And I completely and fully explained how those ecosystem services can be bypassed, and why, and why your centrally controlled ecosystem management is inadequate and flawed. I have made many long posts about that, but you don't seem to understand that what you want can not be provided by the mechanisms you propose. I explained all of that, but apparently you are either too naive, or too dumb, to understand it all. So it's not my fault that your brainwashing, and complete lack of understanding of economics, psychology, and politics is making you post such frustratingly idiotic claims.

You want a heads-up for when we can communicate over long distances, have fancy video communications, or space-aged technologies like orange flavored powdered drinks and self-sticking fabrics called "velcro?"

Obviously whenever new technology will come out, you will remain unimpressed, and will continue to claim that the new technology that just came out is all that we will ever have. So why even bother discussing it?



You must think I have a problem with "stolen" money being put towards scientific research. Or that much of that research is even done with "stolen" money  

I did comprehend it. I simply dismissed it as irrelevant, due to the fact that we can more or less controll our own environment, even if on a limited scale, and will only get better at it. Plus a list of some things you wanted rebutals to is not a long post. You wanted answers to those things, I gave them to you.

I put just as much effort into this, and provided just as many specific, as you have. It's only fair  


Are you claiming that the earth will be dead and uninhabitable in 10 years? Why? Please provide proof. If you claim that we must protect the environment, otherwise we will be dead in ten years (or otherwise escape in some fantasy scenario), I'd like some concrete evidence. Because that is what you are saying.

You mean, like, with a DNA assembler, which we have had working models of since mid 90's, and which are at the point where we can actually print custom viruses and bacteria? Did you know that some scientist printed DNA to create a bacteria that stores the collected works of Shakespeare in it's DNA, just for the hell of it? Did you know that such devices are becoming so powerful and so cheap that they are now at the top of the list of threats for the NIH, who is worried about people being able to create, hack, and download custom viruses from home, making a viral pandemic something that a high school kid could start? The only final two steps to making growing animals from DNA a reality are perfecting cloning and artificial wombs. We're pretty close on getting those figured out, too.

Keep up with the times dude.


I'm sorry, did you have a point?

Which presents a huge problem to AI designers 

I think uploading your brain to a machine would cause too many "BAD SECTOR" errors  


A fake one?

arbitrarily illegal goods, and not illegal everywhere they were being sold to. USA is not the entire planet.

Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.

I could have also said:


Ineffective and often counterproductive


At the least way too slow to respond, and at worst completely counterproductive, since written by those being regulated


Easily manipulated and at the whim of bought-and-paid-for politicians


Pointless, since land is still leased for mining and drilling. Also ineffective, since controled at the whims of bought-and-paid-for politicians.


However, I like my first answer best, which basically summarizes all your buller points, and you in particular, as "Controlling, coersive, manipulative, and evil."

Anarchy like people are proposing has never existed. We evolved from a tribal/pack species. We always had someone designated a leader, because that was the best way for our species to survive. Eventually those leaders got more and more power, and we ended up with tribal leaders, kings and millitary commanders, then elected representatives and dictators. The idea of everyone being able to make their own decisions, because everyone has access to information, money, production, and defense, has never been attempted before, because it was not possible until quite recently.

LOL! You never fail to demonstrate your complete lack of vision   How about DNA banks set up world-wide that collect and preserve DNA of various species of flora and fauna? The ongoing research and planning in NASA and various universities about the techological requirements we would need to terraform Mars and Venus? (we're damn close to getting Mars figured out, to the point that, if we can survive in Antarctic, which we can, we can survive on Mars) The tons of biodome experiments we have had for decades, and still perform? The huge improvements in hydroponics and other tight-space crop growing experiments? I'm not looking all that far out with the stuff you quoted. It's just a small step from where we are now.


I suggest you let go of that tree you've been hugging for the past 50 years, step out of the forest, shave off that enormous mountain-man beard, and go look at what humans have actually been doing with regards to research and science since 1910.

I agree, it is quite extraordinary that we keep pushing to improve our technology and our ability to control our environment. Genetic sequencing technology has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, genetic crop modification has vastly improved,  cloning is continuing to improve, we can grow food and resources much faster in much harsher environments, we can generate power much more efficiently, water purification systems are becoming much cheaper and more efficient, etc etc etc. None of these claims are all that far fetched though.

That's not an argument, or a counterpoint. Obviously you did a piss poor job of it, otherwise I wouldn't be asking. And it's rather ironic hearing about rudeness from you of all people. Stop being such as asshole.

If that's the case, then I agree, the second option may actually be an improvement over what they have now. Then just either lock the payout amount and inflate a bit, or set the payout amount to decrease by a few percentage points every year, and hopefully the payments will eventually get uncomfortable enough to incentivize people to start looking for work again.


Problem is, average Joe's understanding of finance and economics is limited to "I get paycheck, I spend money until bank account says 0" and "those people have more money than me, and that's not fair." We have plenty of examples of this throughout  the world's history, and plenty that are catching up with people now, in places where people keep voting to give themselves more and more money, and never consider where that money actually comes from (the PIGS in Europe, Brazil and some other South American countries, California and Detroit, etc.)

Which is exactly what I meant by this distorting market signals for which jobs are more important. And yes, this would cause prices to rise, whether due to inflation or not. A basic caffe that had, let's say, one waiter, one cook, and one janitor, will unlikely lower the wages for the cook and the waiter, but will now have to raise wages to be able to hire janitors. Total costs go up, price of products has to go up for them to stay in business, too. I'm not entirely sure how such a system will find equilibrium though. Is everyone having more money mean that each unit of money is now worth less? Or, since the money is coming more from those who are actually able to earn it, and the total remains the same, does it mean that each unit of money will be worth the same, but at an enormous expense to the people and organizations that are actually able to earn it? And if it's the later, will them increasing prices to compensate just end up making the extra stipen not really be able to pay for anything anyway?

Huh. So what did we studdy in nature to come up with silicone processors, radios, networks, displays, light sensors, and all that other fancy techy stuff we use in our everyday life? Cause I was under the impression that it mostly had to do with chemistry and physics, not biology or whatever.

Yeah, but by doing this, they are effectively bringing down both parties, enemies and all 

How inadequate and limited in vision you are, when you can't even consider the possibility of us striving to be able to create entire artificial environments all on our own from scratch. Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning, growing food and renewable resources through genetic modification and new technological breakthroughs, terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space.

The  that comes from some rare species going extinct doesn't feel quite as  when we can just "print" more of them in DNA sequencers.

Does it matter that our cosciousness is not like software on an interchangeable CPU, but is a function of a series of physical networks in the brain, and the only way to make a copy of someone's consciousness is to make an exact physical duplicate of mesh of neurons in the brain? I.e. our minda are mor a product of physical interractions of electrons and chemicals along unique physical paths, like gears and cogs in clockwork, rather than information stored in digital form that is free to exist on any system that allows information to be written. So, sorry, I guess a better analogy/question would have been, does a wind-up clock's time keeping exist outside of it's mechanism?
But, I guess eventually, thanks to the turing principle, if computers get fast enough, such a physical/mechanical system can be simulated in a digital form...

Problem is, a lot of the debt is right back to the people. Much of US debt is held by US citizens, and specifically retirees, as "safe" retirement investments.