Food for thought

[Kuky]

Just putting this out there, watch it and think of it as you like

 

PS: please don't make stupid remarks.

 

I only post this as I'd like to present different point of view reach more people, in the end everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions... hope you like it as much as I did

 

[Slap_Chop]

A very good primer on the current state of affairs. I applaud you for posting this.

[derelor]

Food for thought for those who watched the movie.

[Slap_Chop]

Food for thought for those who watched the movie.

 

 

 

Interesting. I wonder who Muertos is ?

 

 

Can't seem to find out anything about him on his blog. Also I wonder why I would believe anything he says ?

 

 

Seems like a strange topic to devote an entire blog to.

[EtherealN]

Seems like a strange topic to devote an entire blog to.

 

But devoting a whole video to this other stuff is less strange? ;)

 

I'm only 7 minutes in atm. I'm writing commentary on the second screen as I watch it, but there's a lot of pauses. As usual, it is easy to say silly stuff but takes a lot more words to show why it's silly. (See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop )

[EtherealN]

Writing this as I watch it, though with pressing the pause button a little now and then. Yes, I have my suspicions entering into this... ;)

 

---

 

1:50: "Coming into balance". LOL?

 

Extinction rates of marine genera in a given interval. NOTE for the biologically unaware: I'm not talking about "species". Genera is an order above this. Think "Apes" rather than "humans" or "cats" rather than "tigers".

 

---

 

2 minutes: "Thriving is the natural flow of life." LOL?

 

Aside from the previous demonstration, excibit number two from a certain Charles Darwin:

 

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows...There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whiles this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

 

Whoever thinks nature is about thriving should ask why the median age for a wildcat is 2 years while the same for a domesticated one is 12-20. There is a damned good reason why Darwin called it the "war of nature" as opposed to something like "the garden of Eden". Nature looks pretty when city folks go out and see "all the green" and stuff, but they never think of diseases, the starvation, death by cold, death by rotting teeth, etcetera etcetera. But then again, not even many amongst us country folk know about thinks like Lotka-Volterra equations and their implications in actual suffering:

 

 

THAT is a pseudo-data representation of the real world. There's no thriving going on there. Only lots and lots and lots of death. See the predator peaks? That's where there's too many predators for the prey population: FAMINE. See the prey dips? That's a heck of a lot of peaceful animals getting slaughtered.

 

Who exactly thrives here? The answer is: none of them. They all struggle, daily, to even stay alive. Most of them die young. And if they are lucky enough to pass child-rearing age - they don't last long past that.

 

---

 

3 minutes: "If nature teaches us anything it is that life is meant to work and that like every living thing our purpose is to thrive."

 

No it doesn't. Nature teaches us that there's a constant war going on where stuff tries desperately to reproduce before it dies of starvation, dehydration, cold, heat, predation or simply a mountain exploding under it's feet. Additionally, geriatric conditions in all species shows us that nature doesn't care in the slightest what happens to us after we reproduce. If it did, it would have eliminated the thousands upon thousands of inheritable conditions that start to mess us up after we have reached childrearing age. And of course, this is not limited to humans. The driver of evolution is not prosperity and joyful pastures, the driver of evolution is death. (This being the key argument several noted speakers, like Richard Dawkins, have put forward for why it is so important that we should not base any ideology on the scientific concept of evolution.)

 

---

 

3:30: "And yet for the majority of people on the planet life is not about thriving, just about surviving."

 

Ah. There we go. Just like "nature" wants it. I of course don't want that (if nature had had it's way, I wouldn't have lived since I was 6 weeks premature and even with modern technology it was only narrowly that I got past birth). At this point I'm starting to see a massive Argument From Nature fallacy building, but it's even worse than normal since it's just wrong.

 

---

 

3:45: "Did the universe labor for 14 billion years only to bring forth a species that would end up as an enemy to life itself?"

 

What?

The universe didn't labor for anything. This whole notion asks for the presumption of agency; that is, that the universe isn't a "place", it is an actual being that has a plan - basically the standard fare of humans trying to anthropomorphise their surroundings; when there's a thunderstorm there's a human+ dude called Thor throwing his hammer around and so on.

 

But seriously, if "the universe" cared about us at all, in any way, don't you think it would have tried to make a little bit more than the bare top crust of a single planet even remotely habitable to us? The universe doesn't care because it's not the type of thing that is capable of caring.

 

This kind of "heartstrings" does however seek to drag us into a guilt-trip. Bad job.

 

---

 

Okey, at this point, I'm starting to see that I'll never get away from here if I don't break things up into larger chunks and let the small stupidies go unanswered however numerous they may be. I'll grab as much as I can down the road. And damn you Kuky for exposing me to this stupidity, I was watching Lord of the Rings! (Okey, that's fairly stupid stuff too, but at least it has nice special effects... :D )

 

---

 

4:50: "I believe this code holds the key to a new source of clean sustainable energy that could completely revolutionize the way all people live."

 

Oh god... Is this another of those physics-defying free energy things? Wow. Okey. I foresee that down the line I'll notice how this dude did not do physics in school. I didn't check if he's taking donations, but I hope (for the sake of him) that he is at least a scam.

 

---

 

8:30: "I had a vision of a whirlpool pattern and I just knew that the flow of energy I was seeing was the same in an atom as the entire solar system. I had a feeling that I to was made of the same pattern. [...] Into trying to figure out how the universe works and how we humans fit into the pattern of life energy."

 

Okey, we have "life energy" introduced. There is no such thing. Energy is a quantification of a physical systems ability to do work on another system. Yeah, physics, the guy should have studied it. There's also the whole notion of intuitive knowledge, which is fun on it's own. It's like when I read the synopsis of this movie I just knew it was going to be stupid. That was intuitive too. If we count intuition as knowledge... then you have to discount either his intuition or mine. But how do you select which one? Your own intuition? But how would you know that your own intuition is better than ours?

 

This, right here, is why we have this thing called science. And science why we have computers, airplanes, rockets and an internet to spread silly videos on, and people 20 thousand years ago people didn't.

 

---

 

9:00: "It turns out that in 1921 Einstein got a nobel price for dicovering that when energy is released in the universe there is little packets of wholeness that emerge. This tells us a lot of how life evolves."

 

What?

Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery of the photoelectric effect. There's no "packets of wholeness". There is light (photons) being absorbed by a material (atoms), then causing the emission of electrons. Yes, electrons are packets - they are quanta - but "packets of wholeness"? That means nothing. We are, here, talking about nothing more mysterious than how something like a solar panel works...

Edited December 27, 2012 by EtherealN

[EtherealN]

11:00: At this point Duane Elgin talks about "self-organising forms". This means "physics" and "chemistry". But he then tries to extrapolate this onto other things through selectively looking at things he wants along with a fascination for the torus. Unfortunately, he ignores everything that isn't a torus. Galaxies as described by Nassim Haramein as being one way - but he uses only a spiral galaxy, and completely fails at describing the movement of stars within a galaxy. There's nothing to say there beyond that it's just plain wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Stars do NOT move through the galaxies as though following a torus shape, not even spiral galaxies! And beyond that, spiral galaxies are not even a majority of galaxies - there's irregular and elliptic ones, and we should also remember other formations like globular clusters. And when they then, in the video, want to scale this up to galaxy clusters they fail yet again: galaxy clusters follow a web imposed by dark matter, not anywhere close to a torus.

 

---

 

15:50: we now go into interpreting every single possible shape anywhere into representing a "torus". Circles, pyramids, boxes... everything is somehow a "torus". This continues into arbitrary "decoding" of two-dimensional symbols into three dimensions for no apparent reason other than to get a box shape where we can superimpose a torus. Well, if they wanted a torus... they could have made a torus!

 

Similarly with pyramids - we only have to take a pyramid, stack it, draw a buch of circles, then REMOVE the pyramid, overlay a torus, and then get what we saw on a random and unrelated drawing...

 

---

 

19:00: I don't have time to doublecheck all the cabbalistic and i-ching stuff, so I don't know if what they're saying is even true.

 

---

 

20:00: "The DNA helix has an alphabet of 64 codons."

 

That is right - there are 4 nucelotides, a codon is made of 3 nucleotides, 4*4*4 is 64. However, this does not mean that there are 64 things being coded for. Multiple codons code for the same amino acid: there are 6 Codons coding for Leucine. 4 code for Alanine. In all there are 20 amino acids being coded for, plus Stop and Start codons. What we are seeing here is nothing other than numerology: chasing numbers and discarding the ones that doesn't match while thinking everything that does match carries significance.

 

As for the alien stuff... seriously? We go from descriptions about sungods to then simply saying it's "pilots from the cosmos"? Stone age dudes drew weird stuff on the walls, thus ALIENS! Talk about making a wild leap.

 

---

 

21:45: Steven Greer. A Medical Doctor. Not a physicist. Just another UFO nut. I wonder why this guy looked for him and not, say... SETI? Hm? You know those guys that actually have a clue about what space communication and space travel actually means, practically?

 

"It's almost certain that there are beings out there that have mastered the laws of the universe beyond what is taught at MIT and CalTech". Well DUH! The universe is friggin big dude. :P Unfortunately it's so big that we can't go from seeing the mathematical probability that "someone is out there" towards saying they are even in the same galaxy cluster. We quite simply do not know enough ourselves to say much of anything about how common life is, let alone intelligent, technological life (that doesn't nuke itself into oblivion for giggles). Even if the universe contains a million spacefaring species that each are a million years old or more, they may STILL be so far apart that it is physically impossible (as far as we know) for them to ever meet simply due to the expansion of space-time.

 

What is basically done here is to throw out some fancy words towards making us "just believe" without thought. As far as "life-bearing planets" goes, we actually do have no more than a single data point: earth. No matter how you twist it, SOMEONE has to be the first. This could be us. That is just as good an interpretation of what we know as saying there's tonnes of "them" out there. Personally, I lean towards thinking there is a lot of technological civilizations out there, but I don't presume to know what they'd be like - I wouldn't be surprised if they'd see us similar to how we'd see ants. Thinking that they'd take time off to teach us stuff would be silly (but of course, I don't know anything about them). But think about it - if they came here, couldn't they have bothered to teach us medicine, mechanization, perhaps something about the microbiology to help us with hygiene and sanitation... Nononono... Only esoteric mathematics, nothing that was actually useful to the people in question. :)

 

Teaching people why they should wash their hands is hard work! :D

 

---

 

22:40: "UFO measures 2-3 miles wide"

 

Oh, you could see that from a one-eye camera that has no triangulation? Are you one of those that were tricked by fireflies because you refused to set up two cameras 10 feet apart to ensure the object is on both? This is as silly as when someone saw a lense-flare on SOHO imagery and thought "well, it's bigger than the dot that is mercury here, so it must be as big as Jupiter. IT IS NIBIRU!" (We are all going to die!)

 

---

 

22:50: The Phoenix Lights. Also known as "flares". Ooops! Someone didn't do their research, or they hoped no-one else had? (I still haven't checked if these people solicit donations.)

 

Stuff on radar being weird... Oh. That's strange. Unless you know how radar works. They're funny things radars. It's a running joke for example about the N001 - how if it were modeled like reality in DCS including false positives people would go insane at all the "UFOs" flying around confusing them in their search for F-15's. (And it's not exclusive to russian radars either, of course.)

 

---

 

25:40: Crop circles... "Mysterious"... What? "Those made by human hands are crude" yadda yadda. No they're not. Want some examples of man-made ones?

 

 

That one's real cute - it's a proposal. :)

 

And here's one I saw myself:

 

It's an advertisement for swedish railroads, placed on the finals on a swedish airport to show air passengers how much cheaper it would have been if they took the train. :)

 

Another good one:

 

If that one is "crude", I am Donald Duck. Some people may not think it's possible to do things like this overnight on the ground, but that's just because they don't know how it's done. It's like the people saying Coral Castle couldn't have been done by one man or how Stonehenge must be the work of aliens just because they don't understand the most basic application of this fun thing called "leverage".

 

You may want to note how the ones they show, in Thrive, as examples of "man-made", are nowhere near as impressive as the ones I linked, which are 100% known to be man-made because the people who made them said so and documented the work.

 

---

 

26:40: "The electromagnetic field [...] is often electrostatically charged."

 

Oh? Like it wouldn't be when it is... you know... a field with crops? This is like when ghost hunters get spooked by finding electromagnetic fields in a room with active electronic equipment. It's just stupid. Makes for selling TV though, and from that the downfall of the History Channel from a respectable network to the laughing stock of all thinking humans.

 

The fundamental error is of course that these people never use controls. They don't crossreference their findings with sites where nothing have happened, they merely look for things they believe are anomalous (called "anomaly hunting") but do not bother to verify their findings. This is the difference between a scientist or skeptic, and cranks and hoaxters like the people who made this video. (And yes, by this point I am getting fed up by the sheer amount of stupid in this movie, in case you didn't notice. :P )

 

Then we proceed to the Chilbolton crop circle, where we are asked to believe that aliens responded to the 1974 arecibo transmission not through... you know... a transmission, but rather through flying over here and planting a crude formation in a field, at a time when they would have easily figured out (if they were here) that we'd understand them much easier if they used a sane method of communication that fit with our technology. The ONLY way this works is if the aliens in question are like the ones mentioned in Douglas Adams' book series "The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy", where coming to earth and spooking people with abductions is a recreational activity - you do it and then giggle at all the stupid little humans reacting in funny ways. (Btw, if this really is what is happening; well played aliens, well played!)

 

So sure. But weren't the aliens out to educate us? At least in the stone age, when they failed to talk to us about the most basic parts of science... Or perhaps they were just pulling our legs back then too? Damn pranksters are what the aliens are, that much is clear...

 

Even funnier is that they apparently used a microwave antenna to make said crops formation. Ehm... what? And how did they discern the shape into being that in the first place? We then see them taking a gross pixelation and saying "oh this is exactly the same as this crop circle" which is way more complex.

 

Want my explanation to why these things turn up around observatories?

Because astronomy students think it's effing HILARIOUS to mess with people that are gullible enough to believe silly stuff like this - and even make videos about it.

 

---

 

Okey, it's now 30 minutes into the video, and I have to give it a rest for now. I've spent like two hours or more on this madness already and it's soon 4am, so I'll go back to watching the Lord of the Rings. I'll try to get back to this hilarious piece of work later though, I'll continue to post my thoughts when I do. :)

Edited December 27, 2012 by EtherealN

[walker450]

Ether: I am amazed at how much you enjoyed that video. Now you should watch "What The Bleep Do We Know". Have fun!

 

Link: http://youtu.be/tSk51Lp-vHU

 

:)

[VincentLaw]

I was going to watch Thrive, but after reading EtherealN's very entertaining commentary, I realized I probably don't want to. Real scientists don't publish stuff like this until they get it peer reviewed. It is good, philosophically, to consider alternative ideas of how things work, but this movie appears to use a rather reckless approach. I think it is best to be critical of everything first, even of accepted ideas, and that a better case can be made for something that passes the test of incredible scrutiny than for one of which only proof is being searched.

Edited December 27, 2012 by VincentLaw

[EtherealN]

Ether: I am amazed at how much you enjoyed that video. Now you should watch "What The Bleep Do We Know". Have fun!

 

Link: http://youtu.be/tSk51Lp-vHU

 

:)

 

Oh man... I actually did see that one, on Netflix I think it was. Or well, I saw something like half of it, couldn't get further. I kept getting that same feeling you have in bad comedy movies when someone is being outrageously stupid and you just want to hide your face in a pillow. :P

[Slap_Chop]

Those are very interesting points EtherealN . I would agree Thrive is a rather fluffy treatise of many subjects.

 

If it has any purpose at all it might be to open the minds a wee bit to the great unwashed.

 

I'd call Thrive information on training wheels if you will and I agree some of it is quite silly. I do actually find the evening news a little more entertaining personally. At least from a comedic point of view.

 

I'm interested in your evaluation of the films coverage of our current financial system. Apparently they are claiming that a small group of private Bankers lend sovereign countries their own currency at interest (Which they create out of thin air backed by nothing) and then through taxation retire the interest on the debt never touching the principal only to go through the same process year after year.

 

That's some crazy stuff there that couldn't possibly be true could it ? Is this what that 15 Trillion dollar debt is they keep talking about in the US all the time ?

 

Just hilarious stuff.

 

Also I agree what the bleep was a ridiculous film.

[Kuky]

I agree that some of the stuff in video is bit silly... thriving as they put is not possible forever simply because thriving means expanding/growing/etc and that can't go on forever.

 

What I do like about this video a lot is how they explain the financial system and regards to that they are spot on.

 

Think about it... what do you want to have money for? And how much is enough for one person? Think how would you feel if you already had so much money you could never spend in your life time, yet keep wanting more... it's greed at its highest... and as they mentioned, when there is nothing else you can buy you want power... and greed for power is nothing different... certain people simply never get enough... and that is the cause of the rotten things in the society.

 

I can't see myself being next to someone who is in misery and know I can help them and not help them so I can have more for myself... or worse... use their misery to gain more for me.... that is just utterly one of the worst things a human can do.

 

My understanding of whole universe is that there always has to be balance and when there isn't balance things have to change to swing to another side.. then back and forth... it's this endless cycle of nature and right about this time we are getting to a point where a handful of people and corporations are way overbalancing the rest of the people and planet... the notion of them wanting total power is valid, it's the only logical thing for them when they are already beyond a point of having what they need... there is no need for multi-billion dollar profits to rise more, they already have more than enough... even if they keep their profits the same the companies will still earn shit load of money... so really there is no reason to want more and more... while the rest pays for it.

 

This is how revolutions are made and it will happen again, it's the nature of things... the same lays of universe (physics) apply to people as well... the trouble is though unlike animal population which are not concerned about "wealth" but pure survival and search for food... people are doing things for reasons they don't need to survive so law of nature where balance in food chain sorts things out itself (its what in video is explained as nature's ways of managing itself) people don't fit into this way of balancing out.

 

If more wealth gets into a handful and they eventually get hold of all the food supply, water and energy... we are really left at their mercy and that's what makes me realise this is about and heading towards, I have no doubt it at all.

 

Take it as you will... I know in capitalistic society personal ownership is what its all about, but fact is once one person owns the lot the rest either have a choice of playing by their rules and pay what they are asked to pay, or raise a revolution and bloodbath is about to happen... it happened before and it can/will happen again.

 

The reason I posted this simply to put out an idea that bag full of money is not what it should ever be about and luckily most people know it already... I am not fan of money and I don't want or need a bag full of money, the only money I need is I can live nicely (not rich but simply so I don't have to worry about money) and have enough money for my hobby, and I would just like if people would see the reality of today's greed for what it is... nothing more, nothing less... people are hopefully smart enough to see when they are being ****ed up.

 

PS: I was always amassed to see how some people make money out of nothing... literaly... borrow money to someone and get interest back.. it's money for absolutely doing nothing, not providing any service... any place you go to to buy a product, there has been some work involved no matter how small.... the banking business is the only "business" that makes money out of nothing as they really don't provide any service us at all... with exception of keeping your money safe, which is still actually your money that they use to "borrow" to someone else to make more money.

 

I think "to thrive" should actually mean to live nicely, in harmony with the planet, the people... have a balance in society... but I guess notion of this in capitalistic world is considered as bad (read communism/socialism) and attack on personal ownership... but still ask yourself... if your government was to spend money on roads, schools, playgrounds... etc... would you consider it as a bad or good thing because, things like this which would not be personal ownerships and individual people would not be making money out of it... well that is actually socialistic ideology.

 

Again I am not selling any ideas, just putting out different point of view, which I think is good thing to do as the more perspectives you can see, the better view of the world you will have.

[walker450]

Must see: http://youtu.be/EeIM-4hJO44 (Money Masters)

 

This is very long but worth every minute. I personally haven't researched the claims in the video to check for accuracy.

 

And regarding the notion of continuous growth: http://youtu.be/umFnrvcS6AQ

[Kuky]

And regarding the notion of continuous growth: http://youtu.be/umFnrvcS6AQ

 

just watching this now... and man... this is really scary shit :noexpression:

I'm however proud to say I realised this myself few years ago and sometimes "bore" other about this when I try to tell my understanding to them :D

 

Thanks for the link

Edited December 27, 2012 by Kuky

[Rotorhead]

Actually, I stopped the video after few minutes. I think thate Etheral's post gave me everything I needed to know. Nice example of critical thinking there, man! :thumbup: I am glad that there still are people able to think about some theory before blindly accepting it as true.

 

Ether: I am amazed at how much you enjoyed that video. Now you should watch "What The Bleep Do We Know". Have fun!

 

Link: http://youtu.be/tSk51Lp-vHU

 

:)

 

I actually saw that... Not because of me, but my colleague, who was very prone to those irrational beliefs. I had to literally suffer trough the whole video, just to prove him wrong. No avail of course, because there is no chance you can convince irrational people using rational arguments.

 

 

@Kuky:

 

You are right about that financial problems. That's a valid point worth a serious discussion. But, why to wrap it into this mysterious stuff?? UFOs, crop circles, meh... :doh:

 

Hiding some relevant information into giant heap of occult :censored: does not help to spread this message to the masses.

[Kuky]

I think they talked about UFO's also because of the notion of that free energy (not free as in energy created out of nothing but free as in anyone can have it and make use of it without being dependent on others to provide it and make wealth out of it) could be realized provided by knowledge of possible extra terrestrials. So natually, anyone that controls energy source would not like the idea of this free energy to be wide spread and would repress it any way they can.

 

Now, the way I see things about aliens is that considering the statistic of how many stars and galaxies and planers there are and knowing that laws of physics exist everywhere in universe and therefore apply in exact same way, there is actually a very good chance that there are planets somewhere having same conditions as Earth and some might as well undergone same physical changes as Earth that it just might be that there really are life forms beside here... I take that notion as quite possible and don't disregard possibility that there really are aliens.

 

People's stories and that could be true and could be false... surely plenty of them are false as people want attention or whatever, but just going back to this statistical possibility I cannot say there aren't any aliens. I would rather say I believe there actually are it just happens that they are far away in the universe that we can't know about them, and unless one day somehow, someone, somewhere finds to time travel and bypass limitations of physical travel and speed of light... who the hell knows what's out there?

[EtherealN]

But Kuky, being unable to say "there aren't aliens" means nothing. I cannot say there is no celestial teapot orbiting Neptune. You are there effectively reversing the burden of proof, asking for proof of a negative and, until such proof is furnished, assuming the positive.

 

I agree that "aliens" is a likelihood as long as we say "aliens somewhere in the universe" rather than "aliens with a fascination for investigating the human rectum". But this does nothing at all towards adding any credibility of any kind to UFO stories - and especially not the "examples" used in this video that patently are not aliens; most of them aren't even "unidentified", and the remainder are proven frauds (like that Mexico one).

 

I'll hop into Thrive again liter and give more commentary then. :)

I'm told we're going to get some David Icke later on in the movie, so this is looking to get extra hilarious. Bring on the reptoids! :D

[walker450]

Another one worth watching IMO:

(Are We Real?)

 

The concept of us not being real is a difficult one.... and I don't believe it is so... but an interesting concept either way. :)

Edited December 27, 2012 by walker450

[EtherealN]

PS: I was always amassed to see how some people make money out of nothing... literaly... borrow money to someone and get interest back.. it's money for absolutely doing nothing, not providing any service... any place you go to to buy a product, there has been some work involved no matter how small.... the banking business is the only "business" that makes money out of nothing as they really don't provide any service us at all... with exception of keeping your money safe, which is still actually your money that they use to "borrow" to someone else to make more money.

 

May I assume you have never operated a business?

 

I ask because you seem to treat the bank only from the private customer perspective. Saying that banks don't provide a service quite simply wrong, dead wrong. You even show it yourself in your same example: the service they provide is centralization of capital. If I am going to start a business, and need 1 million dollars for this purpose, but there's no-one around that has one million dollars to invest or lend... should I walk around town myself and try to borrow 10 dollars here and 10 dollars there until I have my million? Not going to happen.

 

Banks however centralize our funds, making this much easier, which in turn makes investment easier, which in turn makes job creation easier, which in turn increases the velocity and turnover of money in the community, which then keeps the economic system going.

 

Granted, there are definitely things one can object to about banks, but that does start to enter a bit far close to politics I suspect. (Before too long we'd end up qith a "we are the 99%" type discussion.) If the movie enters into it down the line I might comment further, but it really isn't one of my main fields. Yes, banks do create money out of nothing, yes, this does greatly worry me, no, I can't back myself up with proper argumentation there because I'm just not good enough at national economics.

 

EDIT: I'll add that banks are of course not the only way to get centralization of capital. The other way is to have simply a few people literally owning everything (think medieval funtimes), or institute a communal system where a central organization (typically the state) owns everything. Most countries actually have a sort of mix of these: there is a dynastic element going on, certainly, (often called "old money"), there are many communal instututions like consumer co-ops, over here many farmer and wood co-ops etcetera. And of course we have government ownership as well. So it's not an either-or.

Edited December 27, 2012 by EtherealN

[Rotorhead]

I think they talked about UFO's also because of the notion of that free energy (not free as in energy created out of nothing but free as in anyone can have it and make use of it without being dependent on others to provide it and make wealth out of it) could be realized provided by knowledge of possible extra terrestrials. So natually, anyone that controls energy source would not like the idea of this free energy to be wide spread and would repress it any way they can.

 

Sorry for my ignorance, I didn't watch the movie, but what's the entire free energy like? How can anyone gather it and make wealth out of it? Seems like I'm missing the concept of it.

 

Now, the way I see things about aliens is that considering the statistic of how many stars and galaxies and planers there are and knowing that laws of physics exist everywhere in universe and therefore apply in exact same way, there is actually a very good chance that there are planets somewhere having same conditions as Earth and some might as well undergone same physical changes as Earth that it just might be that there really are life forms beside here... I take that notion as quite possible and don't disregard possibility that there really are aliens.

 

Well, given the (maybe infinite) size of the whole universe, there is almost no doubt that there must be intelligent life somewhere. But are they really watching us up close, and carving ornaments into our crop fields? That's different question.

 

Another one worth watching IMO:

(Are We Real?)

 

The concept of us not being real is a difficult one.... and I don't believe it is so... but an interesting concept either way. :)

 

Sorry, I didn't even bother watching it, but I think we are pretty much real.

Yes, our senses sometimes try to confuse us, but there is more than strong evidence that our world is generally what it seems to be.

 

Usually it's our own fantasy what makes us think otherwise.

[walker450]

 

(think medieval funtimes)

 

 

Funtimes, I lol'd :megalol:

[EtherealN]

Well, given the (maybe infinite) size of the whole universe, there is almost no doubt that there must be intelligent life somewhere. But are they really watching us up close, and carving ornaments into our crop fields? That's different question.

 

Not necessarily. Even in an infinite universe, someone has to be first. This can be us.

 

I don't rate it as likely, but it is a possibility that cannot be discounted until we actually find "someone". Basically, finding someone would falsify it, but it would be impossible to prove it as true. At best we can say that what we've seen so far is consistent with us being first while acknowledging that we certainly are at a shortage of relevant information.

[NineLine]

Not necessarily. Even in an infinite universe, someone has to be first. This can be us.

 

I don't rate it as likely, but it is a possibility that cannot be discounted until we actually find "someone". Basically, finding someone would falsify it, but it would be impossible to prove it as true. At best we can say that what we've seen so far is consistent with us being first while acknowledging that we certainly are at a shortage of relevant information.

 

I see the programing on MTV and can only hope we aren't the most advanced race in the universe :)

[Rotorhead]

Not necessarily. Even in an infinite universe, someone has to be first. This can be us.

 

I don't rate it as likely, but it is a possibility that cannot be discounted until we actually find "someone". Basically, finding someone would falsify it, but it would be impossible to prove it as true. At best we can say that what we've seen so far is consistent with us being first while acknowledging that we certainly are at a shortage of relevant information.

 

Statistically speaking, this is rather unlikely - and it would be pretty surprising to find us being the only intelligent beings in the entire universe - but yes, you are right. Until we see some real proofs of other civilization, it's still nothing more than a statistic.

 

I see the programing on MTV and can only hope we aren't the most advanced race in the universe :)

 

:megalol:

[monotwix]

Imagine a proper scenario, the Milkyway vs. Andrsomeda.

I’ve composed it my self

Space-Harmonics.zip