The Ramblings of a 13 Yearold Male

[ForumGuy]

First off, I am 13, and that is it. No flaming, this is just what goes through my head when I think about science and politics.

I was reading a book, a very good book. It was Sci-Fi and is very interesting and makes you think. It is called Ring by Steven Baxter. I am not very far yet, but it is about this ship, which can travel through almost infinite amount of time, due to a tear in the universe.

This got me thinking about parallel universes. Many people state that there are parallel universes. Now, for there to be parallel universes, there must be an infinite amount of them. If infinity functioned as a number, then it would be infinity to the infinity, infinity times. This is due to a little theory I saw on Futurama and changed a bit to fit my needs. It clearly states that "Everything that can happen, will happen on a parallel universe, if they exist in actuality." The reason why there must be infinite amounts is that there is no way to just have one change in a universe. That would not make logical sense. If one parallel universe existed, than it would be ours, but with one change. That makes no sense, as how was that specific change chosen? That is where my theory comes in, stating that if one exists, than there must be infinite.

Now, how are we going to get to these universes? I was reading about quantum foam, the little foamy stuff that is smaller than quarks, and was surprised to learn there there were many, miniature wormholes inside this foam. I have read stories where that foam is resized to make a wormhole. This got me thinking. If we could resize a wormhole, it wouldn't do any good unless we had a ship to go to the other end and "drag" it there. This effectively makes any science we do on these things useless until we discover a method of getting ships with human inhabitants to the far reaches of the solar system. From there, we could create a system of "hopping points" to transfer thing across. It would allow us to expand, but it would be useless without proper terraforming technology.

At the rate that we were advancing earlier in the last century, you would think that we would have discovered more of this technology, but sadly, we did not. The massive scientific countries, that have the budget to do these far-fetched research projects, meaning Russia, the US and China, really have no perspective on the human race in the long run.

We keep developing new weapons, to combat new things. It costs money. Money that the US doesn't have. Lets do a bit of imagining for a minute. Remove the military, weapons, and the whole military budget from all of the aforementioned countries. That would be a lot of money left over. Imagine what would happen if we spent that on research. It would be like my Civilization II games, where I was on Alpha Centauri in 1850. It would be great.

The problem is, we can't do that. Tensions rise between countries. We need this weaponry for our great bluffs. We also need this for our "son" countries. The ones that we have taken under our wing and chosen to protect. These countries that the US shouldn't care about, but for some reason, does. Like South Vietnam in the 70s and Iraq now. The US enjoys sticking its nose into places where it doesn't belong.

You would think that Bush would have learned. Back in Vietnam, we wasted money, and once we finished, Saigon fell. It was just a waste of time and money. You would expect Bush to realize the similarities and connect them together. I hate how the government lies about this stuff. They say "Oh, we are almost out! We are winning!" The problem is that 2 years later, we are still in there. This makes me think that a pure democracy would sometimes be a good thing.

There are a number of problems with a pure Democracy. We are too inefficient. The actual coordination and changing of the governmental system would take millions. We are also not prepared for it at the moment. A good governmental system in Communism. Everyone gets what they need and the only do what the are trained to do.

The problem lies in the root of human thinking. Humanity runs on greed. Really. We all usually want what is best for us, no matter what fronts we sometimes put up. It isn't something we can just engineer out. We need to actually change how people are brought up. We should foster a caring environment, rather than the harsh school system and harsh working conditions after. We need to get greed out of ourselves.

Then, and only then, will Communism work on a large scale. It was an interesting concept, but it did not work. That leads me to think that the great communist countries, such as the USSR, were not pure communists. They were some distorted, twisted form of Dictatorship mixed with Communism. They were bad.

I don't really know where to go from here, so just tell me what you think. This was written in one sitting, while listening to NGAP trance. I hope you enjoyed it!

[Vann]

I agree with some of what you say, like the stuff about communism, but there is one major flaw in the space travel being easily done without war budgets. If we have no weapons when we reach these deep space locations that have a high possibility of being the home to hostile alien species with weapons then we'll be eradicated.

War is an evil but perhaps its a necessity as well. In some cases, but not all.

[ForumGuy]

At 5/27/07 07:55 PM, Vann wrote: I agree with some of what you say, like the stuff about communism, but there is one major flaw in the space travel being easily done without war budgets. If we have no weapons when we reach these deep space locations that have a high possibility of being the home to hostile alien species with weapons then we'll be eradicated.

Well, according to the Fermi Paradox, then if there was intelligent life out there, we would have already met it.

Also, if that doesn't convince you, the life isn't necessarily hostile. First impressions can go either way,

[Draconias]

At 5/27/07 07:46 PM, ForumGuy wrote: This got me thinking about parallel universes. That is where my theory comes in, stating that if one exists, than there must be infinite.

That is not necessarily true; you rely on the basic assumption that parallel universes are created by a division from our own universe due to a Free Will or similar decision, which is unlikely. Parallel universes could have originated at the Big Bang (where did all the anti-matter go?), or a highly rare Mechanistic reason could create new parallel universes (a highly improbable quantum effect, so only one or a few have ever happened).

Under the mechanism you appear to assume for the creation of parallel universes, your thought would be true, but that mechanism is not the only possibility and is actually more unlikely than most others.

Now, how are we going to get to these universes? I was reading about quantum foam, the little foamy stuff that is smaller than quarks

Okay, you're jumping a bit far ahead. We can't even get to the nearest planet in our solar system, nor do we even understand a lot of quantum effects; any plans about wormholes like that or parallel universe development is pure speculation and only worth a story it may write.

At the rate that we were advancing earlier in the last century, you would think that we would have discovered more of this technology, but sadly, we did not. The massive scientific countries, that have the budget to do these far-fetched research projects, meaning Russia, the US and China, really have no perspective on the human race in the long run.

Science progresses at its own rate, but yes funding would help. The primary problem most countries face, though, is not a lack of money but a lack of researchers. Each research project always clamors for more money, but it's the limited numbers of researchers that prevents many projects from happening yet. The inter-relatedness of technology also hurts a lot of areas until the proper technology is available.

We keep developing new weapons, to combat new things. It costs money. Money that the US doesn't have. Lets do a bit of imagining for a minute. Remove the military, weapons, and the whole military budget from all of the aforementioned countries.

Your efforts are misguided. The military actually makes most of the best technological developments that everyone else benefits from. Without rockets, how would we have gotten into space? Without military information networks, how would we be talking even now on the Internet? Our military is one of the best research groups in the world.

If you really want to free up money for research, remove Entitlements.
2007 Budget

Military: 17%
Entitlements: 58%

And that's just counting the 4 big Entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare). Most of the military costs have nothing to do with developing weapons and primarily go to defending our country, but Entitlement programs cost more than 1.6 trillion dollars. If you want money for research, that money should go to it, not the Defense budget.

You would think that Bush would have learned. Back in Vietnam, we wasted money, and once we finished, Saigon fell. It was just a waste of time and money. You would expect Bush to realize the similarities and connect them together. I hate how the government lies about this stuff. They say "Oh, we are almost out! We are winning!" The problem is that 2 years later, we are still in there. This makes me think that a pure democracy would sometimes be a good thing.

Regardless of the superficial similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, the two are fundamentally different.

Vietnam was a loss because we attempted to fight a containment war against an opponent funded and supported by an enemy Superpower. We could never finish the war for fear that we would trigger a bigger one, so we just sat there doing nothing.

Iraq, on the other hand, is an attempt to stabilize a region against petty tribalism and enemies so poor they can barely afford guns. There is no actual military challenge here, just brute fighting, and the real problem is the political complexity of the region. Iraq is actually confronting the problem, while Vietnam was an attempt to deal with another problem indirectly.

A good governmental system in Communism. Everyone gets what they need and the only do what the are trained to do.

Which would suck. Greatly. I want what I want and I want to do what I want to do. Let me live my own life instead of having anyone else tell me how I should live it or what I am capable of doing. For all the crap of Communism being "great in theory," it sucks horribly. It's just that no one is ever smart enough to look at the full picture and seem to think that supposed equality is utopian.

The problem lies in the root of human thinking. Humanity runs on greed. Really. We all usually want what is best for us, no matter what fronts we sometimes put up. It isn't something we can just engineer out. We need to actually change how people are brought up. We should foster a caring environment, rather than the harsh school system and harsh working conditions after. We need to get greed out of ourselves.

I think you are thoroughly confusing Greed and Self-Interest. Greed is an excess, overwhelming desire for physical goods, money, and/or the power to acquire those goods. Self-interest is actually giving a damn about yourself and your own life. Self-interest is good, necessary, and the most important thing Humanity can have.

Then, and only then, will Communism work on a large scale. It was an interesting concept, but it did not work.

Communism is great for the purpose of governing corpses or other mindless entities, but it is not a reasonable system to enforce on Humans or any being with free will or intelligence.

[AfroJustice]

seriously, whothe hell give a shit about space, lets focus on all the terrible shit at home (crime, poverty, drugs, medicare, etc) instead of wasting billions of fukin dollars sending 10 ppl into space just to zip around like fuktards. all we need is earth

[Vann]

At 5/27/07 07:57 PM, ForumGuy wrote:

At 5/27/07 07:55 PM, Vann wrote: I agree with some of what you say, like the stuff about communism, but there is one major flaw in the space travel being easily done without war budgets. If we have no weapons when we reach these deep space locations that have a high possibility of being the home to hostile alien species with weapons then we'll be eradicated.

Well, according to the Fermi Paradox, then if there was intelligent life out there, we would have already met it.

Also, if that doesn't convince you, the life isn't necessarily hostile. First impressions can go either way,

True, impressions go either way. The Fermi Paradox is also allowing for the fact that our current requirements for life to be incorrect. As far as I know, we only just found a planet that matches the requirements for what we call "life".

[ForumGuy]

At 5/27/07 08:20 PM, Draconias wrote: That is not necessarily true; you rely on the basic assumption that parallel universes are created by a division from our own universe due to a Free Will or similar decision, which is unlikely. Parallel universes could have originated at the Big Bang (where did all the anti-matter go?), or a highly rare Mechanistic reason could create new parallel universes (a highly improbable quantum effect, so only one or a few have ever happened).

Well, remember, I am 13 so I don't know what a mechanistic reason is. I DO however know what the big bang was. I was under the assumption that the big bang was isolated solely to this universe. I might have been wrong, though.

Under the mechanism you appear to assume for the creation of parallel universes, your thought would be true, but that mechanism is not the only possibility and is actually more unlikely than most others.

Now, how is mine more unlikely? For all we know, they are all equally possible.

Okay, you're jumping a bit far ahead. We can't even get to the nearest planet in our solar system, nor do we even understand a lot of quantum effects; any plans about wormholes like that or parallel universe development is pure speculation and only worth a story it may write.

Well, I read Scientific American, and I remember read about quantum foam a few months ago. It was really crazy stuff. I think they were somewhat sure, and not just making stuff up, or theorizing.

Science progresses at its own rate, but yes funding would help. The primary problem most countries face, though, is not a lack of money but a lack of researchers. Each research project always clamors for more money, but it's the limited numbers of researchers that prevents many projects from happening yet. The inter-relatedness of technology also hurts a lot of areas until the proper technology is available.

Researches, eh? I think that if half the people who work in the costly, commercial, flawed entertainment business went and got Ph.D.s, we would have enough researchers. That is not going to happen, so I think we should advocate for science in schools, so the next generation has enough researchers.

Your efforts are misguided. The military actually makes most of the best technological developments that everyone else benefits from. Without rockets, how would we have gotten into space? Without military information networks, how would we be talking even now on the Internet? Our military is one of the best research groups in the world.

Well, yes, for advances in the hard, true science field. If you are talking about abstract, faceless things which we are only beginning to delve into, than the military does nothing. I am advocating for more abstract science, rather than hard science. That will come later.

If you really want to free up money for research, remove Entitlements.
2007 Budget

Military: 17%
Entitlements: 58%

And that's just counting the 4 big Entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare). Most of the military costs have nothing to do with developing weapons and primarily go to defending our country, but Entitlement programs cost more than 1.6 trillion dollars. If you want money for research, that money should go to it, not the Defense budget.

Jesus, if Bush was smart and cut taxes for the poor and raised taxes for the rich, those programs would be unnecessary. Really, we need to have lower taxes for the lower class. They do not bring the government too much money, but the take up a lot in entitlements.

Regardless of the superficial similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, the two are fundamentally different.

Vietnam was a loss because we attempted to fight a containment war against an opponent funded and supported by an enemy Superpower. We could never finish the war for fear that we would trigger a bigger one, so we just sat there doing nothing.

Iraq, on the other hand, is an attempt to stabilize a region against petty tribalism and enemies so poor they can barely afford guns. There is no actual military challenge here, just brute fighting, and the real problem is the political complexity of the region. Iraq is actually confronting the problem, while Vietnam was an attempt to deal with another problem indirectly.

Well, yes, I see what you mean, but whenever we stick our nose into foreign affairs (except Desert Shield and Desert Storm), we end up failing and wasting a lot of money.

Which would suck. Greatly. I want what I want and I want to do what I want to do. Let me live my own life instead of having anyone else tell me how I should live it or what I am capable of doing. For all the crap of Communism being "great in theory," it sucks horribly. It's just that no one is ever smart enough to look at the full picture and seem to think that supposed equality is utopian.

Well, I think that if everyone enjoyed their jobs, communism would be accepted. Not everyone likes their jobs, so Communism will fail.

I think you are thoroughly confusing Greed and Self-Interest. Greed is an excess, overwhelming desire for physical goods, money, and/or the power to acquire those goods. Self-interest is actually giving a damn about yourself and your own life. Self-interest is good, necessary, and the most important thing Humanity can have.

Well, not necessarily Self-interest. The greed is what corrupts the leaders of the communisms.

Communism is great for the purpose of governing corpses or other mindless entities, but it is not a reasonable system to enforce on Humans or any being with free will or intelligence.

Right, and when are you going to govern some mindless corpses??

[TheMason]

At 5/27/07 08:45 PM, ForumGuy wrote: Jesus, if Bush was smart and cut taxes for the poor and raised taxes for the rich, those programs would be unnecessary. Really, we need to have lower taxes for the lower class. They do not bring the government too much money, but the take up a lot in entitlements.

Actually when Bush cut taxes he created a tax code where the low classes not only gets ALL of the money they paid in taxes back BUT get MORE back than they paid in. Look I have been on the lower rung and had to raise a family of three as a factory worker and then as an enlisted member of the USAF.

I actually loved tax time because I got $1,000-1,500 more back than I paid in. Standard deductions, education credits, Earned Income Credit (for low income families w/children), Child Care tax credits...it all adds up. This class warfare over who pays taxes is just pure propaganda based upon lies. The current tax system is actually very fair and beneficial for the lower class and lower middle class.

But I will say that for a 13yo your posts have been well thought out and presented. Furthermore, you are not combative like many of the teenagers on here so kudos!

[Nav]

At 5/27/07 09:24 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually when Bush cut taxes he created a tax code where the low classes not only gets ALL of the money they paid in taxes back BUT get MORE back than they paid in. Look I have been on the lower rung and had to raise a family of three as a factory worker and then as an enlisted member of the USAF.
I actually loved tax time because I got $1,000-1,500 more back than I paid in. Standard deductions, education credits, Earned Income Credit (for low income families w/children), Child Care tax credits...it all adds up. This class warfare over who pays taxes is just pure propaganda based upon lies. The current tax system is actually very fair and beneficial for the lower class and lower middle class.

Hmm, really? That is interesting! DO you still need to file taxes and file returns, or do they just kinda "hand out" money? Still, he needs to raise taxes for the upper classes. I mean, what are those asshole superstar singers going to do with their cash? They need to give it to the government!

But I will say that for a 13yo your posts have been well thought out and presented. Furthermore, you are not combative like many of the teenagers on here so kudos!

Thanks!

[ForumGuy]

At 5/27/07 09:29 PM, navij11 wrote: Thanks!

Crap, forgot to login to my alt. Sorry, but I use Navij11 for general posts and use ForumGuy for well thought out, smart posts.

[jhonyrestrepo]

Your post was long as hell, but it somewhat sounds interesting.

[Draconias]

At 5/27/07 08:45 PM, ForumGuy wrote: Well, remember, I am 13 so I don't know what a mechanistic reason is. I DO however know what the big bang was. I was under the assumption that the big bang was isolated solely to this universe. I might have been wrong, though.

Mechanistic means "determined mechanically." It is always a good idea to use Dictionary.com if you don't know a word. In context, it meant an inanimate cause and effect, similar to gravity pulling a raindrop down from the sky. No sentience is involved.

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.

Now, how is mine more unlikely? For all we know, they are all equally possible.

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.

The assumption that "Free Will" exists in actuality and has the power to split the entire universe into seperate dimensions is far more complex and unlikely than the assumption that a known universe-creating event may have created other universes. Your idea is less likely because it requires far more things to be true and has very few or no connections to known information.

Well, I read Scientific American, and I remember read about quantum foam a few months ago. It was really crazy stuff. I think they were somewhat sure, and not just making stuff up, or theorizing.

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.

To my knowledge, there aren't even any machines capable of observing anything significantly below the quark level, and virtual particles are so hard to catch already that the chance of finding high enough energy ones is virtually zero.

Researches, eh? I think that if half the people who work in the costly, commercial, flawed entertainment business went and got Ph.D.s, we would have enough researchers. That is not going to happen, so I think we should advocate for science in schools, so the next generation has enough researchers.

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, yes, for advances in the hard, true science field. If you are talking about abstract, faceless things which we are only beginning to delve into, than the military does nothing. I am advocating for more abstract science, rather than hard science. That will come later.

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.

Jesus, if Bush was smart and cut taxes for the poor and raised taxes for the rich, those programs would be unnecessary. Really, we need to have lower taxes for the lower class. They do not bring the government too much money, but the take up a lot in entitlements.

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.

Well, yes, I see what you mean, but whenever we stick our nose into foreign affairs (except Desert Shield and Desert Storm), we end up failing and wasting a lot of money.

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.

Well, I think that if everyone enjoyed their jobs, communism would be accepted. Not everyone likes their jobs, so Communism will fail.

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.

Some people are intelligent and invest in new companies, or research, or particular enterprises, and so they earn money back. It is investment that drives our entire economy and nation. Communism seeks to eliminate investment and money earning in general in the name of Equality, but they don't seem to understand that there is no such thing as equality! Everyone is different, prefers different things, spends money differently, is worth a different amount of money. Communism destroys the ideas of incentives, fair compensation, investment, experience, and improvement, all in the name of a worthless ideal.

Should a job in a deep-level Coal Mine with a high chance of injury or death be worth the same amount of money as a job at a McDonalds? Should a 70 hours-per-week job as a Surgeon that required 20 years of experience be worth the same amount of money as a 10 hours-per-week job mowing lawns? The basic idea of Communism is simply foolish and stupid because it doesn't work. It's not an economic system at all, it's an economic catastrophe wrapped around the emotional ideal of "Equality," and usually based on the presumption of an unfair system. It ignores Freedom or Economy.

Well, not necessarily Self-interest. The greed is what corrupts the leaders of the communisms.

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.

Right, and when are you going to govern some mindless corpses??

[Draconias]

At 5/27/07 08:45 PM, ForumGuy wrote: Right, and when are you going to govern some mindless corpses??

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.

(Double Post - Had bug that posted my first one early.)

[Dr-Worm]

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?

Too fucking bad. Grow up.

[ForumGuy]

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!

[NineShot]

I can barely handle seeing what the government already takes.........

[Draconias]

At 5/28/07 08:54 AM, ForumGuy wrote: Hmm, thats an interesting idea. I wonder how these universes got to be parallel in the first place.

Well, as I sort of mentioned before, the creation of a parallel universe may help to explain the asymmetry of our own universe. Why do we have more matter than anti-matter when they are created in pairs? Why do we have so much energy from nothing? We've always known that gravity drops off at an oddly 4-dimensional rate, so Dark Matter may even be the gravity of our sister primarily-anti-matter universe.

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.

Well, basically what you are wondering is if the parallel universe will have the same basic 3 (4) dimensions as our own. By the assumption of it being parallel, I would have to say it should. Otherwise, I don't see how it could possibly be in any way similar to our universe since matter is 3-dimensional and does not appear to sustain a 4th (5th) dimensional structure. Time may or may not also be a critical dimension (the nature of time is currently unknown).

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.

Oh, money can definitely help, but we have a lot of our key systems in America completely assbackwards. Science is the lifeblood of our nation, but it tends to get ignored by the mass of sports-fanatic, dreary-cublice-working, beerfest workers.

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.

Also, it is much easier to write a grant proposal for Hard Science because you are promising a marketable technology to your investors. Hard Science really is the heart of technological development, so it can't be forgotten.

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?

No, and that's the problem. By definition, the poor don't have enough disposable cash (or waste what they do have). If you barely have enough money to stay in your house and eat each day, insurance costs way too much money. Heck, you could buy a month of meals for 5 people with the insurance money most people pay.

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.

Yeah, the American media is pretty frustrating. At one point a long time ago they were actually pretty good... then Vietnam happened and they realized showing death and violence gets readers (or at least they assume it does). I don't actually believe the people want to hear that anymore, but the news media is obsessed with the idea because it's easy and requires little to no work on their part.

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.

You say that about Britney Spears, but do you actually know what that kind of career entails? She probably worked many more hours per week training dance choreography, learning songs, maintaining her singing voice-- and the key thing is, at an ultra-high risk level. If her voice is ruined, or a song flops, or she suddenly loses popularity, she done. She can't earn any more money. Acting and singing is a lot like playing the Lottery all the time, and so it has to have a high payout for all those who lose.

[Dr-Worm]

At 5/28/07 08:54 AM, ForumGuy wrote: Wow, did you even read the content of the post? Am I shouting "OMG I WANNA DO THE MYSPACE AND I LIEK 4CHAN!!"

Um, no, that's not the point. The point is that it's extremely immature of you to ever think that we can simply bypass human nature and be perfect Communists.

Too fucking bad. Grow up.

I'm trying, I can only grow so fast.

Okay, for this comment you get +1 respect.

[LeekianGuns]

Communism would work if the caste system part was removed from the process. Soviet communism works only if it expands, which is why it has died. Also, to add to the science-y part, I recently saw a documentary on how Star Trek changed the world. A credible physicist said that the only Star Trek technology that is completely impossible is the transporter. It changes matter into its component atoms, scans these, sends the data to another computer and re-materializes you. Three problems: 1) To do this, you would need to heat the object to several million degrees to break it into its component atoms and scan it. 2) You'd need to stack 100GB drives one third of the distance from here to the center of the Milky Way to store the data. 3) A man by the name of Heisenberg said that you cannot know where an atom is and what it is doing, only one of the two at a time. In Star Trek, they have a nifty gadget called the Heisenberg Compensator... Okay, we don't know how they work or what they are but we'll turn our backs on that one. :)
Looks like we'll have to endure rush hour until we get around to that compensator...

[TheSovereign]

Space travel is awesome, but communism fails.

[J1993]

why does everyone think aliens would be more intelligent than us who says there not still at a stage wed consider pre historic

[SmilezRoyale]

A powerfull nations disarmament makes them fair game for other nations. if you want to maintain your status as a soverign body state you need a military, if nothing else, to discourage an invasion of your country.

You hate the military because there are people hate the military, i could tell you why but you wouldn't beleive it, because in general it's a very radical theory, but it does in some respects make sense.