At 5/28/07 02:21 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:
Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in a happy little idealistic Communist warless world filled with glorious interstellar travel, personal achievement, widespread contentment, and unicorns?
Wow, did you even read the content of the post? Am I shouting "OMG I WANNA DO THE MYSPACE AND I LIEK 4CHAN!!"
No. I think you just skimmed it and got teh completely wrong idea about what I was saying.
Too fucking bad. Grow up.
I'm trying, I can only grow so fast.
At 5/27/07 11:04 PM, Draconias wrote:
We really don't know that much about the Big Bang, and we know literally nothing about parallel universes because we can't interact with them yet (if they exist). There is no reason at all why the Big Bang shouldn't affect every universe that is parallel to our own (that's almost a requisite of it being "parallel" since an empty parallel universe is boring). It might also help to explain the origin of the energy that created the Big Bang-- perhaps the divergence of universes released dimensional potential energy, much like a chemical reaction.
Hmm, thats an interesting idea. I wonder how these universes got to be parallel in the first place.
Complexity. Assumptions. Both of these make answers less and less likely, regardless of how much we know about the actual situation. An infinite number of universes that are constantly spawning is inherently more complex than a finite number that originated in a single event, so it is also less probable.
I guess. I would assume that the single even is the big bang. I see what you are saying. I wonder whether these universes would have similar dimensions to us, or whether they would have a W-axis, no Z-axis, or something else completely.
As far as I am aware, quantum foam is entirely speculative at this point. You may have mis-remembered the article. Wormholes have never been confirmed in any situation, it is just theorized that they may exist in quantum foam, a rare and very short-term annihilation event between virtual particles. It is not something stable, nor is it something we can even interact with at this point, if it exists.
Yeah, I should try and find that article so I can link you to it. I do think that we have no idea what and how we can do to this foam, so it will have to wait.
I also support increase Science education and encouragement, and am particularly disappointed by the lack of Engineering subject matter before College. High Schools are very poorly designed at this point in time and most schooling is ineffective and very narrow. However,
Science always has the opponents like the one who posted earlier, who believe that dealing with self-made, impossible to eliminate problems (usually caused by poor education) should receive all of the money we have. Apparently, throwing money at socially deep-rooted problems is supposed to help solve them.
Well, money can increase quality, and that will, in turn, increase intelligence. I too am disappointed with engineering. I need to skip my lunch period in order to continue taking choir and to take engineering too.
Abstract science is all well and good, but hard science is what creates quality of life improvements and literally drives our economy. While you are entitled to your opinion, I believe that all science should be supported and hard science is absolutely necessary to our society.
I guess. Abstract science is very motivating, but I can see how the general public will overlook the longterm goals. I can see how hard science would be more motivational.
The poor pay effectively no taxes at all. It's not a matter of taxing burden, but spoiled hearts, greedy hands, poor education, and liberal hearts that believe they must be "helped" with handouts. Entitlements are called "Mandatory" spending because it is impossible for Congress or the President to get rid of them without a massive voting block overthrowing the politicians. The poor like handouts.
Yeah, the poor like handouts. Due to the low taxes they are supposedly paying, shouldn't they be able to purchase things like health insurance without outside help?
I can understand that you have an Isolationist viewpoint, but I disagree with your assertion that foreign affairs always leads to failure. The problem I believe is a matter of outlook-- a success in foreign affairs is almost always invisible and involves nothing happening except a slow improvement. A failure can appear spectacular and correcting it can be costly and is always highly publicized.
For example, Afghanistan is nearly a success, but for that reason you hear nothing about it at all; it is only Iraq, where we are not being quite as successful, that you hear news about. The media is fairly biased towards sensational news, not actual world updates, and the public always tends to focus on the next crisis or tragedy, regardless of whether it is even real or not.
Darn, triumphed by the media again. I do not really know about foreign affairs, except from what my parents and teachers tell me, so I guess I am pretty influenced by that. I hate the American media system.
It's more than that, though. Communism entails restrictions on your Freedom-- on who you can be. Some people enjoy living the "high life," spending all their money on expensive parties and material objects, but then they work twice as hard to pay for their habits. Others prefer to live modestly and not spend as much.
Well, not all who live the high life work twice as hard. How hard do you think Britney Spears works? I do agree that people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have worked hard for their money, but this popstar culture really can make me angry sometimes.
But Self-Interest is what destroys Communism from the ground upward. Everyone who is held back by Communism will want it removed. Only those who would otherwise be worse off, the lazy, unskilled, or poor, can ever accept it. More often than not in reality, Communism means tearing down the Rich and murdering them, rather than improving life for everyone.
Yeah, I see. So, we should gather those who want it and make communes, if communism was ever to work. It would be like kibutzes (SP?) in Israel.
At 5/27/07 11:07 PM, Draconias wrote:
Necromancers love that sort of thing, from what I've heard, and that's the exact point. You will never have a situation that would benefit from Communism in reality.
Of course, then Necromancers will have their communism.
At 5/27/07 10:32 PM, KemCab wrote:
War, hunger, and greed are probably the best catalyst for technological process.
WWII helped develop nuclear energy, rockets, radar, jet engines, and much more.
Humans refined agriculture tech to increase their crop yield.
The Industrial Revolution was economic- the cotton gin, the steam engine, and much more stemmed out of capitalist drive.
Yea, I see what you are saying. War can drive technological advance, but they can only drive it so far without the principals of abstract science to work off of.
However, this drive is really a wild card- right now, these factors are holding us back, mostly because the powers that be (the oil companies, the Illuminati, whomever you want to believe) are perfectly content keeping things the way it is because they're content with their short term gains without looking at long-term things, like space exploration.
That is exactly my point! Thanks for posting!
