Hawking Says Spread Out Or Become Extinct To Press>>>

mental_avenger · Dec 3, 2006

kauboi says: That kind of thinking is what keeps us from achieving a better life here on Earth. On the contrary, it is your type of thinking that sabotages true progress. When people get bogged down trying to accomplish the impossible, they don’t have any time left to work on the realistic and practical. kauboi says: I never said “solve all mankind’s problems”. Interesting that you quoted it like it came directly from my post or something. Isn't that against the rules of the forum? As you can see, most of my direct quotes are in yellow I often use “quotes”, italics, bold, or underline for emphasis in my reply. If I include a phrase that is intended to be a direct quote from someone else, I use ”italics and quotes”. I have been doing that for the past 5 yerars. kauboi says: A thousand years ago, people who thought about going to the moon were also living in a fantasy world probably being told that by people like you who saw it as a waste of time. Now that is a nice Strawman example. No reasonable person would come to such a conclusion based on anything I have posted. kauboi says: Sorry to bust your bubble but there are quite some people who think like I do and who think we can do better. We have the capacity and potential to do that and even more. If everyone thought the way you do we would probably have faced extinction a long time ago. Are you a former beauty queen contestant: MC: I you could have any wish granted, what would you wish for? kauboi: World peace. P.T. Barnum said “There is a sucker born every minute”. What he failed to mention is that there are also 5 bullies and 10 greedy people born every minute. The reason we cannot “solve” the p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 3, 2006

J05H says: We must expand to survive, otherwise there won't be anyone to repopulate Earth when the Big One hits. Good point. In addition, there are other possible natural catastrophes which could wipe out mankind. We must establish a viable population off-Earth if mankind is to survive in the long run. Of course, there are some people who do not care about that, but only care about what is going on right now. We need to handle both. J05H says: Some issues, like access to food, information, medicine and manufactured goods, will be largely solved by continuing the industrial revolution outside of our biosphere. That will be a supplemental solution, but not a “large” part of the solution. For a long time, most off-Earth industry and supply will be used off-Earth. The factors that make such space industry economically viable for use in space, will be the same factors that prevent goods produced in space from being economically practical for the Earth market. For a long time, goods produced anywhere off-Earth will be much more expensive than the same goods produced on Earth. However, the enormous costs involved in lifting those goods out of the Earth’s gravity well will make goods produced off-Earth economical in comparison. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

kauboi · Dec 3, 2006

On the contrary, it is your type of thinking that sabotages true progress. When people get bogged down trying to accomplish the impossible, they don’t have any time left to work on the realistic and practical. How are you so sure it is impossible? As you can see, most of my direct quotes are in yellow . I often use “quotes”, italics, bold, or underline for emphasis in my reply. If I include a phrase that is intended to be a direct quote from someone else, I use ”italics and quotes”. I have been doing that for the past 5 yerars. I'm sorry, I don't catalogue the writing styles from everybody here. Anyway, I didn't say that and you implied I said it. Now that is a nice Strawman example. No reasonable person would come to such a conclusion based on anything I have posted. It is not. You say that it is impossible to solve and fix some of today's problems. Many people said once that it was impossible to fly, to go to the moon, etc. We finally achieved it proving the sceptics wrong. You always accuse people of using strawman arguments. I say the problem is a lack of vision. Are you a former beauty queen contestant: MC: I you could have any wish granted, what would you wish for? kauboi: World peace. P.T. Barnum said “There is a sucker born every minute”. What he failed to mention is that there are also 5 bullies and 10 greedy people born every minute. The reason we cannot “solve” the problems in the world is because new troublemakers are being born every day. There is no “beginning”, “middle”, and “end” to a world class problem, there is only continuing to deal with it on a daily basis. In addition, the “solution” to many of the current problems only exacerbates the problem. For instance, “world hunger”. So we feed the poor hungry masses. The well fed masses are then h

j05h · Dec 3, 2006

> That will be a supplemental solution, but not a “large” part of the solution. It's also related to the Ultra-Heavy Lift thread in Biz & Tech. I can see a day in the far future where it is possible to space-lift, either from other places on Earth or straight from space depots. Yes, it's long-term. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

halman · Dec 3, 2006

kauboi, I sense a flame war coming on, as people insist that their remarks have been taken out of context, etcetera. Before this thread degenerates into pointless finger-pointing, I would like to respond to your remarks concerning technology, growth, and wisdom. Much of what we consider to be problems at this juncture in human history are the result of technology being applied in the interests of greed, without consideration of the long term effects, social costs, and environmental damage. For example, the United States government advocated the use of nuclear fission for generating electrical power without creating any infrastructure to deal with the high level radioactive waste that would be generated by such power plants. Thus, nuclear power became a 'bad' technology, now in search of a solution. Another example, a pipeline company in the Northwestern U.S. failed to completely train its operators, which lead to a major leak being undetected. 285,000 gallons of gasoline were released into the environment, and caught fire when a couple of young boys playing with a lighter ignited it. (Their deaths probably prevented hundreds more, as the gasoline was following a stream bed right into the center of a nearby city.) Wisely applying our knowledge of technology means utilizing it in ways that minimize environmental damage, social disruption, and personal loss. Accepting that the Earth is a finite ecosystem, embedded in a much larger environment, is key to making life on Earth safer, more sustainable, and less stressful. To raise the standard of living of all persons to a level equal to that of the United States using the technology of the United States at this time would be a disaster, if it is possible at all, because the U. S. is gobbling up energy supplies at a rate far beyond any other country. Should we accept that the standard of living the U. S. enjoys is impractical, and deny the rest of the world's population those luxuries? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

kauboi · Dec 3, 2006

Thanks for your accurate and well thought post. You put things better than I could and raised some interesting points. Of course new wisdom could be applied along with the new technology. The problem is finding that wisdom, if we are happy to get out there but we are not sure why or how we are getting there I sense a disaster. You raise some interesting examples about using technology unwisely, power is pretty much used unwisely too, without regard of the consequences, by the very nations now more prominent in space exploration (if you start bringing resources from there and building settlements, some might feel the impulse to build a military base or somekind of weapon up there. By the time the first martian generation is born we would be engaged on a space war already). That's what worries me and that's why I think we should 'grow up' a little bit more before entering that new step. Your view is pretty positive and it might be possible. If that Greed is deviated then it would mean the first step for a brightest future. The only thing I can do is hope you are right.

kauboi · Dec 3, 2006

The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. That's, sadly, too true.

rogers_buck · Dec 3, 2006

To my knowledge, Hawking has never given any more detailed explanations for his concerns than the standard list of well known ELE. However, given his chosen field of interest it seems more than coincidence that he would concern himself with the information of humanity being relevant in the future. I don't want to do a lengthy post so I'll try to make this one as brief as possible and still be illustrative of my point. First, the model of the universe as an excited brane. You have two sets of states in imaginary time. You have the initial states and the final states. The difference in information between these two states is what defines the observable entropy withing the brane. This is a tensor field that to us looks like probable happenstance. A glass breaks into shards, but shards never assemble into a glass. The underlying mechanics of this are probable histories. There is a near zero probability that a glass will assemble from atoms without human craftspersons as part of the history of the glass. Etc. So now imagine for a moment that humans develop a technology that develops a technology that develops a technology... that modifies the vaccuum of space to store the vast amounts of information that the technology requires. Imagine that the stored infomation of that super technology becomes the final states of the universe and its bumped brane. Our place in existence is therefore insured as a coherent history of those final states. Now imagine for a moment that the super technology isn't ours. In that case, we can be interfered out of reality at any time. We are no more important to the grand scheme of things as the most highly evolved creature in a pond that we drain is ancestral to the shopping mall we build in its place. So long as we sit here on Earth acting like animals, we are vulnerable to the standard list of ELEs Hawking warns us of. If we colonize another planet our odds of survival go way up. If w

mental_avenger · Dec 3, 2006

kauboi says: How are you so sure it is impossible? As pointed out, the problems are continually renewed with the passing on of older people and the birth of new ones. Some people learn a little from history, some learn nothing at all. The problems we face as humans are automatically perpetually regenerating. There is no destination, only a journey. kauboi says: Anyway, I didn't say that and you implied I said it. I imply you meant “essentially” that. kauboi says: It is not.[a Strawman example] You say that it is impossible to solve and fix some of today's problems. Many people said once that it was impossible to fly, to go to the moon, etc. We finally achieved it proving the sceptics wrong. There is a major difference between solving a merely technical problem and claiming a solution for a perpetually self-regenerating, reconfiguring set of problems. Your statement was a Strawman because it attempted to equate my views on one subject with another which cannot be directly equated. If you had at least kept your “comparison” in the same general arena, that would have been different. Your argument was Strawman. kauboi says: You always accuse people of using strawman arguments. No I don’t. I only point them out when I see them. kauboi says: The solution to many of today's problems are bad solutions, you know like the war in iraq you so vehemently support and which has taken so much money that could have been used on your asteroid deflection device. False accusations ARE a violation of Uplink rules. Nothing I have ever posted would lead a reasonable person to believe that I ” vehemently support” the war in Iraq. And please, don’t bring that argument into this discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

kauboi · Dec 3, 2006

I don't agree with you. Like I said I think we must agree to disagree. I already made my points and I stand by them. Halman made some good points too along with some accurate depictions of what I meant. If you don't believe we are capable of changing for better and that we must be stuck with the same problems as a species forever, fine. I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. Have a nice life <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

j05h · Dec 3, 2006

Building private destinations in space will take a lot of work, and it is better to start now as there is plenty of planning and development involved. > I'm not saying we shouldn't expand, I think we eventually would and should do it. What I'm saying is that we have the wisdom to do it better now than before on our history. Actually, you are saying not to expand. If not now, when? I am advocating for a basic definition of property and claims-staking in space. We need an investment environment that enables people with money to have confidence in lending money to people with ideas. Private groups, companies, universities and consortia have to lead this effort. The government will not make it happen. Asteroid strikes destroying cities have been recorded (February 3, 1490, ch'ing-yang, china, "stones fell like rain", over 10,000 dead). You have no idea what the probability or spread is for you and everyone else dying in an asteroid strike. Never mind issues like the Cumbre Vieja tsunami-in-waiting. Disaster will happen. Be prepared. > You can't lay all the responsibility on technology. The technology to colonize the solar system has been available since the 1960's. It is not a technology problem, it is a problem of economics. Anyone that tells you it's a tech issue doesn't fully grasp the situation. We don't need space elevators, SSTO, warp drive or Unobtanium to begin settlement. > what I do know is that we don't have the means to expand today, huge amounts of budget that could be spend on that should now be deviated on defense systems, ... I don't advocate socialsm, I advocate common sense and intelligence, See, right there? "Budget" is a code-word for tax dollars. IE: you are a socialist. I'm talking about creating a series of private destinations that also protect Life (not just humanity) from a guaranteed distaster. No tax breaks or "defense budget" needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

kauboi · Dec 3, 2006

This is why I say science is the new century's religion. We have been here for millions of years and an asteroid is suddenly the new main threat for the humanity. Like christianity which protected us with inquisition from the obscure evils from hell by means of a greater and more powerful knowledge. I'm not saying the threat of an asteroid hitting Earth is not something to worry about, or that we shouldn't do anything about it. What I'm saying is that we worry about an asteroid when we can't even face a hurricane with effective means, the environment problems on Earth, the wealth and political problems that could unleash even a nuclear war, the hunger, migration problems that cost developed countries millions every year, they are all very real and happening now and the asteroid is suddenly the top priority? come on, keep the believers happy while they worry about a big devil and the other stuff what? I didn't say technology was the problem, I said technology in itself is not always the solution for every problem (or at least it shouldn't be). If I understand you well, you advocate private investment on space. I agree with that, my problem is not going into space per se is more an issue of how to do it right. These private groups are also related to the governments from where they work, if a government (nation) is not fairly stable then private entities suffer as well. I have enough motivation to go there if we do things right and we could start doing things right now and it wouldn't take more effort than what it takes what you are proposing, otherwise it could work but I have the feeling that nothing other than surviving "for a little while" would be accomplished. It's such a shame more people don't apply their strong believes on what man can achieve technologically on what man can achieve ethically. I think that if that would be the case we could get pretty far. I guess we would have to wait for the science of

mental_avenger · Dec 3, 2006

J05H says: Asteroid strikes destroying cities have been recorded Tunguska, Siberia. June 30th, 1908 7:17am.<ul type="square"> The explosion was probably caused by the airburst of an asteroid or comet 5 to 10 kilometers (3–6 mi) above the Earth's surface. The energy of the blast was later estimated to be between 10 and 20 megatons of TNT, which would be equivalent to Castle Bravo, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated by the US. It felled an estimated 60 million trees over 2,150 square kilometers (830 sq mi).</ul> Imagine if this had happened over a major city. That could have totally leveled New York City (301 square miles), Chicago (228 square miles), or Denver (498 square miles). J05H says: Never mind issues like the Cumbre Vieja tsunami-in-waiting. Disaster will happen. Be prepared. That is another problem. A large asteroid or comet impacting the Atlantic or Pacific could create a tsunami that would wipe out ALL the major coastal cities at once. J05H says: We have the means to expand beyond Earth, we don't have the motivation. Because of utopians like you. That is it in a nutshell. J05H says: Get real, support colonization now. 20 years ago the stamp which printed my return address included the line: Support Space Exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

kauboi · Dec 3, 2006

The goal is for the international, peaceful, non-governmental development of off-world colonies. Earth needs a backup and humanity needs a social-pressure relief valve: the Space Frontier. I liked that part of your post. It might as well work that way but that would require to make things right from the beginning like I said. To give an example, if colonizing other planets and mining resources is going to serve to put more money on the pockets of a few wealthy people while the world stays in the same conflictive and unjust state then I wouldn't support it because it would turn out to be just one more toy for a few to play with while the majority of people, the environment, etc are left behind. I support space expansion 100% if it comes along with those terms you said.

mental_avenger · Dec 3, 2006

You, like several other people here, seem to have a problem with wealthy people being wealthy. As long as that is a problem for you, you will always be bitter. Centuries ago a Chinese emperor distributed the wealth of all the people evenly amongst everyone, taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, until everyone had the same amount of wealth. Within about 2 years, IIRC, the people who were originally wealthy were wealthy again, and those who were originally poor were poor once again. It is likely that the same would happen today. Wealth has less to do with money than it has to do with attitude and character. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

j05h · Dec 3, 2006

> I support space expansion 100% if it comes along with those terms you said. Thanks. Make no mistake that there will be scandal, disaster and robber-barons along the way. There are ethical paths for space development. If we aren't pushing the boundaries, we might as well move back to living in caves. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

kauboi · Dec 3, 2006

I don't have anything against wealthy people just because they are wealthy, I have against greed like the one Halman on the other post described. I don't care if people who are wealthy get wealthy again and people that are poor become poor again. I think many people are happy being poor, only with their basic needs fullfiled and given them more money would be stupid then because they probably wouldn't know what to do with it anyways. What I'm against is that if a company is depleting the resources from some country and half the people in that country is starving to death then I find that aborrent. I also find uncontrolled consumption aborrent, people should be more aware about the future and about resource limitations and aim for more simple lifestyles. If the world is going to work around companies from someday on then they should act as benefactors for the people, not only as money producing machines. (I'm not saying all companies are like that but many are. If interests would be put on people's well-being first then things like what's happening in Venezuela, for example, wouldn't be happening at all, a company that takes the oil resources from a country which kept 1% of the earnings while thousands of people starve is not fair and we shouldn't allow that to happen period) Now lets bring this slowly back on topic... Now I understand Josh's view. His view is probably not more and not less 'utopic' than mine. For such a system to work it would have to change lots of mentalities first or along the way, the world (or at least the private groups involved) would have to suddenly become or be kind of altruistic and fair enough not to go along the same lines with interests from some parts to benefit themselves and not humanity per se. I think that's possible but difficult.

mental_avenger · Dec 4, 2006

kauboi says: If the world is going to work around companies from someday on then they should act as benefactors for the people, not only as money producing machines. I have seen that viewpoint before on Uplink and have found it to be odd. When I had my company in San Diego, I had a sign on my cash register which read: Let’s Assume, Just For A Moment, That We Are In Business To Make Money. What a concept, eh? Businesses are formed by people who want to make money. Often there is a great deal of sacrifice and long hours, especially at first. The goal, however, is to eventually make as much money as possible. It may be many years before the original investment in time and money is paid back and the business owner begins to actually make money for the first time. Sometimes it can be decades. The vehicle that businesses use to make money is usually filling a need, either in goods or in services. But the goal is not to provide goods or services, but to make money. That is the name of the game, and it is the same game everywhere. The notion that businesses should forego profits to ”act as benefactors for the people” is naïve at best. The incentive to risk everything and invest significant portions of your life is the eventual profits to be made. As a by-product, most businesses do provide valuable services or goods. Usually, how well the business does and how much money it makes is determined by how valuable the goods or services they provide are to the customers. The only time that business can be considered to be profiteering or making more money than they should is if the government intervenes and mandates that their service is mandatory, such as in mandatory insurance or vehicle inspections etc., or when they put arbitrary restrictions on products such as Freon-12, driving the price up by a factor of 20 in less than a year. Free enterprise is relatively self regulating. R <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

frodo1008 · Dec 4, 2006

Hawking is correct for reasons that even a lot of people that support space colonization don't always bring up. It is indeed quite possible that we could be destroyed by a large enough NEO. It wouldn't even take a very large one to at the very least send humanity back into the dark ages! But strangely enough that isn't the real problem here. Such an event could indeed happen at any time, but the possibility of its happening in the next thousand years or so is relatively low. No, the big problem (and this seems to even go along with some of what Kauboi has been saying here) is humanity itself! If we (humanity) don't get the thrust of our civilization (and eventually even the increase in our own population) off of this "Spaceship Earth" within about two centuries at most we will have so polluted this planet that we will have in essence committed racial suicide! The very air we breath will become so poisonous that we won't be able to breath it! ALL that all the other ecological efforts that we can make in the meantime will help, but any engineer worth his pay can tell you that there is NO perfect system. Therefore, given enough time (and at the rate of human expansion, two centuries would be more than enough time) just such leakage of pollution will build up to such a level that we will have killed this planet completely! Askold’s paradise will become a living Hell!! Now for those of us alive now other than a slowly but steadily decreasing quality of life we probably will not notice this so very much. But for those of our more remote generations down the future line from us, it will be a disaster that they will not be able to even curse us that we didn't stop, for they will be dead anyway! The ONLY reasonable long term ecological program IS the space program. If we have to even run up long term debt to pay for getting off this planet in a big way in the meantime then I am certain that future generat

halman · Dec 4, 2006

Mental_Avenger, Your statement regarding off-Earth industry and supply being used primarily off planet puzzles me. Most colonization has resulted in raw materials and products being exported from the colonies to the mother countries, if I recall my history lessons. This trade has financed the growth of the colonies into countries in their own right. You say, "For a long time, goods produced off-Earth will be much more expensive than the same goods produced on Earth." Of course this is true, but it implies that off planet production will be the same in nature as planetary production. Building space stations to make cast iron engine blocks would be an example of duplicating planetary production capabilities. But if the space station produces foamed aluminum engine blocks, this is not a duplication, because foamed aluminum cannot be produced economically in a gravity field. Considering that a foamed aluminum block would weigh about one-third to one-quarter of solid aluminum blocks, and would be stronger, if properly annealed, a foamed aluminum block would be very valuable for applications such as aviation. By developing products which cannot be produced on Earth, but which would be very valuable on Earth, we can develop trade that will finance further growth. Of course, the more products which can be produced for consumption off planet by off planet industries, the smaller the amount of goods which have to be lifted out of the gravity well. But, without goods to sell to the bottom of the gravity well, the longer investment will be required to sustain off planet activities. Building an orbital factory to produce foamed metal parts for consumption off planet would require off planet industries advanced enough to use the parts. Those industries already exist on Earth, and are facing steadily rising costs for raw materials and energy, as well as demands for new, more efficient products. Even though initial costs will be high, the deman <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

kauboi · Dec 4, 2006

You can make money following rules and being ethical. If to make money you step on people's lives then you are garbage, no better than a thieve a murderer or a rapist. Tell me this. Do you think is fair that an oil company depletes Venezuela from its oil and from the money they make the country receives 1% of the profits? What would you think if a chinese company does something similar in the US? would you call that inmoral or would you accept that they have the right to take your resources and give you practically nothing in exchange? I also own a company and I wouldn't even dream on treating the people we serve or that we employ with disrespect, or to use that people in unethical ways. We still make money without having to step on anyone for that. Businesses are for making money following the same rules we apply to life. You wouldn't kill innocent people or steal their money to make a living would you? Do your thing without harming people. Finland is known for its overall lack of corruption. Its almost everytime on the top lists of transparency reports. Well, a finnish company came to my country and bribed several officials in exchange for some deals. I noticed that those reports measured transparency inside their own country, outside they could be doing whatever they wanted and that wouldn't affect the overall score if they kept acting ethically within their boarders. What should happen to a company like that? The officials should be thrown in jail of course but the company? should they be allowed to stay in operation? my answer would be no of course but they do and still are. They probably get caught a couple of times a year on some other parts of the world, pay some fine and keep doing it, just like a criminal would. That's the whole point of my argument nothing more and nothing less, any other way to make money is ok with me. Bussinesses that provide services and do it to make money are ok as long as they don't star

oscar1 · Dec 4, 2006

OK, let me rephrase that then. We are more capable to bringing a scientific project to fruition than a political one. In addition, given that it appears to be a law of nature that always more people are born than we can feed properly, the chances are that we will be wiped out one way or the other, before we achieve a socially just society.

frodo1008 · Dec 4, 2006

That is a real possibility, and I am thankful for it! However, what we need to do in the meantime is to increase NASA's budget by some standard amount over inflation. I would suggest 10% of the current budget each year. As even just getting back to the moon is a multiple administration effort, NASA should not have to go back to the politicians every single year! I don't know how long it would take to even get the budget up to even half what was spent during the 1960's (about 1% from the current 0.6 %), but as: (A) NASA's ENTIRE budget would not even be much of a help in reducing the deficit, let alone bringing enough of a positive balance to the federal governments budget to actually significantly reduce the federal debt. IF we boosted NASA's budget by the 10% we might even be prepared to meet the "Chinese Space Menace" by the time it materialized. (B) If you were to “Brainstorm” all the factors in the federal budget and place them onto a Quality Assurance Paredo chart to find their significance you would find that NASA’s budget was way down in the “insignificant many” part of the chart. Some of the “significant few” up at the tall or right end of the chart would be politically untouchable, such as the entitlement programs. I don’t understand why the Bush administration can’t seem to realize political reality when it stares them in the face. Social Security and Medicare are indeed untouchable as “Old people Vote!” That leaves just the following significant items: (1) Increasing the federal income by either rescinding or just allowing the Bush administration tax cuts (particularly those aimed at the very wealthy). This would reduce the deficit by a very significant amount almost immediately. (2) Reducing the interest rates on the interest on the National Debt. Highly unlikely, as the wealthy would be even more against this that tax cuts! (3) Reducing our military expenses by a significant amount by at the v

mental_avenger · Dec 4, 2006

halman, I don’t know anything about producing foamed aluminum engine blocks. My statements were in reference to the oft cited claims that raw materials such as aluminum and steel, and finished goods would be exported by the Moon, asteroids, and space stations for use on Earth. There is no doubt that some specialty items that are extremely difficult or impossible to make on Earth might be economically feasible to import into the Earth market. But I think that the number of items that fall into that category would be relatively small. The most likely commodity to be imported to Earth from off-Earth colonies will be intellectual properties. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 4, 2006

kauboi, I strongly suggest you be very careful about making thinly-veiled hate-filled vitriolic Ad Hominem comments. Tell me this. Do you think is fair that an oil company depletes Venezuela from its oil and from the money they make the country receives 1% of the profits? That is their country. What they do with their resources, how much they charge, or who they allow to remove those resources is their own business. As long as it does not directly effect the rest of the world, as in the burning of the rain forests, and as long as they are obeying the laws, I have no problem with it. Again, you seem to have a real problem with free enterprise and capitalistic society. All societies have laws. Those laws are made by the people within those societies to govern how the people should act and what to do if someone does not follow the rules and obey those laws. As long as people or companies are obeying the current laws, they should be allowed to make money any way they can. Legally. If they break the laws, it is up to those countries to prosecute if they wish to, not you. It is not up to you to tell people in other countries that they must follow your personal code of ethics. Your holier-than-thou self-righteous attitude will probably only continue to make you bitter and resentful, but will not solve any perceived problems or inequities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

Hawking Says Spread Out Or Become Extinct To Press>>>

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

kauboi

Guest

j05h

Guest

halman

Guest

kauboi

Guest

kauboi

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

kauboi

Guest

j05h

Guest

kauboi

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

kauboi

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

j05h

Guest

kauboi

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

halman

Guest

kauboi

Guest

oscar1

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page