Should we allow the greedy to rule the earth

[TrevorW]

Do those with vested interests really know what is best or will they be then ones who ultimately lead too the destruction of mankind.

The rich, the politicians, the narrow minded scientists or should we the ordinary folk take back control of our lives and whom determines the future of our society.

I believe these people do not hold the ordinary person in high esteem, we are but cattle for the blender and until such time as we truly have rule by the majority the rich and the politicians will continue to determine our future.

I also believe these people are holding back on the exploration of space as it potentially could lead to a free and unburdened society.

Thoughts please :question:

PS: if this gets canned then so be it

[Ian Robinson]

Oh my.... please don't get me started on about greedy , money grabbing , self absorbed and selfish people.

It's a sore point in my life at present ..... a bombshell I've had dropped on me very recently about someone very close.

Seems to me the more some people have , the more they want , and they'll do anything to get more , even if it hirts those who are closest to them. :mad2:

No .... the greedy do not deserve to rule the earth , even if they think they should.

[mental4astro]

Explore space while MOST people on earth don't have enough food to fill their belly?

Apathy, prejudice, ignorance and self interest has allowed greed to rule.

Maybe one day we humans will learn as one it is nicer and easier to love one another than hate.

[Starkler]

Is this a call to social unrest and armed uprising?

[rider]

According to the 31007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Galactica

"Human" is an ancient Gallefrayan word meaning "self-obsessed".

A footnote states: "Humans were the prime form of life on the planet Sol 3 for a very short period after the dinosaurs until choking on their own waste".

A second footnote states that: A universal celebratory holiday is observed on all planets harboring sentient life forms to thank their deity of choice that humans never achieved interstellar flight.

[Omaroo]

Geez, we're a dissatisfied, downtrodden and angry mob on here, aren't we?

Heaven forbid those that do well be lumped in with the "greedy"...

Not sure that we need these rhetorical questions here. Is this an astronomy forum, or did I come to the wrong place? :shrug: Seems that there is a current propensity for people to try and come up with the most obtuse and politically-charged posts designed to garner negativity and attract those that love to argue. Whoop-de-do.




Oh, what the heck... Yeah! Kill them all!!! :rolleyes:

[casstony]

I think we aren't much smarter than a herd of cattle - our decisions are ruled by basic instincts more often than we'd like to admit. We should be able to elect a Prime Minister dressed in a clown costume, focussing only on policy.

Our rulers are directly responsible for holding back space exploration due to their greed and financial mismanagement that results. It's not the fault of ordinary folk since our rulers know we are but a herd of cattle to be manipulated - we swing on the oars, they steer the boat.

[Rainingstar]

Thanks that's sooo funny, made my day:lol: (Unfortunately all too true.)

[Rod66]

Evil rules while good men do nothing.

[sjastro]

Trevor I hope you're not suggesting that being narrow minded is a prerequisite for being a scientist.

It seems to a view that is propagated by quite a few individuals.

Steven

[matt]

You've nailed it, Chris.

A little too much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth for my liking, too.

[multiweb]

Weather's fault. :lol: :cloudy::windy: Although any SA resident caught winging should be flogged. ;) They're getting all the good skies

[Omaroo]

Yeah - greedy sods...

[iceman]

Agree with this assessment.

[TrevorW]

My so called rhetorical questions have two points in asking

1. Will the rich through their lust for the manifestation of wealth and power ultimately lead to our demise

2. Are we as a race being restricted from the exploration of space by these same people so that they retain control of the masses.

I would think a lot of other people share similar points of view, nor do I think these questions are propagated by some underlying belief in conspiracy but based on personal observation over 40 years.

I haven't seen any rules stipulating that the "General Chat" section should be restricted too purely scientific or astronomical posts or did I miss something.

[supernova1965]

The thread hasn't been blocked. I think its just that we all have to be able to stay friends after all is said and done we have a great community here and I for one don't want to lose the great companionship that I feel when here.:D

[FredSnerd]

Well I'm with you Trevor. Still you notice how people are relying for news more and more on their own networks and citizen media rather then traditional news outlets. So we are making some progress towards being properly informed.

[matt]

Whaaaa?????

I can't for the life of me find any reference to the media in Trevor's original post.

Push your anti mainstream media barrow somewhere else, Fred!:lol: Better still...get a new axe to grind. You're starting to sound awfully repetitive.

[FredSnerd]

Just pulling your leg Matt. Come Onnnn. Lets be friends. But I still agree with everything trevor has said including that there is nothing inappropriate about this post in the general chat section. Also theres lots of sides to each of us. We are not just our hobby and why discourage people from sharing views on all manner of subjects. its no big deal

[Omaroo]

In spirit, this is an ASTRONOMY forum Trevor, first and foremost - and most are here for that reason alone. I really don't come here to hear or even give a hoot about yours or anyone else's politics or problems with society. Elsewhere there are forums designed specifically to pander to soapbox masters who wish to battle with politics. Whilst "General Chat" is just that, I've always read it as being there for chat generally related to the topic at hand - astronomy subjects not covered by the other specifically-labelled forums. Your post has a loose reference to space travel funding in order to lend it slight credibility.

TOS asks that we avoid political, religious and racial posts. I can now see why. You, yourself, have already stated, to quote: "PS: if this gets canned then so be it", so you must have suspected it may be inappropriate to begin with.

[FredSnerd]

Chris,

I dont see the problem. Almost always the title of the thread tells you what its about so you know what to keep away from if you dont want to hear it. Certainly the title of this thread is pretty clear about what it will cover. Also like Trevor says, for a long time now general chat has been used for non astronomy subjects ("What are you reading lately" for one) And I recall that on Cloudy Nights they actually call the equivalent of General Chat somthing like "All things non astronomy"

[iceman]

It's not the same thing.

"General Chat" is not an "anything goes" forum. It's for general chat that doesn't belong in the other IIS Astronomy sub-forums, but it does not mean every type of topic is welcome.

Of course there is some leeway and we often talk about lots of non-astronomy type things in general chat. And in most cases, that's fine. It helps us to get to know each other better.

But if you want to discuss politics, religion and other general topics that only lead to arguments and negativity, then I'd prefer they were NOT posted on IceInSpace, as there are many other forums out there on the internet where these types of discussions can take place.

[Ric]

I agree Trevor, it is usually the way of the rich and powerful to run and manipulate things for their own agenda without really thinking about the masses.

If we reinvested the billions wasted on warfare into science and space travel we'd probably be taking annual leave in the Andromeda galaxy.

[TrevorW]

Unfortunately or not free speech is often stifled because those in control may have a point of view diametrically opposed to yours.

This is neither an apolitical, religious or racial post however it may be considered controversial but fundamentally I believe asks two very poignant questions as to the future of mankind.

Furthermore all I'm asking is for peoples opinions thoughts etc and as adults I would hope we could have intellectual dialogue without resorting to a fist fight.

A hornet's nest every now and then isn't a bad thing IMO.

[Omaroo]

Then maybe you might have better called your topic, rather than

"Should we allow the greedy to rule the earth"

which is incredibly open, assumptive and overtly political, something along the lines of

"Do you think the power brokers have an agenda to stifle space exploration?"

Relevance is in the wording Trevor. :)

[FredSnerd]

Not sure why it isnt the same thing. I would'nt know what the original intention was for having a General Chat area but it certainly looks like it was intended for everything else people wanted to discuss (its one little corner in the forum after all) and it clearly seems to have developed in that direction. And you know, where does one draw the line, everything has a politics/religious/spritual edge to it. Sure people fight about these things more then others but I've seen people get narky with each other about "purly" astronomy stuff. And I've seen people who complain about this, do their own share of discussing non astronomy (political/religious/spiritual stuff) when they think its harmless and important to them. I dont think you can ask people to be so one dimentional when they enter this forum and really, why would you want to. Theres lots of colourful, interesting, lovely people here.

Thats my 2c worth

[matt]

OK...

And I was just having a bit of 'fun' back with you, Fred ol' boy:D

I have no problem with having my leg 'pulled'. Just expect to have yours pulled in return. After all, one good turn deserves another, eh friend?:thumbsup:

[TrevorW]

Point taken Chris I posted quickly after having too too many red wines and watching a video that caused me angst - Cheers Amigo

[Omaroo]

:D Cheers my friend.

[FredSnerd]

Its a deal!!!!

[FredSnerd]

Come Onnn. Whataya say!!! Group hug.:lol::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Nesti]

You might be able to control thread topic types (demarcation line between 'Site Related' issues and 'Extended Topics'), but you'll never be able control the conversational boundaries which evolve in the natural course of discussion. Just look how this thread has shifted form!

For instance; we may well start talking about, say, gravitation, and wind up debating the methodology and philosophy of how and why we investigate 'stuff'. This then introduces the 'human element' into the debate. By 'human element' I am referring to our observations and how they affect our thoughts, mindset, reasons for investigation and why there is a need to investigate in the first place.

Whether you choose to believe it, the investigative process is in two parts, the analytical objective investigation (science), and the bilateral subjective investigation (philosophy). For life an living to make any cognitive and intuitive sense to humans in general, the two need to be investigated...it's a natural curiosity. Many, have a natural disposition for the investigation of one or the other. I feel a majority have a disposition for both...and all fractions in-between.

My point is; to draw a line in the sand as to how and what topics should and shouldn't be discussed is restrictive, and that perhaps a natural evolution by the forum as a collective whole will find a natural balance between the science and the speculative; between the topical and the non-topical. This is a form of 'natural selection' in itself, a self governing dynamical debate, whos pathway is governed mostly by the individuals involved and the current affairs of the day...as well as long-standing debates.

Yes, this is an Astronomy forum, but when you shake-down the facts (the data), what's the ratio between the number of posts on 'General Chat' versus any other forum section?

At the end of the day, I feel that the reason why the 'General Chat' section attracts so many posts, opinions and debate, and on such a wide array of topics, is because people are connecting and wish (desire) to be apart of something - something which is perhaps missing in the everyday world, and which, through modern technology (thanks to science), has allowed different thoughts and mindsets to come together into the proverbial 'melting-pot'.

Arguments, occasional hostilities and off-topic debates included, is that really such a bad thing?

[Paul Haese]

Trevor everyone knows the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.

The main problem with captilism is that it is designed to favour the few but encourage everyone to want more. Either we all accept the current model or we don't.

It is likely that humans will go on existing on this planet for thousands if not millions of years. Our culture is making in roads to changing power systems and unifiying political structures. Humans will not do anything radical unless it is our last resort. When change must happen rapidly it will be implimented for our own good.

Space exploration is not only expensive but also extremely dangerous. To travel to other planets right now would require trillions of dollars for the construction of safe habitats, food supplies and propulsion. The antiquated systems being used will not get humans to Mars. Radiation will kill the astronauts before they get there. International co-operation really only extends so far at present but at least it is better than it was 30 years ago, that is a step in the right direction.

The trouble is that humans are more apathetic about change because we are all ruled by our need to feel safe. Get a hundred million people together and form an army and do what is needed. That is the only way that change occurs in reality from looking at our history. That will not happen because people have to be feed, armed and moved large distances. That all has a cost and you have to be invested with money and that brings us back to the original question.

Yes the greedy should rule us, we let them, we don't really want to get our hands dirty, we all want our luxuries and we are all greedy.

[TrevorW]

Well said Mark as a group it's amazing apart from our interest in astronomy how many other common interests we do share.

I've always classed myself as a modern day renaissance man dabling in a myriard of diverse interests and this is why I'm drawn to this forum seeking refuge with so many like minded souls which is otherwise lacking elsewhere.

[Nesti]

Hmmmm, I onced despised the notion of Monarchy...but of late I realised that when one person or family rule and own everything, they tend to look after the best interest of the land and its future (French history excluded)...I compare that with today, where the individual who looks after themselves is applauded, and in that I see a great gulf between the balance and imbalance.

The Jet Li film 'Hero' is an example of that philosophy...I don't think I'm the only believer in that principle.

[Nesti]

I like forums like this because there are few 13yo antagonists...without subject or principle that is.

This forum, although diverse in belief and mindset, does contain large amounts of life experience...and that tends to breed objectivity and deeper discussion...qualified discussion! (Qualified through education, in both teachings and life experiences).

Where else do you find THAT????

[FredSnerd]

Well thats ok for the land. And of course it was never really a one person one family rule (not that i owuld ever advcate that in any form). There was always a select class of privilaged elite that kept the monarchy in power in return for kick backs and the whole system worked just dandy for them.

[Nesti]

You're absolutely right. I'm just asking is that system better or worse than what we have today?

An example: What Lord, Duke etc (the "privliged elite") would allow pollution on THEIR turf? I'm sure that you and I both would not allow pollution to occur on our land, in our homes, true?

So there's a notion of preservation held within the mind of the owner, toward his or her property. This is not the case with democracy, socialism, communism...or any other ism I can think of. Whereby the land is looked upon as resource.

[FredSnerd]

Paul,

I enjoyed reading your post and found it really interesting except for the conclusion which I didnt much like at all. As to whether we will ever get off our backsides and not just let the elite rule. Well I suppose that only happens when the party is over and by that time we havnt given any real thought to what we will replace it with and so we just slip back into the same old cycle (with an unsettling period of instability along the way) . I like to think we'll break the cycle one day

[Allan_L]

I hope this does not offend anyone...
But as I said elsewhere today, I think it is good for the general public to be aware that this is happening.

But it is a media extract so that may effect its own credibility, for some.

[renormalised]

Why should it offend anyone...if they find it offensive that the industries they support or work in are or should be penalised for the damage they're doing, then so be it. They should look at the bigger picture and not be so concerned with their hip pockets. If the climate changes do take effect and what's predicted happens, then they won't have to worry about their hip pockets...they won't have an economy to keep their hip pockets full.

[Nesti]

That's really not offensive; it's showing how the stock market is migrating across to the carbon trading programs and now were seeing greed infiltrate what should be a noble course - saving the environment.

It's a very good post!

Expect to see a real surge in media advertising on carbon.

[dpastern]

Bloody awesome quotes!

As to answer Trevor - despite my forthcoming comment probably causing howls of horror, as a species, we're horrid. The sooner mother nature culls our population, the better. We're greedy, self absorbed, uncaring as a special collective whole. We'll probably beat mother nature to extinction by causing it ourselves. The sad thing is, we'll probably drag down a good percentage of other special populations in the process.

Dave

[dpastern]

Paul - an excellent post. #1.

Dave

[TrevorW]

Paul on that point don't you think it strange that the propulsion systems being used now haven't fundamentally changed that much in 50 years.

Also don't you think it's moronic that we can spend trillions on wars yet
not on space exploration, although I think you may be over budgeting on the cost.

Do you remember such projects as this

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

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion %29

which were fully costed for considerable less

[Dennis]

Posts concerning say, Meade vs. Celestron or off-axis vs. side-by-side auto guiding tend to be bounded by the physical properties of the hardware, software or techniques that are being discussed. Generally, these posts seem to regulate themselves and remain healthy for their duration.:)

When the subject matter is much more open, I have noticed, not just on this forum, that there is a greater risk of the topic morphing into several different forms depending on what a particular poster feels is important to them at the time of their post. Just going from memory, these types of post can become quite unpleasant or even toxic, very quickly.:(

Given that this Forum is owned and operated by Mike, Terry and a small band of helpers, I can sympathise with their need to manage the Forum in a manner that meets their own needs in terms of the hobby and their goals and objectives, whilst providing them with some peace of mind and protection for them and their families from whatever they decide is unwelcome.:thumbsup:

Once more going from memory (flawed and self-selective unfortunately), the more controversial topics appear to only involve a small number of posters, not the majority of Forum members. So, if such a post is deemed by the management team to be not suited to the “character” of this Forum as defined by them, and the topics of these types of posts appear to only involve or meet the needs of a small number of members, then it seems likely that they will become locked as they appear to unfurl in a predictable pattern. I think that it is quite unfair and unreasonable to attribute heavy handed censorship to the management team under these circumstances.:shrug:

I personally try to stay away from these topics because I lack the formal training of detached and accurate debating, a deep understanding of the correct use and meaning of language and also have a somewhat unreliable separation between writing unbiased “truths” versus posting flawed reasoning, poor understanding or just shouting out loud.:)

Oh well, that’s got that off my chest!:)

Cheers

Dennis

[Paul Haese]

This propulsion would be good, but bear this in mind. Whatever you use you have to use half way and then turn the ship around and use to decelerate half way. That has to be used 4 times at least. Nuclear engines would cost millions and millions to build in space. Getting all the parts up there costs heaps. I thought I read that it cost 800 million to send the space shuttle up with components for the international space station.

So even if we build this baby, you have to consider habital living space for the astronauts. Several months living in a tin can is not going to be fun unless you have lots of space to get away from each other, places to exercise, sleep and eat; not to mention needing artifical gravity of some type. You will need water recycling like no other system around now. You need huge storage of food for the trip there and the trip back as well as fuel storage. That alone is gonna cost trillions of dollars in development and construction.

Added to all this you need radiation protection. Some technologies are starting to come on line but the general principles are not set yet nor is there a working model. One coronal mass ejection and the entire crew are dead. A magnetic field generator has to protect the crew for nearly 100 meter all the way around the habital zone of the ship. The ship that would be required to carry say a crew of 6 would like be 1 kilometer long if you want to make it a safe and habital space craft. The first trip to Mars is likely to require something like this. That pipe dream Ares or Orion nonsense that NASA came up with is not taking people to Mars. It is just way too small and far too dangerous. NASA would literally mean Need Another Seven Astronauts.

Yes if more money was injected into it we could have been maybe visiting Mars by now, but the scramble for resources which we all use for our consumerist lifestyle prevent exploration. Only when it is capitally viable (say ore or chemical needs) will we be leaving the planet in a hurry. Until then it is slow steps.

Don't get me wrong, I think more money should be spent on space exploration with humans and far less on sanctioned murder of people in far away lands just to protect oil reserves. It makes sense that this planet should not be the only place humans are living, but the reality of making this happen is just too far away into the future.

[TrevorW]

Yes and consider this if the Apollo program wasn't canned and the money diverted to other programs such as the shuttle and ISS we'd have a working colony on the moon by now.

STS-1 was the first orbital flight of the space shuttle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle) program, launched on April 12, 1981, and returning to Earth April 14. [/URL] It was the first US manned orbital space flight since the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia) on July 15, 1975, a 6 year hiatus.

The total cost of the shuttle program has been $145 billion USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar) as of early 2005, and is estimated to be $174 billion when the shuttle retires in 2010.

The most cited figure of an overall cost estimate for the ISS ranges from 35 billion to 100 billion USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar) retiring in 2016.

For similar expense an O'Niell cylinder could have been constructed capable of housing a million people.

The Vietnam War ended up costing the US around $584 billion

The cost of the Iraq war, up to March 2008 (under estimated) has been half a trillion dollars. The most pessimistic projections estimate the final cost of Iraq at around 1 trillion or 1/5 cost of WWII.

Estimated costs of Afghan and Iraq wars

[url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

[fringe_dweller]

well yes in answer to the thread heading question, yes the greedy should be allowed to do anything they want, and btw its called 'aspirational' not greedy, otherwise if they cant embark on life quest of long unrestrained collecting/accumulating, they are likely to fret, and chew their fur off nervously like a cat not allowed in the window or on the furniture, resulting in large unusual unsightly bare patches of skin

[tornado33]

A very interesting question is, is it fair that high flying bankers and CEO's make so much money when times are good, but its the rest of us that lose out when they cause things to go bad because of their lending folly?

Should the State just have unfettered power to sieze ALL assets and monies of such people?

A case in point (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s214900.htm), The CEO took employee entitlement money and put it into his multimillion $ house at Meweweather, Ive seen it, its a monstrous house, sheer decadence. if I had my way the State could sieze it without having to go through convoluted court process. Without warning the Police would show up, turf him and his family out and sieze the building and everything in it, lock all his bank accounts, and even take stuff in his wifes name, as many love to hide stuff uncer spous's names.

Monies from the sale of the assets would go to the worker entitlements.

Also, bankrupt CEO's would NOT be allowed to wipe the slate clean. Should a CEO who has debts even 20 years old ever make more money in the future, that money would be sized to pay those debts.

I would even make Alan Bond pay back his old debts if he hasnt yet done so.

Under my government, you can run but you cannot hide.

[Starkler]

If you like to read about the ongoing saga of how the ultra-rich are siphoning wealth with government help, Denningers site (http://market-ticker.denninger.net/) will keep you busy for a long time.

[Nesti]

It's a tragedy, but a majority of the population are either too stupid to know what's happening, or worse, just don't care so long as they have enough petrol for their jet ski and time on their hands to watch Home and Away.

As a nation and as a global village, we actually let these people get away with it.

The courts systems are choked up with pointless disputes over who picked up the wrong golf ball or my boss fired me because I sit on chat-line all day...that's why there's no accountability on the big issues.

Speed or drink drive and kill a kid, you get 1-2 years max. Steal from a bank and you get 20years to life.

These are but a few of thousands of issues we suffer in a so-called democracy.

And to put all this into perspective, China suffers from almost none of these issues.

[multiweb]

To be fair corruption is rampant in ANY country. Money talks. Same in China. The only difference is that in China the army controls everything backstage and wistle blowers "disappear". In the western world, now and then one big fish "gets caught" and is exposed all over the news and vilified in front of the media. For one caught you still get ten going about their business thinking "pfeeww... that was close!" :lol:

Still we're damn lucky to live in a country where we are able to voice our vues and argue about it publicly. Life is good :) :thumbsup:

[Barrykgerdes]

That won't be for much longer if we let Rudd have his own way. He has already tried to gag critisism in parliament.

To answer the original thread. The greedy already rule the earth and nothing is going to stop them (except maybe a 10 KM bit of space junk at 50000 Km/s.

Barry:thumbsup:

[Davekyn]

I like your thread Trevor and also what Fred has to say as well as you too David. I have a forum which I won't plug in here, except to say it's my attempt to advocate for people & their families who suffer on a daily basis because of the greed we humans seemingly thrive on.
It's clear that not everyone with lot's of money is greedy, however it would not surprise me those that differ in opinion or so easily give in to the notion that we should just accept things the the way they are; tend to be people who have not lived in both camps, or possibly have - but never want to return to the one without MONEY. Hard for me to explain...I know many in here can tear me apart on an intellectual lvl...but I can still see straight through them in ways they could never hope to comprehend. Most people aren't stupid...disolutioned maybe...I like your post in that it clearly spells it out and offers an opportunity to get it out there the way it is. Best of all, it really shows people up for what they really are and that I like that...One of the keys to living in a selfish and cruel world is first to identify obstacles then skirt around them & encourage the ones that need it.
They can & will RULE the world...In my opinion it's a very small one & one I wish to have no part in. I am learning to take all the negatives with the positives...keep it simple...what we do with them determines in which direction we flow.
It wont be long at this rate...once again, totally agree with all three of you guys. Good Post...is what it is!