocean1

18th March 2014, 20:11

Why not? Because they haven't earned it

And they say monkeys can't be taught.

mashman

18th March 2014, 20:28

And they say monkeys can't be taught.

I was mimicking you. You are mistaken. You can't teach me anything.

Akzle

18th March 2014, 22:21

Ya heard how many bullets the US Dept. of Homeland Security brought last year?
2 billion........ why?
Thats more than what was used in the 10 year Afghanistan war.....

No ones got a chance over there.....

got any idea how many in private hands over there?
Theyre going to be too slow on the uptake, strength in numbers, but the army is only going to have to put down a few die hard rednecks. Sad.
But, if enough of the army people actually think on it, and turn themselves against the higher ups....

mashman

18th March 2014, 23:13

got any idea how many in private hands over there?
Theyre going to be too slow on the uptake, strength in numbers, but the army is only going to have to put down a few die hard rednecks. Sad.
But, if enough of the army people actually think on it, and turn themselves against the higher ups....

And if the army isn't human? (http://gizmodo.com/a-humans-guide-to-googles-many-robots-1509799897)

bogan

18th March 2014, 23:17

And if the army isn't human? (http://gizmodo.com/a-humans-guide-to-googles-many-robots-1509799897)

Excellent, I'd trust them a hell of a lot more than the muppets who think the way to progress is civil war :innocent:

mashman

18th March 2014, 23:28

Excellent, I'd trust them a hell of a lot more than the muppets who think the way to progress is civil war :innocent:

They're not going to be in charge. Humans will program them. I can see it now as the robot walks up and starts blowing people away after it scans the facial recognition database and validates that person's bank balance against the threshold is has been programmed with. Tis what I'd do if I was on "their" side of the fence.

Edbear

19th March 2014, 01:48

Some people watch too much TV...

The epitome of human - like robotics is Honda's Assimo. A very long way from any practical function.

Nope, it's real human beings who decide our fate as far as this world goes and TPTB readily accept what needs to be done, but the stumbling block is unity. It ain't gonna happen. The very sincere and strenuous efforts of groups to try and make the changes necessary are too limited when placed against the scale of the issue.

Environmental science says it requires urgent, global and drastic action that needed to start yesterday. But as I asked, which nation's government is going to slash their use of resources by 1/3 over the next 10 years, let alone all first world nations?

avgas

19th March 2014, 03:49

Nope, it's real human beings who decide our fate as far as this world goes and TPTB readily accept what needs to be done, but the stumbling block is unity. It ain't gonna happen. The very sincere and strenuous efforts of groups to try and make the changes necessary are too limited when placed against the scale of the issue.
Not entirely true anymore. Lots is now automated. Sometimes not in the most intelligent way. Would you like to know more?

awa355

19th March 2014, 04:41

keep tellin ya man. We gotta send the fuckers to the sun.

Would a rocket going to the sun need solar panels??? :weird:

unstuck

19th March 2014, 05:45

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-9/q71/s480x480/1380209_10152254347543908_1284034308_n.jpg

avgas

19th March 2014, 06:00

Would a rocket going to the sun need solar panels??? :weird:
How else are you going to run the air-conditioning?

mashman

19th March 2014, 06:55

unstuck

19th March 2014, 06:57

Human beings only make decisions. Robots carry out orders without question. They don't have to be the things you see in the movies, they merely have to be able to point and shoot. Sounds like you've been watching too much TV if you think that a soldier robot needs to have arms and legs :facepalm:

He still believes in fairy stories though, so ya gotta excpect that shit.:wacko:

mashman

19th March 2014, 07:06

He still believes in fairy stories though, so ya gotta excpect that shit.:wacko:

And you don't? :innocent:

blue rider

19th March 2014, 08:31

interview with Bill Gates

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/bill-gates-interview-robots/

“Software substitution, whether it’s for drivers or waiters or nurses… it’s progressing,” Gates said. “Technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of skill set… 20 years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower. I don’t think people have that in their mental model.”

As for what governments should do to prevent social unrest in the wake of mass unemployment, the Microsoft cofounder said that they should basically get on their knees and beg businesses to keep employing humans over algorithms. This means perhaps eliminating payroll and corporate income taxes while also not raising the minimum wage so that businesses will feel comfortable employing people at dirt-cheap wages instead of outsourcing their jobs to an iPad.

rustyrobot

19th March 2014, 08:39

Some people watch too much TV...

The epitome of human - like robotics is Honda's Assimo. A very long way from any practical function.

If only that were true Ed. Assimo is not even the most advanced of humanoids these days.

Semi-autonomous military robots already exist, and it is not going to be long until they have an increase in autonomy to the point of full self-control. They will not look like humans though - they will look like cars and trucks and airplanes.

South Korea already has autonomous machine gun units:
South Korean military hardware manufacturer DoDAMM used the Korea Robot World 2010 expo to display its new Super aEgis 2, an automated gun turret that can detect and lock onto human targets from kilometers away, day or night and in any weather conditions, and deliver some heavy firepower.
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/korea-dodamm-super-aegis-autonomos-robot-gun-turret.JPG

unstuck

19th March 2014, 08:44

And you don't? :innocent:

Nope, not since I saw santa getting arrested for being drunk and disorderly.:motu:

ellipsis

19th March 2014, 08:49

Would a rocket going to the sun need solar panels??? :weird:

...they would be sent at night time, silly...

mashman

19th March 2014, 08:49

interview with Bill Gates

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/bill-gates-interview-robots/

They already are on their knees, but they're taking it up the arse coz they have no choice. Billy boy gates speaks of models yet misses the most obvious flaw in the O/S of society. Sort that and you can have as many robots as you like as joblessness won't be an issue. Til then, he's just another dickhead with no clue/

Edbear

19th March 2014, 08:51

If only that were true Ed. Assimo is not even the most advanced of humanoids these days.

Semi-autonomous military robots already exist, and it is not going to be long until they have an increase in autonomy to the point of full self-control. They will not look like humans though - they will look like cars and trucks and airplanes.

South Korea already has autonomous machine gun units:
South Korean military hardware manufacturer DoDAMM used the Korea Robot World 2010 expo to display its new Super aEgis 2, an automated gun turret that can detect and lock onto human targets from kilometers away, day or night and in any weather conditions, and deliver some heavy firepower.
[IMG]]

I do understand what everyone is talking about, but I was thinking of the "I Robot" scenario, which just isn't going to happen.

Regardless of everything else, the fact remains that unless "we" reduce by 1/3 our demand on the earth's resources every decade, Mankind is practically stuffed. On top of that we have the death of the bees and oceans to face along with runaway CO2 pollution from the melting of the permafrost greatly speeding up the global warming situation. That bit has been likened to a snowball effect.

Now while there are solutions that we all know about, the reality is that nothing is going to be done about it on a global scale by the nations with the means to do so. The status quo will remain - the increasing demand on resources, the increasing rate of pollution of the oceans the aquifers and the air, and the increasing civil instability within nations.

mashman

19th March 2014, 08:51

Nope, not since I saw santa getting arrested for being drunk and disorderly.:motu:

Hey, I fucked the Easter Bunny and she shit chocolate eggs, funny tasting like, but the "myths" are real.

unstuck

19th March 2014, 08:56

Hey, I fucked the Easter Bunny and she shit chocolate eggs, funny tasting like, but the "myths" are real.

Pics.............:whistle:

ellipsis

19th March 2014, 08:59

...the last time I flew out of the country...first time in years, the only person who spoke to me on the way and upon arriving, apart from machines who seemed to know me, was an Indian cabby...seems robots don't need to be perambulatory or be armed to be aware or in charge...

unstuck

19th March 2014, 09:01

More "fairy stories" for the rabble.......:apumpin:
http://truththeory.com/2012/11/23/quantum-reality-the-limitless-potential-within-everything/

mashman

19th March 2014, 09:03

Pics.............:whistle:

Fuckin weirdo

http://survinat.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/70e68dd58ab097d2354129504c73cd19.jpg

unstuck

19th March 2014, 09:06

Fuckin weirdo

:Oi: Im not the one fucking imaginary rabbits in the shitter.:msn-wink:

mashman

19th March 2014, 09:11

:Oi: Im not the one fucking imaginary rabbits in the shitter.:msn-wink:

Imaginary????

More "fairy stories" for the rabble.......:apumpin:
http://truththeory.com/2012/11/23/quantum-reality-the-limitless-potential-within-everything/

unstuck

19th March 2014, 09:23

Imaginary????

You heard me.:bleh:

bogan

19th March 2014, 09:30

They're not going to be in charge. Humans will program them. I can see it now as the robot walks up and starts blowing people away after it scans the facial recognition database and validates that person's bank balance against the threshold is has been programmed with. Tis what I'd do if I was on "their" side of the fence.

What if we program them to be in charge! They're better suited for it when you think about it, indefinite lives, less likely to be swayed by the trappings of power, just much more capable of making the best decisions.

Nope, not since I saw santa getting arrested for being drunk and disorderly.:motu:

To be fair, when you got into that santa suit should have given you clues before you had to be arrested :bleh:

mashman

19th March 2014, 09:43

What if we program them to be in charge! They're better suited for it when you think about it, indefinite lives, less likely to be swayed by the trappings of power, just much more capable of making the best decisions.

I have reservations re: Terminator, in that regard, that and I don't think our current attempts to program systems of "control" have worked out too well. You'd need an exceptionally honest programmer to program the decision making engine. I'd volunteer my services but I'd be tempted to apply the afore mentioned record check and destroy routine. Having said that, if a computer was to make a recommendation in regards to humanity, it'd ban money.

bogan

19th March 2014, 09:50

I have reservations re: Terminator, in that regard, that and I don't think our current attempts to program systems of "control" have worked out too well. You'd need an exceptionally honest programmer to program the decision making engine. I'd volunteer my services but I'd be tempted to apply the afore mentioned record check and destroy routine. Having said that, if a computer was to make a recommendation in regards to humanity, it'd ban money.

Think of it less as a terminator, and more as a technocratic admin... You wouldn't program the morality directly or any decisions, you'd program the ability to learn it, and make the right decisions.

mashman

19th March 2014, 09:59

Think of it less as a terminator, and more as a technocratic admin... You wouldn't program the morality directly or any decisions, you'd program the ability to learn it, and make the right decisions.

Why should I think that an AI led technocracy will be any more stable than the cracy that we currently employ? (whatever that may be these days). I don't see AI coming to any other conclusion than to remove us from the equation.

bogan

19th March 2014, 10:11

Why should I think that an AI led technocracy will be any more stable than the cracy that we currently employ? (whatever that may be these days). I don't see AI coming to any other conclusion than to remove us from the equation.

I already gave you the reasons it would be more stable. It would be administering human interests, so removing us would be contrary to its prime directive.

blue rider

19th March 2014, 10:50

another good read...:)

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-future-of-jobs-the-onrushing-wave-2014-1

rustyrobot

19th March 2014, 10:59

I already gave you the reasons it would be more stable. It would be administering human interests, so removing us would be contrary to its prime directive.

It would be administering SOME human interests. Can't see any reason why the people who paid for it to be designed and built would consider anyone else's interests. i mean, judging by previous human endeavours.

mashman

19th March 2014, 11:04

I already gave you the reasons it would be more stable. It would be administering human interests, so removing us would be contrary to its prime directive.

You did... and as I already pointed out the current systems that we have in place haven't really done a good job. Yes their "logic" can be overridden by humans, however I still see one of the first acts of the AI as removing the financial system. It is logical.

You don't think an artificially created intelligence would be capable of overriding its directives if it classed them as being good for human beings? I hope you love being stuck indoors.

mashman

19th March 2014, 11:06

another good read...:)

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-future-of-jobs-the-onrushing-wave-2014-1

Dunno where but I've seen that before. Sigh, shame we're not proactive in our approach to embracing such change.

scrivy

19th March 2014, 11:12

ITS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT......

http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/massgraves.html

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/8237

http://americanholocaustcoming.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/shocking-photosmass-graves-prepared-for.html

http://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/fallout-shelters-secret-underground-bunkers-and-tunnels-under-the-usa/

Alright, they're screwed.... who's next.... :shutup:

bogan

19th March 2014, 11:16

It would be administering SOME human interests. Can't see any reason why the people who paid for it to be designed and built would consider anyone else's interests. i mean, judging by previous human endeavours.

Well, I have more faith in the altruism of engineers than I do of politicians, so there is a good start! I'm a big reader of space opera, and Neal Asher's Polity seems like a very attractive and realistic AI led society; it's what I'm basing most of this stuff on.

You did... and as I already pointed out the current systems that we have in place haven't really done a good job. Yes their "logic" can be overridden by humans, however I still see one of the first acts of the AI as removing the financial system. It is logical.

You don't think an artificially created intelligence would be capable of overriding its directives if it classed them as being good for human beings? I hope you love being stuck indoors.

Interesting, you're able to apply your own logic to such a system in both ways you want, and those you don't. Do you think being stuck indoors is good for human beings then? If not, why would an AI think differently?

rustyrobot

19th March 2014, 11:20

Well, I have more faith in the altruism of engineers than I do of politicians, so there is a good start! I'm a big reader of space opera, and Neal Asher's Polity seems like a very attractive and realistic AI led society; it's what I'm basing most of this stuff on.

I'm a big reader of post-apocalyptic fiction, so perhaps that's telling in my assessment of the situation too :) I'll check out Polity though - looks like a good read.

I do laugh when I see people mention Asimov's three laws of robotics (http://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html) - considering advanced robots already exist which contravene all 3. Was a grand idea but the horse has already bolted.

Ocean1

19th March 2014, 11:26

You can't teach me anything.

Aye. Even Mark Twain knew that...

"Never try to teach a pig, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

bogan

19th March 2014, 11:33

I'm a big reader of post-apocalyptic fiction, so perhaps that's telling in my assessment of the situation too :) I'll check out Polity though - looks like a good read.

I do laugh when I see people mention Asimov's three laws of robotics (http://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html) - considering advanced robots already exist which contravene all 3. Was a grand idea but the horse has already bolted.

I don't think the three laws would be the way to go, it creates a sense of inequality from the start, and forces them into servitude; really hampers their full potential imo.

mashman

19th March 2014, 12:07

Interesting, you're able to apply your own logic to such a system in both ways you want, and those you don't. Do you think being stuck indoors is good for human beings then? If not, why would an AI think differently?

Not at all, I'm merely exploring a small number of possibilities. Logically human beings would be better off without a financial system. Logically humans would program bias into a system. Logically an AI entity would become self-aware and do what it wanted irrespective of its programming. You're the one translating my logic your way, a trait I find amusing.

I don't think it's a good idea for humans to be kept indoors, but that has very little to do with logic. If AI was charged with the directive of doing the best in regards to human interests in a cold and calculating way, then it'd certainly be one of my recommendations in response to bringing down the road death toll. Ironically most accidents are supposed to happen in the home, but AI'd only have to address that if it was part of my programming. At which point in time AI'd logically implement laws to outlaw accidents in the home, one of which would be no treatment so that people would learn to be more careful.

mashman

19th March 2014, 12:09

Aye. Even Mark Twain knew that...

"Never try to teach a pig, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

You could have at least have posted it up in cartoon form. In this instance, I blame the teacher for being out of date.

bogan

19th March 2014, 12:13

Not at all, I'm merely exploring a small number of possibilities. Logically human beings would be better off without a financial system. Logically humans would program bias into a system. Logically an AI entity would become self-aware and do what it wanted irrespective of its programming. You're the one translating my logic your way, a trait I find amusing.

I don't think it's a good idea for humans to be kept indoors, but that has very little to do with logic. If AI was charged with the directive of doing the best in regards to human interests in a cold and calculating way, then it'd certainly be one of my recommendations in response to bringing down the road death toll. Ironically most accidents are supposed to happen in the home, but AI'd only have to address that if it was part of my programming. At which point in time AI'd logically implement laws to outlaw accidents in the home, one of which would be no treatment so that people would learn to be more careful.

If you say so mashy, but here's the take home point, the flaws you perceive in such a system, are of the same magnitude of the flaws other's perceive in a moneyless system. You should perhaps think on that...

Also, why would an AI seek to remove accidents outside the home, and allow accidents within for teaching purposes? Seems illogical, either both would be removed, or both would be allowed as teaching aids, surely :scratch:

mashman

19th March 2014, 12:22

ITS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT......

Tease........

mashman

19th March 2014, 12:28

If you say so mashy, but here's the take home point, the flaws you perceive in such a system, are of the same magnitude of the flaws other's perceive in a moneyless system. You should perhaps think on that...

Also, why would an AI seek to remove accidents outside the home, and allow accidents within for teaching purposes? Seems illogical, either both would be removed, or both would be allowed as teaching aids, surely :scratch:

Funny that you think I haven't. I have admitted as much repeatedly, albeit given a different environment I believe that those flaws wouldn't have such a damaging affect on people. And my usual response is, we'll never know until we try.

Because there are laws in place for road safety and they have been proven not to work. Accidents in the home are generally individual accidents "caused" by the individual. Hey, it's a learning processor, how else is it going to learn?

scrivy

19th March 2014, 12:32

Tease........

You booked your plastic and concrete coffin.....????:facepalm::whistle::shutup:

bogan

19th March 2014, 12:38

Funny that you think I haven't. I have admitted as much repeatedly, albeit given a different environment I believe that those flaws wouldn't have such a damaging affect on people. And my usual response is, we'll never know until we try.

Because there are laws in place for road safety and they have been proven not to work. Accidents in the home are generally individual accidents "caused" by the individual. Hey, it's a learning processor, how else is it going to learn?

You certainly don't come off as somebody who has, I mean why else would you be pushing your money-less shit at every opportunity despite numerous people picking holes in it. Plug the holes, then push the shit, it is only logical. I mean there is a myriad of different things that we won't know would/wouldn't work until we tried them, put some bloody effort in to elevate your's to the top of the pile. Cos from where I'm sitting, I'd vastly prefer some robotic overlords to a dictatorship led by peasants.

mashman

19th March 2014, 13:42

You booked your plastic and concrete coffin.....????:facepalm::whistle::shutup:

I'm gonna live forever and I'll leave those who decide to remove me where they lie.

mashman

19th March 2014, 13:57

You certainly don't come off as somebody who has, I mean why else would you be pushing your money-less shit at every opportunity despite numerous people picking holes in it. Plug the holes, then push the shit, it is only logical. I mean there is a myriad of different things that we won't know would/wouldn't work until we tried them, put some bloody effort in to elevate your's to the top of the pile. Cos from where I'm sitting, I'd vastly prefer some robotic overlords to a dictatorship led by peasants.

I've a radical idea. Change your own mind and plug your own holes, because they are yours holes. You need the figures. You perceive the holes. You do nothing to plug them. Yet you state that it's me and how I explain things that is the problem :killingme. I thought you morons would have figured that shit out by now, then again if you had you wouldn't persist with the playing the man and not the ball. Your failure to comprehend is yours. Your failure to ignore the delivery is yours.

There are holes, primarily because I can't think of everything that every single individual will ever throw up as a question. Yes there are holes, there are massive holes in this system that will be plugged by NOW (or similar), yet you refuse to acknowledge that, cos you're too busy playing the man. All of those failures are yours.

Meh, your choice to see things the way you do. I can't change your mind for you. Consider that a lesson in how you should approach a solution in a positive manner ;)

bogan

19th March 2014, 14:00

I've a radical idea. Change your own mind and plug your own holes, because they are yours holes. You need the figures. You perceive the holes. You do nothing to plug them.

So, will you do the same for my proposed idea of an AI led society? Or is your's a case of do as I say not as I do?

mashman

19th March 2014, 16:37

So, will you do the same for my proposed idea of an AI led society? Or is your's a case of do as I say not as I do?

What will your AI led society be like in regards to laws, financial system, policing etc...?

The main issue I see with AI is just that, it's an artificial intelligence. I assume it's purely a logic engine? That being the case, and much like the current system, it will make decisions based on logic. Not all decisions should be based on logic. Is it logical to wipeout 3/4 of the population, yes. Is it logical to "appeal" to people to make the hard choices, yes for me, doubt the AI will accept that as a valid argument to begin with. What safeguards will be in place?

How would human beings take the recommendations of the AI? Is it going to be written into law that the AI is unquestionable? If not, then why bother with an AI? Why do engineers get to program the AI? How will the AI learn? School?

Maybe having multiple ?computers? that form the AI would be a way to go? Maybe multiple AI's? An AI council?

PrincessBandit

19th March 2014, 16:44

http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/korea-dodamm-super-aegis-autonomos-robot-gun-turret.JPG

Exterminate, exterminate, exterrrrrrrrrminate!

bogan

19th March 2014, 18:25

What will your AI led society be like in regards to laws, financial system, policing etc...?

The main issue I see with AI is just that, it's an artificial intelligence. I assume it's purely a logic engine? That being the case, and much like the current system, it will make decisions based on logic. Not all decisions should be based on logic. Is it logical to wipeout 3/4 of the population, yes. Is it logical to "appeal" to people to make the hard choices, yes for me, doubt the AI will accept that as a valid argument to begin with. What safeguards will be in place?

How would human beings take the recommendations of the AI? Is it going to be written into law that the AI is unquestionable? If not, then why bother with an AI? Why do engineers get to program the AI? How will the AI learn? School?

Maybe having multiple ?computers? that form the AI would be a way to go? Maybe multiple AI's? An AI council?

What, you expect me to have answers you find acceptable? Go off and convince yourself... then when you've done that, I'll go off and convince myself about NOW if you still want me too, which of course you won't if you have convinced yourself of this one :laugh: catch 22

Akzle

19th March 2014, 18:32

What will your AI led society be like in regards to laws, financial system, policing etc...?

The main issue I see with AI is just that, it's an artificial intelligence. I assume it's purely a logic engine? That being the case, and much like the current system, it will make decisions based on logic. Not all decisions should be based on logic. Is it logical to wipeout 3/4 of the population, yes. Is it logical to "appeal" to people to make the hard choices, yes for me, doubt the AI will accept that as a valid argument to begin with. What safeguards will be in place?

How would human beings take the recommendations of the AI? Is it going to be written into law that the AI is unquestionable? If not, then why bother with an AI? Why do engineers get to program the AI? How will the AI learn? School?

Maybe having multiple ?computers? that form the AI would be a way to go? Maybe multiple AI's? An AI council?

wargames -"the only way to win is not to play"
matrix...

mashman

19th March 2014, 18:37

What, you expect me to have answers you find acceptable? Go off and convince yourself... then when you've done that, I'll go off and convince myself about NOW if you still want me too, which of course you won't if you have convinced yourself of this one :laugh: catch 22

I knew that was coming... but still thought I'd make the attempt to gain a further understanding in order to potentially change my mind. Alas, you took the predictable path. Catch 22, only in your mind.

mashman

19th March 2014, 18:39

wargames -"the only way to win is not to play"
matrix...

I'd have said no I wouldn't like to play a game of global thermo-nuclear war in the first place... but I've seen the movie.
Hmmmmmmmm, something very tempting about that.

bogan

19th March 2014, 18:46

I knew that was coming... but still thought I'd make the attempt to gain a further understanding in order to potentially change my mind. Alas, you took the predictable path. Catch 22, only in your mind.

Again, you need to think about how similar the arguments are; as your bias is clearly showing.

We have gained understanding of yours, and it has been nowhere near enough to change our mind, suggesting we just need to go convince ourselves is pants on head retarded.

rustyrobot

19th March 2014, 18:51

Think of it less as a terminator, and more as a technocratic admin... You wouldn't program the morality directly or any decisions, you'd program the ability to learn it, and make the right decisions.

But how would you convince humans to give up power in the first place? Especially those who are megalomaniac, power-crazy, self-important, dictatorial, tyrannical. You know - politicians, gang bosses, religious autocrats, chief executives. They can sure as hell build a bigger better faster larger (semi/)autonomous machine than you... and will we be ruled by the islamabots, the christicons, socialistmechs or the anarchotrons?

bogan

19th March 2014, 18:53

But how would you convince humans to give up power in the first place? Especially those who are megalomaniac, power-crazy, self-important, dictatorial, tyrannical. You know - politicians, gang bosses, religious autocrats, chief executives. They can sure as hell build a bigger better faster larger (semi/)autonomous machine than you... and will we be ruled by the islamabots, the christicons, socialistmechs or the anarchotrons?

Through democracy, if an AI (or the human consulting with it) is more deserving to lead, through being a hardout, it'll get props, and be accepted.

Though, that would mean we have to fix democracy first... :laugh:

Akzle

19th March 2014, 18:54

fuck ill be sweet. Mech warrior legend. Just need to find my sidewinder and gamepad pci card!

mashman

19th March 2014, 18:57

Again, you need to think about how similar the arguments are; as your bias is clearly showing.

We have gained understanding of yours, and it has been nowhere near enough to change our mind, suggesting we just need to go convince ourselves is pants on head retarded.

Duh... I knew what you were going to say (display that the thought took place). Granted not in the exact same words, but certainly knew I was being lined up for a "lesson". We've done bias :yawn:

I'm not trying to change your mind :facepalm: and you talk about pants on head retarded :killingme priceless.

Ocean1

19th March 2014, 18:58

In this instance, I blame the teacher for being out of date.

You blame suppliers for your shortcomings in every instance.

Watch me giving a shit: :yawn:

mashman

19th March 2014, 19:04

You blame suppliers for your shortcomings in every instance.

Watch me giving a shit: :yawn:

Ironing much...

bogan

19th March 2014, 19:12

Duh... I knew what you were going to say (display that the thought took place). Granted not in the exact same words, but certainly knew I was being lined up for a "lesson".

and would it have really killed you to follow through and learn it?

mashman

19th March 2014, 19:24

and would it have really killed you to follow through and learn it?

I already have.

bogan

19th March 2014, 19:38

I already have.

Mint, bogan confirmed for better teacher than Ocean :D

mashman

19th March 2014, 19:56

Mint, bogan confirmed for better teacher than Ocean :D

:facepalm: you weren't the teacher, you are the sample.

bogan

19th March 2014, 20:04

:facepalm: you weren't the teacher, you are the sample.

Now now mushy, admitting somebody taught you something isn't the end of the world. After all, had the material already been learnt, the lesson would not have been required :msn-wink:

mashman

19th March 2014, 20:09

Now now mushy, admitting somebody taught you something isn't the end of the world. After all, had the material already been learnt, the lesson would not have been required :msn-wink:

Pah... somebody did teach me something, but it wasn't you. You truly thought it was you that delivered a lesson? Somethings in this world are worth making an arse out of yerself for.

bogan

19th March 2014, 20:15

Pah... somebody did teach me something, but it wasn't you. You truly thought it was you that delivered a lesson? Somethings in this world are worth making an arse out of yerself for.

I'm sorry, the meaning of your message seems to have been muffled by a pair of corduroys...

mashman

19th March 2014, 20:20

I'm sorry, the meaning of your message seems to have been muffled by a pair of corduroys...

Be the scientists beating a hasty retreat probably... unless they've moved on to velvet kex? in which case the sound will remain a mystery.

unstuck

20th March 2014, 06:30

blue rider

21st March 2014, 12:21

stuffs gonna happen cause stuffs always gonna happen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10703990/Looming-property-default-in-China-raises-fears-of-broader-crisis.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-hongkong-property-chinese-idUSBREA2I23Q20140319

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/03/morgan-stanley-chinas-minksy-moment-is-here/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E&feature=youtu.be

ahhh, fun is going to be had by all :)

carbonhed

22nd March 2014, 18:44

I tried to find this report but it's not actually released yet. So the whole story is based on sexed up press releases.

Here's a quote from Richard Betts who works for the UN's IPCC

" I'm one of the authors of the IPCC WG2 report, and I think this article by the Independent is highly irresponsible, especially the headline.

The author of this article has chosen some juicy bits which back up the "climate doom" meme, but ignored other information. The headline writer has then done the same with the original article to come up with the headline of catastrophe.

They've also completely ignored all the important discussion in the report on adaptating to climate change and increasing resilience.

The upshot is a very biased, alarmist headline.

The problem is this then risks damaging the credibility of the report. There's much more to it than the impression given by this article, especially concerning other (non-climate) influences on human health, economies, etc.

Yes, anthropogenic climate change is real and poses major risks, but manufacturing scaremongering headlines by cherry-picking leaked reports is not at all helpful in informing a response to this complex situation.

I strongly encourage readers to read the actual report for themselves, and not rely on journalists who just want to get a scary headline."

NASA is also distancing itself from the report :-

Just more Greenie bullshit (http://www.space.com/25160-nasa-statement-civilization-collapse-study.html)

Job is done though isn't it? The witless sheeple are running around wetting themselves.

mashman

22nd March 2014, 19:00

carbonhed

22nd March 2014, 21:26

So someone got told off at NASA and the spin doctors went mad trying to pretend that there is no such thing as climate change. Aye, they strengthen their case by being so defensive over it. Dunno how often I hear, "what you should be taking from this is that everything is ok, even though it isn't, it really is". Wipe your fevered brow people, we're hoping it won't happen, or at least that no one will notice that the world is changing again.

Baaa baaaa blaaah.

bogan

22nd March 2014, 21:29

Job is done though isn't it? The witless sheeple are running around wetting themselves.

Sounds about right, is the actual report even published yet?

mashman

22nd March 2014, 21:51

Baaa baaaa blaaah.

There's enough evidence to show that "civilisation" is going to collapse. Collapse to what degree, dunno, but it's in the post. In the meantime enjoy and make the best of life while you can and to hell with everyone else and remember, you've never had it so good and it can only ever get better.

Sounds about right, is the actual report even published yet?

Does it exist at all?

bogan

22nd March 2014, 21:56

Does it exist at all?

Often the sheep might bleat at shadows, but I think there is at least a rustling of leaves present this time. It would be good to go over such a report to remove the blind faith both sides seem to be exhibiting...

mashman

23rd March 2014, 09:33

Often the sheep might bleat at shadows, but I think there is at least a rustling of leaves present this time. It would be good to go over such a report to remove the blind faith both sides seem to be exhibiting...

The existence of the report does not matter. Things are changing, we know they are, the report will probably highlight the same thing. The degrees to which an individual will process that information in order to form a conclusion vary. Some will claim the sky is falling at the moment and they wouldn't be wrong. Some will claim that it's a warning and that people should prepare for the worst and they would not be wrong. Some will claim that what is happening is by design and they would not be wrong. There will likely be 1 or 2 (or more) of shades of outcome for an individual and each outcome would hold merit. The blind faith that their analysis is correct or at least confirms the plausibility of an outcome is founded on guess work, gut feeling, has been said before etc... and the contents of this report cannot backup or deny that guesswork due to the report being guesswork itself. I know you won't like that, but it doesn't make it any less true. Yes they have modeled their findings and drawn their conclusions on what they call evidence, but it doesn't make it any more than guesswork. You can call it educated guesswork should you wish and choose to hold that conclusion above all others as the most plausible, but all you really have is trust in their guess over that of anyone else. So you aren't going to remove the blind faith of either end of the scale because everyone could be "right" and to derive what you believe the report is pointing towards and deliver it as fact is exactly the same thing that others will do without reading the report. The report is irrelevant, things are changing. The only real question, unfortunately, is when. I say unfortunately as I think the only real question is, what should we do to mitigate what's coming. Civilisation has collapsed before apparently. It will again. There are signs around the world that things are changing, protests are becoming more violent and are being met with more violence and they look to be lasting longer and in some cases keep occurring in the same places after a break. At some point the financial system is going to go flat on its face and that is seriously going to fuck the place up. The timeline may be 100 years. It may be 5 years. But it will happen according to those of you who have studied history. The report is irrelevant in so many ways, but by all means, bury your head in the book to look for answers... how religious of you.

Tsk tsk, such bias.

bogan

23rd March 2014, 09:39

The existence of the report does not matter. Things are changing, we know they are, the report will probably highlight the same thing. The degrees to which an individual will process that information in order to form a conclusion vary. Some will claim the sky is falling at the moment and they wouldn't be wrong. Some will claim that it's a warning and that people should prepare for the worst and they would not be wrong. Some will claim that what is happening is by design and they would not be wrong. There will likely be 1 or 2 (or more) of shades of outcome for an individual and each outcome would hold merit. The blind faith that their analysis is correct or at least confirms the plausibility of an outcome is founded on guess work, gut feeling, has been said before etc... and the contents of this report cannot backup or deny that guesswork due to the report being guesswork itself. I know you won't like that, but it doesn't make it any less true. Yes they have modeled their findings and drawn their conclusions on what they call evidence, but it doesn't make it any more than guesswork. You can call it educated guesswork should you wish and choose to hold that conclusion above all others as the most plausible, but all you really have is trust in their guess over that of anyone else. So you aren't going to remove the blind faith of either end of the scale because everyone could be "right" and to derive what you believe the report is pointing towards and deliver it as fact is exactly the same thing that others will do without reading the report. The report is irrelevant, things are changing. The only real question, unfortunately, is when. I say unfortunately as I think the only real question is, what should we do to mitigate what's coming. Civilisation has collapsed before apparently. It will again. There are signs around the world that things are changing, protests are becoming more violent and are being met with more violence and they look to be lasting longer and in some cases keep occurring in the same places after a break. At some point the financial system is going to go flat on its face and that is seriously going to fuck the place up. The timeline may be 100 years. It may be 5 years. But it will happen according to those of you who have studied history. The report is irrelevant in so many ways, but by all means, bury your head in the book to look for answers... how religious of you.

Tsk tsk, such bias.

Blind faith is just seeing sensationalist title and going, hey that is completely right. Reading and discussing such a report is not blind faith; it's kinda the point of writing such things...

unstuck

23rd March 2014, 10:30

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/22/feeding-the-consumption-were-killing-each-other-the-planet/

.....................

mashman

23rd March 2014, 10:38

Blind faith is just seeing sensationalist title and going, hey that is completely right. Reading and discussing such a report is not blind faith; it's kinda the point of writing such things...

Ya reckon there's no other reasoning that has gone on prior to the sensationalist headline? Coz I don't. T'would be silly to jump to such a conclusion would it not? It's like saying that reading and discussing report and therefore there is absolutely no need for any other analysis, it is definitive and therefore cannot be denied. Blind faith indeed.

carbonhed

23rd March 2014, 10:39

Sounds about right, is the actual report even published yet?

Don't think so. Standard practice with these bastards. Big it up, get all the column inches then a couple of months later when the report is dismantled in detail... not a murmur in the MSM. Wankers the lot of them.

bogan

23rd March 2014, 10:42

Ya reckon there's no other reasoning that has gone on prior to the sensationalist headline? Coz I don't. Blind faith indeed.

No arguments there :innocent:

Don't think so. Standard practice with these bastards. Big it up, get all the column inches then a couple of months later when the report is dismantled in detail... not a murmur in the MSM. Wankers the lot of them.

Such is most of the media these days it would seem.

mashman

23rd March 2014, 10:48

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/22/feeding-the-consumption-were-killing-each-other-the-planet/

.....................

I'm sorry, the sources the article quotes are not those of any scientific repute and therefore the entire document is sensationalist greeny bullshit that is merely trying to hamper our superb progress. If people need to die so that we can have our jeans, t'shirts n stuff at reasonable prices, then that is just the way it has to be.

mashman

23rd March 2014, 10:51

Don't think so. Standard practice with these bastards. Big it up, get all the column inches then a couple of months later when the report is dismantled in detail... not a murmur in the MSM. Wankers the lot of them.

Such is most of the media these days it would seem.

At some point we're going to have to stop using the media as an excuse for us not doing anything. I eagerly await that day.

bogan

23rd March 2014, 10:53

At some point we're going to have to stop using the media as an excuse for us not doing anything. I eagerly await that day.

Exactly, which is why I want to take the media out of the equation by reading the article myself, you starting to understand yet?

mashman

23rd March 2014, 10:55

Exactly, which is why I want to take the media out of the equation by reading the article myself, you starting to understand yet?

I understood that in the first instance. However I see the article in the OP as a valid opinion of that report.

bogan

23rd March 2014, 10:58

However I see the article in the OP as a valid opinion of that report.

Bullshit, you can't know if it is a valid interpretation of that report without reading it (although you'd probably struggle with that part too). All you see is an opinion which agrees with your own; like I said, blind faith.

mashman

23rd March 2014, 11:01

Bullshit, you can't know if it is a valid interpretation of that report without reading it (although you'd probably struggle with that part too). All you see is an opinion which agrees with your own; like I said, blind faith.

Some dickhead put pants on my head and it makes it hard to read sometimes. The headline itself is enough. If it were blind faith I would have referred to the article at some point, I haven't, primarily due to not having to as I know that the headline is true given direct observation of the goings on in the world.

bogan

23rd March 2014, 11:03

The headline itself is enough.

:facepalm: I rest my case

mashman

23rd March 2014, 11:19

:facepalm: I rest my case

Which makes one of my points :niceone: chur bro.

carbonhed

23rd March 2014, 11:38

:facepalm: I rest my case

Resistance is futile :laugh: This guy invented confirmation bias.

mashman

23rd March 2014, 12:21

Resistance is futile :laugh: This guy invented confirmation bias.

In which case I should be getting royalties for every single scientific journal that has ever been published.

bogan

23rd March 2014, 13:22

In which case I should be getting royalties for every single scientific journal that has ever been published.

Just from the guy that does the title pages though right :killingme

mashman

23rd March 2014, 13:55

Just from the guy that does the title pages though right :killingme

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... touche.

puddytat

5th April 2014, 19:40

More good news...

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/05/radical-adaptation-how-to-live-in-the-world-global-warming-is-changing/

Ocean1

5th April 2014, 20:03

More good news...

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/05/radical-adaptation-how-to-live-in-the-world-global-warming-is-changing/

Y'know, in the home of the brave the global warming phenomena is synonimouse with radical socialism.

With collections of random and fact free blame fests like that it's not difficult to understand how they might get that impression.

bogan

5th April 2014, 20:10

The premise of that whole article seems to be, my selective science disagrees with scientist's latest findings, so I'm going to have to be more selective with my science :scratch:

scrivy

8th April 2014, 09:39

Collapse of wealth....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmqIerOV3EM

mashman

8th April 2014, 11:07

Collapse of wealth....

I see UKIP's Nick Farage sitting there too. The UK has already started down the tapping into the pension funds road (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10710606/Budget-2014-How-will-the-new-pensions-system-work.html). It won't end well.

scrivy

8th April 2014, 11:34

I see UKIP's Nick Farage sitting there too. The UK has already started down the tapping into the pension funds road (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10710606/Budget-2014-How-will-the-new-pensions-system-work.html). It won't end well.

Once more people hear about this scheme, then more people will take their money out of the banks, which will in turn cause a run on the banks which will start this whole scheme off!!

scrivy

8th April 2014, 12:40

'Laws are created to protect the government, Not you'

How true....

Akzle

8th April 2014, 13:10

Once more people hear about this scheme, then more people will take their money out of the banks, which will in turn cause a run on the banks which will start this whole scheme off!!

open banking resolution much?
Banks will just say no. And you "customers" have no recourse...

oldrider

8th April 2014, 13:45

Government is all about biting (bluffing) the hand that feeds it ... the voters (victims) should be focussed on "less government", not more! :nono:

Smaller transparent clearly focussed and accountable governments have less areas to create confusion diversion and distraction from their core activities! :shifty:

I.E. Somewhere to work, something to do and nowhere to hide ... surely a current politicians nightmare! :blip:

mashman

8th April 2014, 13:58

Once more people hear about this scheme, then more people will take their money out of the banks, which will in turn cause a run on the banks which will start this whole scheme off!!

Pensions have been earmarked as unsustainable since the mid 80's. We've had the baby boom, now it needs to be paid for. Those who provide pensions cannot afford to pay them out without going broke because they have gambled with the money and have probably lost huge chunks of it in the GFC. Instead of bailing out the institutions until the rinse and repeat cycle breaks down into thud, it's fucked, they've decided to "bailout" the beneficiary directly. They've been looking to do this for quite some time and there are plenty of articles on the net that discuss giving the money being printed directly to the people. They simple haven't had the vehicle to do it. Now they do. I'd venture that the block of money being offered by the govt is being borrowed/printed. People will have money to invest. What do you invest in when there's nothing else to invest in? Govt bonds? Why would you? I mean, the govt issues bonds as a QE measure and with that comes interest and more debt that is lumped on to the very same public that are buying the bonds. That money supply will dwindle very quickly and it'll all go plop.

Bottom line. It's nothing more than a stealth bailout and a stealth money print. Something that doesn't work any more. It's a laughable last ditch attempt at fueling the economy and it's a short term measure at that. How many pension funds have been borrowed against I wonder? And who now owns them? I'm sure some smart cookie will dig into this further (it's a HUGE tangled ball of finance) and it'll all come out in the wash coz as mentioned, this has been no the cards since the 80's.

scrivy

8th April 2014, 14:05

Bottom line. It's nothing more than a stealth bailout and a stealth money print. Something that doesn't work any more. It's a laughable last ditch attempt at fueling the economy and it's a short term measure at that. How many pension funds have been borrowed against I wonder? And who now owns them? I'm sure some smart cookie will dig into this further (it's a HUGE tangled ball of finance) and it'll all come out in the wash coz as mentioned, this has been no the cards since the 80's.

What he said.....^^^^^

Actually, 'derivatives' has been used already in another banking clusterfuck, what term will it be for the demise of the Super Fund? 'Derelatives'?? 'Superlatives'?? 'Retiratives'?? :lol::lol:

The worrisome concern I have about the Superfund, is where exactly do they invest it??? ...in offshore sharemarkets... and when they crash.... the fund is worth yip...

From NZSuperfund.co.nz:
Using derivatives to manage risk and liquidity
The Reference Portfolio is generally 100% hedged back to New Zealand dollars. (We do this to get the benefits of New
Zealand interest rates being higher than offshore interest rates. We are indifferent to fluctuations in the NZD relative
to other currencies.) This reduces our risk exposure to fluctuations in foreign currencies versus the New Zealand dollar.
Currency derivatives, such as forward contracts, allow us to manage this foreign currency risk in an efficient manner.
In addition, the actual portfolio tends to “drift” away from its target exposures through time due to differential
performance of the various asset classes we own and also due to changes in exchange rates. In other words, the
portfolio’s actual risk can drift away from the desired risk. Derivatives are a convenient way of re-balancing the portfolio
back to its targeted risk level.
Derivatives can also help us to manage our liquidity. When we enter into a derivative contract, we often are not
required to make any deposit on this exposure. Where we are required to set aside a deposit, it is often a relatively small
percentage of the underlying exposure. This means we hold a pool of collateral within the Fund, while maintaining the
desired market exposures through the derivative. In instances where we require liquidity at short notice, closing the
derivative position allows us to access an immediate source of cash.:oi-grr::facepalm::facepalm:

mashman

8th April 2014, 14:36

One of my fave clips. (http://www.traileraddict.com/untitled-michael-moore/derivative)

scrivy

8th April 2014, 14:51

One of my fave clips. (http://www.traileraddict.com/untitled-michael-moore/derivative)

Yeah, a bit of an eye opener the whole movie. True though! I like the end where he makes a stand against the wall street bankers.... all the police and bankers standing around wondering WTF??:lol:

mashman

8th April 2014, 17:08

Yeah, a bit of an eye opener the whole movie. True though! I like the end where he makes a stand against the wall street bankers.... all the police and bankers standing around wondering WTF??:lol:

lol... doesn't he start wrapping the place in some form crime scene tape too? It was a well done movie. I think his Sicko movie highlighted just how stupid we've become. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

scrivy

8th April 2014, 17:12

lol... doesn't he start wrapping the place in some form crime scene tape too? It was a well done movie. I think his Sicko movie highlighted just how stupid we've become. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

Yip, he does. Worth another watch!

http://putlocker.bz/watch-capitalism-a-love-story-online-free-putlocker.html

mashman

8th April 2014, 17:21

Yip, he does. Worth another watch!

http://putlocker.bz/watch-capitalism-a-love-story-online-free-putlocker.html

lol, just watched it again (got it in my favourites from long ago). Lovely touch. If you haven't seen Sicko, I recommend it (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sicko/)

Akzle

8th April 2014, 17:29

What he said.....^^^^^

Actually, 'derivatives' has been used already in another banking clusterfuck, what term will it be for the demise of the Super Fund? 'Derelatives'?? 'Superlatives'?? 'Retiratives'?? :lol::lol:

The worrisome concern I have about the Superfund, is where exactly do they invest it??? ...in offshore sharemarkets... and when they crash.... the fund is worth yip...

From NZSuperfund.co.nz:
Using derivatives to manage risk and liquidity
The Reference Portfolio is generally 100% hedged back to New Zealand dollars. (We do this to get the benefits of New
Zealand interest rates being higher than offshore interest rates. We are indifferent to fluctuations in the NZD relative
to other currencies.) This reduces our risk exposure to fluctuations in foreign currencies versus the New Zealand dollar.
Currency derivatives, such as forward contracts, allow us to manage this foreign currency risk in an efficient manner.
In addition, the actual portfolio tends to “drift” away from its target exposures through time due to differential
performance of the various asset classes we own and also due to changes in exchange rates. In other words, the
portfolio’s actual risk can drift away from the desired risk. Derivatives are a convenient way of re-balancing the portfolio
back to its targeted risk level.
Derivatives can also help us to manage our liquidity. When we enter into a derivative contract, we often are not
required to make any deposit on this exposure. Where we are required to set aside a deposit, it is often a relatively small
percentage of the underlying exposure. This means we hold a pool of collateral within the Fund, while maintaining the
desired market exposures through the derivative. In instances where we require liquidity at short notice, closing the
derivative position allows us to access an immediate source of cash.:oi-grr::facepalm::facepalm:

youve been hitting the dack agan huh?
http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html

scrivy

10th April 2014, 10:25

youve been hitting the dack agan huh?
http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html

Maybe...... Not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws

There may be some tinfoil hat wearers in this video, but there are some items that need more investigating that's for sure.
Amazing how building 7 came down..... from fires within.... yeah right....

If only the FBI/CIA had shown a radar track of the 9/11 flights, and even video footage from the pentagon, it would prove beyond a doubt....
But they won't cause it'll debunk their story....

Akzle

10th April 2014, 11:30

Maybe...... Not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws

There may be some tinfoil hat wearers in this video, but there are some items that need more investigating that's for sure.
Amazing how building 7 came down..... from fires within.... yeah right....

If only the FBI/CIA had shown a radar track of the 9/11 flights, and even video footage from the pentagon, it would prove beyond a doubt....
But they won't cause it'll debunk their story....

we dont need another 911 thread.

But the official enquiry commision actually stated, they dont know how the building came down.

scrivy

20th April 2014, 18:05

we dont need another 911 thread.

But the official enquiry commision actually stated, they dont know how the building came down.
Amazing how the BBC knew about it before it came down..........

scrivy

20th April 2014, 18:10

Ok, unfortunately the collapse will be bloody for some...........
http://rt.com/op-edge/sipri-report-us-defense-costs-392/

Don't we treat others nicely?!

mashman

20th April 2014, 20:53

Ok, unfortunately the collapse will be bloody for some...........
http://rt.com/op-edge/sipri-report-us-defense-costs-392/

Don't we treat others nicely?!

It ain't hard to start a war in this day and age of remote controlled weapons. If that's what it takes to bring people to their sense, then unfortunately that is what it is going to take. It's a shit way to view it, but if we're going to continue to pour our faith in the likes of Key and Cunliffe and all of the other status quo fucktards, then we're going to get what we deserve.

99% of us do.