Should we allow the greedy to rule the earth

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

This is an ASTRONOMY forum Trevor - I and most others are here for that. I don't give a hoot about your politics or problems with society. There are forums designed specifically for soapbox masters. Whilst "General Chat" is just that, I've always read it as being there for chat generally related to the topic at hand - astronomy.

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 (Mike)]

Originally Posted by 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"

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Chris Malikoff)]

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

OK...

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

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?

[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 (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Point taken Chris - Cheers Amigo

Cheers my friend.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by matt

OK...

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

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?

Its a deal!!!!

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Come Onnn. Whataya say!!! Group hug.

[Nesti (Mark)]

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

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.

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 (Claude)]

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 (Allan)]

Publication: Sydney Morning Herald (p1, Fri 06 Nov 2009)
Big greenhouse polluting companies around the world, employing thousands of lobbyists, are exerting heavy pressure on governments to weaken climate change laws at home and slow progress on an international climate agreement in Copenhagen, a global investigation reveals. In Australia, 20 companies who have already won the most concessions from the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme employ 28 lobbying firms with well over 100 staff, many of them former politicians, political advisers or government officials.

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.