Dolan: The Secret Space Program - Who is Responsible?

[Randall]

When we talk about replacing the petroleum based economy with antigrav technology, The ramifications go really really deep ... ( then a big list ... see post )

Sure things would change, but you're only looking at the down side. Everything on that list has an upside with ramifications even more deep on the positive side, especially for all these alleged secret billionaires who could be first to cash in on it. They'd just end up on the top of an even bigger pyramid. Now some companies are even talking about private asteroid mining ( Planetary Resources ) ... using rocket technology ... why do that? Another ruse to keep their really secret antigravity drive mother ships from being discovered? It doesn't make any sense. Or are they just the little guys who are out of the real loop? Hey, this stuff is entertaining but it also leaks like a sieve. However one thing I would admit is that they probably have some pretty incredible stuff we don't know about. Like the secret progress made on Reagan's Star Wars program, the real specifications of our most advanced aircraft, superconducting energy storage ... and of course a lot more info on the real UFOs.

 

[boomerang]

Might "we", as in classically defined mankind, have unknowingly become a kind of inferior species living among those already on the next rung up the evolutionary ladder? This is one of the most fascinating and horrifying questions floating around esoterica.

What would a derivative and superior species of H sapiens look like,? How would it behave, how relate to us poor monkeys with a median IQ of 100? What would our superiors (a horribly loaded term) want or need from us? Labor? Cooperation? Allegiance? Or to simply fade away?

Interacting with people on a daily basis, can one usually tell if their IQ is 100 or 160? Yes--I realize the concept of IQ is controversial. But it is a valid measure of a kind of intellectual potential. Check out average IQ's for Nobel Prize recipients.

But back to the point--Is nature still in the process of creating the next phase of increased biological (or otherwise) complexity right under our noses? Has it arrived from "out there", or is it sort of home grown? Or maybe some combination of both?

Maybe that gorgeous girls next door with the too-large eyes is aloof and overly polite for different reasons that you might think.

 

[Randall]

Might "we", as in classically defined mankind, have unknowingly become a kind of inferior species living among those already on the next rung up the evolutionary ladder? This is one of the most fascinating and horrifying questions floating around esoterica. What would a derivative and superior species of H sapiens look like,? How would it behave, how relate to us poor monkeys with a median IQ of 100? What would our superiors (a horribly loaded term) want or need from us? Labor? Cooperation? Allegiance? Or to simply fade away?

Interacting with people on a daily basis, can one usually tell if their IQ is 100 or 160? Yes--I realize the concept of IQ is controversial. But it is a valid measure of a kind of intellectual potential. Check out average IQ's for Nobel Prize recipients. But back to the point--Is nature still in the process of creating the next phase of increased biological (or otherwise) complexity right under our noses? Has it arrived from "out there", or is it sort of home grown? Or maybe some combination of both? Maybe that gorgeous girls next door with the too-large eyes is aloof and overly polite for different reasons that you might think.

You've hit on something that I've had an uneasy feeling about for a long time. According to some tests done in high school, I supposedly have a slightly above average I.Q. and I know that must be true because when I take those Mensa tests in the magazines I always score high enough to join the club ... but that's not the real reason I think I'm a little bit smarter than the crowd, it's because I'm smart enough to know that I'm not really that smart and that they are just after my admission fee. But seriously, I've met a very few people who are scary smart. People that make me feel totally incompetent because compared to them I am slow as molasses. Sure I can grasp some pretty complex ideas, but I'm talking about people who can also do the math without any effort. But they aren't even the ones that I'm worried about, and this is where it gets weird so get ready to be woo woofied.

You know how you hear about human auras. I saw one once for a short time in alls its splendor. The conditions were just right and suddenly there it was around a friend of mine. I've also experience mild psychic abilities, like a couple of weeks ago, I had turned off all the phone ringers to rest, but I woke up because I swore I heard my other half talking on the answering machine in the room downstairs, thinking I had forgotten to turn down the volume, I picked up the phone. She was there alright, but when I checked the answering machine later, the volume was all the way off. I had not forgotten to turn it down after all, and there was simply no way I could have heard her, but I did. So what's my point? Well from my own firsthand experience of my really limited abilities, I've been shown a glimpse into what potential we have, and if I'm just verging on these abilities with my normal intelligence, what about those people who are gifted? There could really be people who can see auras all the time, hear people's thoughts, perhaps even predict the future to some extent. I can't be the only one and I can't be the best at it. So where are the rest? Who are they? What key positions in society do they hold? How well are they organized? And how disadvantaged are we by comparison? Most of the time I just try to focus on other things because not only is it disturbing, it's pretty much futile to try to explore. You can't know who to trust or what is really happening because those people are like that guy in that movie Limitless but with added powers and no dependency on pills. So I'm content to just rap away on my little ufology project, remain in a state of denial, share some ideas and hope to get lucky like the rest of the crowd whose primary retirement plan is to win the lottery.

​

 

[mike]

Sure things would change, but you're only looking at the down side. Everything on that list has an upside with ramifications even more deep on the positive side.

You are implying though that everything would balance out, i just cant see that being the case.

I agree things would change, but not that it would balance out and be better for that change.

I agree some billionaires would make some money from the initial sales, but once everyone has one of these devices, the bottom would drop out of the market.

Planned obsolescence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So much of our economy is based on consumables, but what if this antigrav tech by its very nature didnt breakdown, a feature you want to be able to count on in deep space.

That once built the device requires little in the way of maintenance and refueling, you would wipe out the current industrys and there is no way the replacement devices would generate the employment the current one does.

Change yes, balance out ? i dont think so.
You would lose in orders of magnitude far more jobs, than the antigrav industry would create

 

[Goggs Mackay]

May I add to Mike's point and bring it in with my own that yes indeed these jobs etc would be under severe threat depending on how quickly various bodies/govts etc could copy the tech (whether with official designs bought etc or industrial espionage) but the bottom line is once everyone knows it's possible, everything will change.

It should be possible if we have a smaller, cleaner and far more efficient energy production method, to make a more equal society. Perhaps less people would need to work as many hours as the new energy is used to make very long lasting white goods and labour-saving devices etc.
There are load of ways this could pan out but in time, if some countries cannot hold others to ransom due to oil, then that has to mean less money for the super-rich and more importantly less control.

As I said, everything will change, but maybe in some ways for the better, if it was allowed. All the jobs Mike said would go, could be replaced by new jobs, say involving the installation of 'free' or nearly free energy generators for homes. Ditto for underdeveloped countries. There will be jobs and careers unthinkable at the moment. The point is where one door closes, another opens up but will the power elite allow this? Cheaper or nearly free energy will make a million things cheaper and more feasible.
Not having to maintain the power-station/electricity grid. Not having to import/export coal and oil etc. It does go on and on but if building homes becomes cheaper and feeding everyone becomes easier then those are the 2 basic ways that people can be controlled by money - and of course the cost of energy right now in the forms of petrol, home electricity, gas, heating oil - it get's so complicated as new tax regimes take the place of previous ones. For a long time we would still need governments, local and national, to manage many things but if the basic cost of food, shelter and travel vastly decrease, then the ability to exert power over people's everyday lives diminishes greatly.

All these Bilderberg, Tri-Lateral Commission types etc, or the UK and European Royalty etc - there is no way they want the ability to squeeze work and money out of us 'average joes' to disappear virtually overnight.
I don't think the UFO question has ever been about societal breakdown or religious breakdown - it's always just about the money, in all the forms that can be.

 

[mike]

Advanced technology costs jobs, its that simple.
Robotic Nation Evidence: Robots taking jobs

What will those new jobs be? They won't be in manufacturing -- robots will hold all the manufacturing jobs. They won't be in the service sector (where most new jobs are now) -- robots will work in all the restaurants, retail stores and convenience stores. They won't be in transportation -- robots will be driving everything. They won't be in:

• security (robotic police, robotic firefighters)
• the military (robotic soldiers)
• entertainment (robotic actors and stuntmen)
• medicine (robotic doctors, nurses, pharmacists, counselors, caregivers)
• construction (robotic construction workers)
• aviation (robotic pilots, robotic air traffic controllers)
• office work (robotic receptionists, call centers and managers)
• research (robotic scientists, robotic inventors)
• education (robotic teachersand computer-based training)
• programming or engineering (outsourced to Indiaat one-tenth the cost)
• farming (robotic agricultural machinery)
• etc., etc.

We are assuming that the economy is going to invent an entirely new category of employment that will absorb half of the working population.

Where and what is this "new" category" of employment ?

I'm reminded of a story about a japanese car factory that tooled up and robotised, the major saving in this huge plant (5 acres of factory) wasnt in the wages of all the laid off staff.
It was in the lighting.
The robots worked in the dark, when a repair or service man wanted to work on a robotic unit, the computer lit a path to the unit and the area where it was located.

• Why isn't the economy inventing those new jobs now? Today there are millions of unemployed people. There are also tens of millions of people who would gladly abandon their minimum wage jobs scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, driving trucks and shelving inventory for something better. This imaginary new category of employment does not hinge on technology -- it is going to employ people, after all, in massive numbers -- it is going to employ half of today's working population. Why don't we see any evidence of this new category of jobs today?

Computerworld - CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Computers and robots will replace humans in enough jobs that they will dramatically change the economy, said industry watchers and MIT economists at a robotics symposium Monday. And, they said, the transition has already started.

Robots are taking mid-level jobs, changing the economy - Computerworld

The Washington Post notes that we are now witnessing, "the longest hiring downturn since the Depression". [ref] The article also notes, "The vast majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back."
There is no mystery -- the jobless recovery is exactly what you would expect in a robotic nation. When automation and robots eliminate jobs, they are gone for good. The economy then has to invent new jobs. But it is much harder to do that now because robots can quickly fill the new jobs that get invented. See the FAQ for additional information.

Robotic Nation, by Marshall Brain


Employment ultimately comes from consumer demand , any technology that doesnt involve consumables, and repeat customers, kills jobs.

Anti grav and free energy both fit the bill. just like grandma's fridge there will be an initial surge in sales and installation and then........ the demand will bottom out.

Its why manufacturers today will pay more for a component with a guaranteed failure factor, than a component that will last indefinately.

Replacing humans with computers and robots is already costing jobs, they are gone for good and not coming back.
Replacing the petroleum economy with antigrav technology is the same scenario but much much worse. The job losses are just one facet of the issue

The changes introducing this technology to the world as it is now, would be of such a negative impact as to outweigh any perceived advantages.

Dont even get me started on the time dilation issues that have been allegedly reported to be associated with this technology, thats another can of wormholes

 

[boomerang]

it's because I'm smart enough to know that I'm not really that smart and that they are just after my admission fee. But seriously, I've met a very few people who are scary smart. People that make me feel totally incompetent because compared to them I am slow as molasses.

​

​

We may be somewhat in the same boat in that respect. But is also suspect this to be true of a wide array of people who I know are much "smarter" than I am, whose reach almost always exceeds their grasp. Perhaps most should console themselves with the fact that Einstein failed to unify forces in nature, and the list goes on. Perhaps no human is smart enough to define "smart".​

Some comparative biologists, paleontologists etc. have pre-empted this issue by questioning if ever increasing levels of abstract thinking is what nature "wants". It's the old cockroach argument. Will the cockroach prove to be the superior species ten thousand years from now by virtue of its survival because apes with big brains are a dead end? I personally don't think so, because the history of evolution seems to be a process of increasing complexity.​

On persons of superior abilities: Consider the savant Daniel Tammet. His does complex mathematical calculations by intuitive feel. Each integer has an innate shape, color and emotion to Tammet. He can become fluent a new language within one week. Is this a so-called favorable mutation, or just anomaly? What does nature want, and what will it look like when it arrives?​

As for psychic abilities and reading auras, my wife of 25 years sometimes demonstrates uncanny abilities that I have learned to take seriously over the years. Like many paranormal sensitivities, her perceptions are irregular, but often downright astounding. There is indeed a "there" there.​

​

​

 

[Randall]

We may be somewhat in the same boat in that respect. But is also suspect this to be true of a wide array of people who I know are much "smarter" than I am, whose reach almost always exceeds their grasp. Perhaps most should console themselves with the fact that Einstein failed to unify forces in nature, and the list goes on. Perhaps no human is smart enough to define "smart". Some comparative biologists, paleontologists etc. have pre-empted this issue by questioning if ever increasing levels of abstract thinking is what nature "wants". It's the old cockroach argument. Will the cockroach prove to be the superior species ten thousand years from now by virtue of its survival because apes with big brains are a dead end? I personally don't think so, because the history of evolution seems to be a process of increasing complexity.​

​

On persons of superior abilities: Consider the savant Daniel Tammet. His does complex mathematical calculations by intuitive feel. Each integer has an innate shape, color and emotion to Tammet. He can become fluent a new language within one week. Is this a so-called favorable mutation, or just anomaly? What does nature want, and what will it look like when it arrives? As for psychic abilities and reading auras, my wife of 25 years sometimes demonstrates uncanny abilities that I have learned to take seriously over the years. Like many paranormal sensitivities, her perceptions are irregular, but often downright astounding. There is indeed a "there" there.​

I suspect that many people who have close relationships experience ( or will come to experience ) certain things they can't explain that have a psychic wave to them. Other people might experience other things like a certain abnormal dread about boarding a plane that later they learn crashes. I think there may be people out there who have abilities like these that are heightened like the savant you mentioned ( Daniel Tammet ), but that these people keep them private out of fear of repercussions from the masses.

 

[exo_doc]

The more I think about suppressed technology and the reasons for the suppression, the more depressed I get about the whole idea.

IF and I stress IF...there is something to a BAC with advanced tech , not sharing the tech with us lowly dirt grubbers because it would collapse our current earthbound civilization and/or those in power would lose power,...it makes me frustrated and feeling kind of lost.

Here is tech that would transform our lives for the better (mostly; all tech has some drawbacks-nature of the beast).
We could refit old oil tankers to float through the sky to forest fires carrying millions of gallons of water and put out any fire.
Ambulances could reach those in need , anywhere, in mere moments.
Fire fighters could have floating fire tankers for any size building, and rescue people from any floor.
Everywhere on the planet would be accessable for exploration and recreation.

And that's just on earth.

We could tour the solar system, mine the asteroids, colonize anywhere it would be feasible.
Live on a spaceship or space station or a moon or planet.

Would it be worth the collapse of our current civilization?
Would that even happen? Maybe it would happen slow enough for almost everyone to find their way.
Lots of ideas to ponder.

 

[mike]

In its simplest terms the premise is to replace a high volume consumable system, with a virtually zero volume consumable system.
A system where just about everything wears out and has to be replaced/repaired with one that hardly ever wears out.
A friction intensive system with a frictionless one.

Employment ultimately comes from consumer demand , consumers must consume consumables

The current system exploits this litterally from the ground up, the roads have to be laid, then repaired as they wear out, tyres and brake pads the same, the engine and other moving parts, bearings etc even the fuel itself is a consumable. All of them driving a massive employment base.

Air travel is another aspect, for every person who flys from london to new york, there are dozens and dozens of people employed to facilitate this service.
From the travel agent at one end to the customs officer at the other.
I'd love to be able to step out of my front door and into my AG vehicle, tell the onboard computer i want to go to london, and sit back and enjoy the ride. But i also realise this would put lots of people out of a job.
Its why we wont see teleports even if they got invented tomorrow



Dont get me wrong it would be of great advantage to the planet to go this route, but it would be disastrous for its human economy.

Another reason to keep it to themselves is in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king

Its human nature not to give away an advantage.

 

[Randall]

In its simplest terms the premise is to replace a high volume consumable system, with a virtually zero volume consumable system.
A system where just about everything wears out and has to be replaced/repaired with one that hardly ever wears out.
A friction intensive system with a frictionless one.

Employment ultimately comes from consumer demand , consumers must consume consumables

The current system exploits this litterally from the ground up, the roads have to be laid, then repaired as they wear out, tyres and brake pads the same, the engine and other moving parts, bearings etc even the fuel itself is a consumable. All of them driving a massive employment base.

Air travel is another aspect, for every person who flys from london to new york, there are dozens and dozens of people employed to facilitate this service.
From the travel agent at one end to the customs officer at the other.
I'd love to be able to step out of my front door and into my AG vehicle, tell the onboard computer i want to go to london, and sit back and enjoy the ride. But i also realise this would put lots of people out of a job.
Its why we wont see teleports even if they got invented tomorrow

Dont get me wrong it would be of great advantage to the planet to go this route, but it would be disastrous for its human economy. Another reason to keep it to themselves is in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king Its human nature not to give away an advantage.

The change would be gradual. It's not like they could just materialize a new AG car for everyone instantly causing some catastrophic economic collapse. It's not like there would be no demand for petroleum based products like plastics, paints, insulation, and the list goes on and on and on. It's not like everyone could even afford to upgrade all at once to the new technologies. It would be new and expensive and it would get phased in over time like personal computers ( an example of a revolutionary technology that has created a lot of jobs and wealth ). Manufacturers would have to retool, creating many new jobs. And whose to say parts wouldn't wear out? There are lots of parts that can wear out ( gauges, seats, flooring, windows, body panels, switches ... and the list goes on and on ... not to mention accidents. ). And I'm dubious about this "free energy". It's more likely some sort of superconducting storage system. But even if there were such a thing, there would still be a huge manufacturing demand for systems around the globe that would create a huge number of jobs. Then there are all the jobs that would be created by needing installers and service people for the new stuff and companies to cleanup and recycle the old stuff. Many of the old jobs could simply be transformed to serve that purpose. The presumption that it would make the airline industry obsolete is premature. Not everyone is going to want to sit in a little personal pod when they could lounge in a spacious aerial cruise ship. It would hearld in a new age of the airship. Which brings up space tourism, which would generate a huge number of jobs all the way from manufacturing to the service sector. And in the elite would even be more elite, running operations on multiple planets. There would be no threat to their security whatsoever. It's a bright wonderful future full of prosperity with far fewer problems that we have now.

 

[exo_doc]

Well, there it is.
Two extremes of the same subject.
1. Super Science would wreak havoc and destroy current civilization.
2. Super Science would slowly be integrated into civilization transforming it into something better.

Could there be a happy medium in there somewhere?
.
.
.

 

[mike]

Change either swift or slow, comes at a cost.

The Draft horse is a good example, with the invention of the tractor the species almost died out.

Across the nation, farmers were replacing draft animals with tractors. Millions of discarded horses were dying in slaughterhouses.
“The breed was almost wiped out during the ‘Great Killings,’ about 1935 to 1965,” Rogalski says. “The Ford Motor Company began producing tractors and would take a team of draft horses as a down payment. Ford and John Deere quit making horse-drawn equipment, forcing horse people to go to tractors.” Meanwhile, the number of American Creams dwindled.

The Return of American Cream

Whats going to be wiped out if AG drives become available is a massive employment base.

Its not just about replacing one type of transport with another, its about replacing a friction and thus consumable dependant based system with a non wearing system.

Sure it will create new jobs, but it cant replace the ones lost.

The tractor industry created new jobs, and new levels of productivity, but the Draft horse never recovered its numbers, and likely never will.

Lets say the vehicle manufactoring jobs get transfered over (though i posit robots will do it anyway) that still leaves the Tyre industry

The global tyre market in 2009 was worth around US$100 billion

Road building

Roads & Highways: Construction & Maintenance

Like the draft horse, these jobs will be more or less extinct

Again it would be far better for the planet to replace a consumable based system with a frictionless long lasting alternative, but the trickle down effect into the economy would be bigger than most can imagine.
And none of those unemployed masses will be buying a new flying car.

One way to do this would be to opt for a Star Trek type economy, where no one earns money

According to Tom Paris in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Dark Frontier", a "New World Economy" began to take hold on Earth and throughout the Federation in the late 22nd century, and eventually made money obsolete. He even mentions that in the 24th century, Fort Knox is a museum, apparently to money and capitalism.
In the United Federation of Planets, Replicators and other advanced technologies provide for virtually all basic material wants and needs equally and sufficiently to all. Every citizen of the Federation has plenty of food of virtually any type they want, clothes, shelter, recreational and luxury items, and has all their basic material needs easily met. A society based around self-improvement and collectively improving the human race instead of cutthroat competition, combined with heavy automation, means labor is essentially free, menial tasks are automated, and goods are made freely available to all citizens due to superabundance

But i dont know, Lets be honest if all your needs were being met by an automated society wouldnt you just play computer games all day ?
Money is both a motivator and regulator.

The Sultan of Brunei's car collection has achieved almost mythical status. What isn't as well known is that his brother, Prince Jefri, has his own collection of more than 2000 cars.
But since the 1997 Asian financial crisis left the prince unable to maintain his collection, it has been left to decay.
A Ferrari broker from the US, Michael Sheehan, claims he saw up to 300 Mercedes SLs and SELs outside in the sun rotting away, in 2002. He said he saw hundreds of Ferraris, Porsches and Rolls-Royces abandoned inside multi-storey garages

Should everyone be able to collect as much stuff as they want and then just let it rot ?

 

[exo_doc]

So should we continue with unbridled greed and a worship of materialism? Frivolously wasting away earths resources, wiping out whole species in our stampede to "get what's ours!"?
How long are those with the money and the resources to fight poverty and starvation and disease going to ignore the suffering of their fellow man?
Capitalism works OK, but it's got to be regulated to prevent exactly what is happening now. The rich getting richer, and screw the middle and lower class.
Wouldn't a newer system where everyone had a chance because we would become more or less equal and independant?
It's such a huge problem.
And there are people that can help, but apparently won't or don't care. That's what is so infuriating.

Maybe the world needs shaking up. Maybe we need AG and free energy tech.
In any revolution, there are always caualties. No one wants to be one, but as Spock says,"The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, ...or the one."
I just wouldn't want to be responsible for making those kinds of decisions, but I would if it really came down to it.
Utopia or dystopia......choices choices.

 

[mike]

I totally agree,
The current situation is terrible, and i blame overpopulation myself.
To me thats the root cause of all our woes.

In 8 Months, Humanity Exhausted Earth's Budget for the Year

Today, August 22, is Earth Overshoot Day, marking the date when humanity has exhausted nature’s budget for the year. We are now operating in overdraft. For the rest of the year, we will maintain our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Just as a bank statement tracks income against expenditures, Global Footprint Network measures humanity’s demand for and supply of natural resources and ecological services. And the data is sobering. Global Footprint Network estimates that in approximately 8 months, we demanded more renewable resources and C02 sequestration than what the planet can provide for an entire year.

According to Global Footprint Network’s calculations, our demand for renewable ecological resources and the services they provide is now equivalent to more than 1.5 Earths. The data shows us on track to require the resources of two planets well before mid-century

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/

The world is depleting underground water reserves faster than they can be replenished due to over-exploitation, according to scientists in Canada and the Netherlands.

World over-using underground water reserves for agriculture| Reuters


One solution might be the venus projects cybercontrollers

The Venus Project calls for a cybernated society in which computers could replace the outmoded system of electing politicians that in most cases represent the entrenched vested interests. This new technology will not dictate or monitor individual's lives, as in The Venus Project this would be considered socially offensive and counterproductive. Books such as 1984 and Brave New World, and motion pictures such as Blade-Runner and Terminator 2 have spawned fear in some people regarding the takeover of technology in our society. The Venus Project's only purpose is to elevate the spiritual and intellectual potential of all people, while at the same time providing the goods and services that will meet their individual and material needs.
Cybernation is the linking of computers with automated systems. Eventually the central cybernated systems will coordinate all of the machinery and equipment that serve the entire city, the nation and ultimately the world. One can think of this as an electronic autonomic nervous system extending into all areas of the social complex.

Decisions based on logic and maths, not greed and self interest
The Venus Project

But i still have reservations about the Venus project myself.
Namely what will motivate people if they get the same access to resources whether they contribute to society or not.

It may simply be that its impossible to visualise such factors, from within the existing system.

 

[exo_doc]

I totally agree,
The current situation is terrible, and i blame overpopulation myself.
To me thats the root cause of all our woes.

Namely what will motivate people if they get the same access to resources whether they contribute to society or not.

It may simply be that its impossible to visualise such factors, from within the existing system.

What would motivate people to contribute? We already have a vast number of parasites (rich AND poor both) sucking up resources without contributing anything in return.
What would make people have less or no children to get the world populaton down to something sustainable?
What would make people less materialistic, or at least share the wealth and quit obscenely hoarding more than they could ever use in 10 lifetimes?

I understand our current world economy is based on mass consumables, but that appears to be a dead end (no pun intended). Our resources are going to burst, if not already.
What mode of economy would be better than buying more and more of increasingly more and more disposable goods?

It seems to me more and more that super science tech would be the answer, or at least lead us in the right direction.
Need to think on this a bit more.

 

[exo_doc]

Here is a documentary hosted by Martin Sheen about global economics.
The synopsis:"Global poverty did not just happen. It began with military conquest, slavery and colonization that resulted in the seizure of land, minerals and forced labor. Today, the problem persists because of unfair debt, trade and tax policies — in other words, wealthy countries taking advantage of poor, developing countries. Renowned actor and activist, Martin Sheen, narrates THE END OF POVERTY?, a feature-length documentary directed by award-winning director, Philippe Diaz, which explains how today's financial crisis is a direct consequence of these unchallenged policies that have lasted centuries. Consider that 20% of the planet's population uses 80% of its resources and consumes 30% more than the planet can regenerate. At this rate, to maintain our lifestyle means more and more people will sink below the poverty line. Filmed in the slums of Africa and the barrios of Latin America, THE END OF POVERTY? features expert insights from: Nobel prize winners in Economics, Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz; acclaimed authors Susan George, Eric Toussaint, John Perkins, Chalmers Johnson; university professors William Easterly and Michael Watts; government ministers such as Bolivia's Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera and the leaders of social movements in Brazil, Venezuela, Kenya and Tanzania. It is produced by Cinema Libre Studio in collaboration with the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. Can we really end poverty within our current economic system? Think again."

Documentary about The End of Poverty
.
.
.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Mike - you made me remember all the times I've watched say, Star Trek TNG and thought, if no-one needs money then who is going to do all the menial jobs or boring jobs that can't be done by robots or for free etc?

It is a fundamental question in society and something that must have been in the minds, positive or negative, of people like Karl Marx - there is a lot to be said for a totally fair society but can you have one if people don't act fair?

Sometimes greed is the direct opposite of total apathy and unless we can force humans to be more of one and less of the other - I just cannot see how things will go unless there remains a way for there to be an elite that are greedy and rich. If you cannot become rich because all is free then a huge motivating factor into discovery and commerce will be gone.

I know myself, I know people from school who pretty much have not worked the majority of their adult lives. We are not only talking those with severe substance problems etc - just a fact that bone idle people exist and those of us who pay taxes get annoyed at how they cheat the system designed to help the helpless, not the lazy.

The implications of food, shelter, medicine and energy being free or nearly are huge. No matter what we will still have people working and doing hobbies for the pleasure but we will still require a workforce. How do you motivate the lazy to do their share? I just know that enterprising people would find a way to exploit willing labour or whatever and even when you try to get rid of money or the need for it - it will always rear it's head somehow in whatever form available.

 

[mike]

An ode to the draught horse

Now you're down to the few
And there's no work to do
The tractor's on it's way.

 

[Randall]

What a beautiful world this will be.​

BTW: I Own Heavy Horses ( the album )​

and those are cool horses.​