Should we allow the greedy to rule the earth

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Allan_L

I hope this does not offend anyone...

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 (Dave Pastern)]

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

Originally Posted by 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.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Paul - an excellent post. #1.

Dave

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.

[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..._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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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..._propulsion%29

which were fully costed for considerable less

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 program, launched on April 12, 1981, and returning to Earth April 14. It was the first US manned orbital space flight since the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project on July 15, 1975, a 6 year hiatus.

The total cost of the shuttle program has been $145 billion USD 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 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

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, 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 (Geoff)]

If you like to read about the ongoing saga of how the ultra-rich are siphoning wealth with government help, Denningers site will keep you busy for a long time.

[Nesti (Mark)]

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 (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

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.

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!"

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

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by multiweb

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

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

[Davekyn (David)]

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!