Spending cuts not expected to dent $1.5T deficit - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Contag;29222901]It makes me angry because they imagine a world with limitless energy, and then they limit it so dramatically. Surely humanity isn't content to reach such a level, and then simply call it a day? I'd say we have more potential? That's deeply insulting not only to me, but to every single person on the planet.[/QUOTE] You're acting like consumerism is a boon to humanity in some way shape or form

If energy is so cheap and plentiful, why bother conserving? If everything is automated, why can't I individualize every item? They advocate the end of scarcity, and then use a range of scarcity-ideas. The future of humanity (if we reach cheap, limitless energy) is far more brilliant than the high-tech version of the USSR circa 1970. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29222979]You're acting like consumerism is a boon to humanity in some way shape or form[/QUOTE] Material goods allow expression of self. In a world without energy (and thus resource) constraints (and the monetary system that goes with it), there are no negative effects of consumerism. Those who wish to colour-code and personalize every item in their home can, and those who wish to disregard such things and meditate on existence can as well. And to say that personal choice equates to consumerism is contemptible, but I'll assume you were generalizing.

[QUOTE=Contag;29222980]If energy is so cheap and plentiful, why bother conserving? If everything is automated, why can't I individualize every item? They advocate the end of scarcity, and then use a range of scarcity-ideas. The future of humanity (if we reach cheap, limitless energy) is far more brilliant than the high-tech version of the USSR circa 1970. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] Material goods allow expression of self. In a world without energy (and thus resource) constraints (and the monetary system that goes with it), there are no negative effects of consumerism. Those who wish to colour-code and personalize every item in their home can, and those who wish to disregard such things and meditate on existence can as well. And to say that personal choice equates to consumerism is contemptible, but I'll assume you were generalizing.[/QUOTE] No... I'm 100% fine with individuality. But you're REALLY, REALLY out of wack in my opinion if you think the primary way we should express ourselves is through the shit we buy rather than the shit we do. If we had a world where energy didn't matter and you could do whatever the fuck you'd want, expressing yourself through consumerism doesn't change, you're still just expressing yourself through consumerism. There's many better things to do than to just "buy"(I know there's no currency, I've no other way to define it) with that time and energy, why the fuck would spending your time on personal material possessionry really be worth while? [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] And you're the one who's confining personal choice to consumerism.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29223131]No... I'm 100% fine with individuality. But you're REALLY, REALLY out of wack in my opinion if you think the primary way we should express ourselves is through the shit we buy rather than the shit we do. If we had a world where energy didn't matter and you could do whatever the fuck you'd want, expressing yourself through consumerism doesn't change, you're still just expressing yourself through consumerism. There's many better things to do than to just "buy"(I know there's no currency, I've no other way to define it) with that time and energy, why the fuck would spending your time on personal material possessionry really be worth while? [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] And you're the one who's confining personal choice to consumerism.[/QUOTE] It's worthwhile because a great deal of humanity enjoys creating things. I'm using it as an example, because most people aren't able to make/customize the items they use in every day life. If you are not academically minded, how else can people express themselves, other than through art?

[QUOTE=Contag;29223215]It's worthwhile because a great deal of humanity enjoys creating things. I'm using it as an example, because most people aren't able to make/customize the items they use in every day life. If you are not academically minded, how else can people express themselves, other than through art?[/QUOTE] If people [b]only[/b] have free time, what should they be doing with themselves to keep from becoming like this [img]http://www.joesblogg.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-4.png[/img] because if people [b]only[/b] have free time, guess what, they're going to sit and eat and talk to some people, maybe fuck if they have the energy. Over time they'll just be conditioned to that, something other than mass consumerism has to take up their time. They need to be academically minded or artistically minded or at least capable of doing something, in a situation like the venus project, education would have to become a practical form of a job, just keep going to school and learning things or do something of your own free will with that knowledge and just occupy your time. Blind consumerism shouldn't be supported in that kind of sense, sure, you can customize your things, build that into the base of the product and let people express themselves, but just not through fucking consumerism. I don't know how on earth you can think just consuming is a good thing. Even if people just produced entertainment, films, tv, video games, theatre or something like that, just having an outlet. I imagine with all that free time, people well educated would be able to create some pretty cool entertainment or something.

I would never leave university if I didn't have to. I'm just trying to recognize that other people enjoy doing other things. How do you create incentives for education or art, for the people who just want to fuck and eat? Do you just force them to go? Deny them some rights, reduce their energy-mass allowance? Or just gun them down? If everyone can have everything, the only way to alter behavior is to take things away. Or brainwash them. That would work too. I don't know the answer, but I'm quite sure that the way to future isn't through limiting people. I'm not sure that society would ever get to the point depicted in Wall-E, though.

They're not talking about making everyone wear jumpsuits and shit that eliminates personal choice, they're talking about conserving. For example, it's a waste to drive your own car when you could simply take a bus or a taxi. However in today's world, those resources are not available to everyone, especially in the US where most people own their own vehicle that they've spent around $10,000-$20,000 on when they'll only use it for maybe 2-3 hours total per week. Of course if you want to drive a car, you're welcome to. However it may not be necessary when there are other sources of transportation available to you. As for 'limitless' energy, theoretically that's impossible, there is no such thing as 'unlimited' anything outside of pure mathematical infinity, everything ends at some point. But anyways, in that system, we wouldn't need unlimited energy, we would only need what we actually need. There would never be an excess, but there would always be enough. Besides, if everything were left up to automation, people would have a lot of free time without stress. Would that mean they would all be sitting around doing whatever they wanted? Absolutely. Everyone would have whatever they want for no cost. We wouldn't have some people with 7 private jets, 15 lambourghini's and 65 waterfront homes, and some people with one piece of bread, a shambling house, and a dying family member. I realize this may seem like a totalitarian system where everyone is limited to equal opportunities, but when you can have pretty much anything you want at no cost, and you don't need a job to get the things you want. It seems pretty fine and dandy to me. In terms of laws, I'm thinking the only illegal things would be the laws that are in a natural state of being illegal, such as murder, stealing or rape. But the chances of those crimes occurring is next to none simply because there is no monetary incentive and no stress factor to push you to that point. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it sure seems a fuck of a lot better than anything else I've ever heard of.

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;29223609]Of course if you want to drive a car, you're welcome to. However it may not be necessary when there are other sources of transportation available to you. As for 'limitless' energy, theoretically that's impossible, there is no such thing as 'unlimited' anything outside of pure mathematical infinity, everything ends at some point. But anyways, in that system, we wouldn't need unlimited energy, we would only need what we actually need. There would never be an excess, but there would always be enough.[/QUOTE] Except that produce are going to start reproducing - and why not, it's a pretty good world! I'm saying that if humanity could radically redesign its socio-political systems, have everyone believe in a common goal, with the additional benefit of cheap plentiful energy, the Venus Project is selling itself short. Would I take it in an instant? Yes, of course, but it's not ideal. As such a world is a virtual impossibility at the moment, it should be ideal.

[QUOTE=Contag;29223595]I would never leave university if I didn't have to. I'm just trying to recognize that other people enjoy doing other things. How do you create incentives for education or art, for the people who just want to fuck and eat? Do you just force them to go? Deny them some rights, reduce their energy-mass allowance? Or just gun them down? If everyone can have everything, the only way to alter behavior is to take things away. Or brainwash them. That would work too. I don't know the answer, but I'm quite sure that the way to future isn't through limiting people. I'm not sure that society would ever get to the point depicted in Wall-E, though.[/QUOTE] The incentive to encourage education and art would be to actually inspire people, and not just throw 30 kids in a room and have someone lecture to them for 8 hours per day. That's fucking boring and it's the reason so many kids are doing poorly in school today, because they just don't give a fuck because they aren't being engaged to learn. It's about striking every single social problem at its source. If you're an alcoholic, you probably drink a lot to relieve stress, same with cigarettes. But where does the stress come from? Work? Well why do you need to work? To make money of course. So you can live comfortably. Why would someone kill another person? Because they had a bad upbringing? Because the person did something unforgivable to them? There are many reasons. Why did he have a bad upbringing? Most likely because of his parents, his parents were probably bad because they neglected him, they probably neglected him because they had too much stress in their own lives to worry about their child, and the stress probably came from their occupations. Now you may be thinking, what about relationships, what if a man kills his ex-girlfriend because she left him for another man. Well, why did she leave him? Maybe he wasn't making enough [b]money[/b], maybe he had flaws in his personality caused by stress due to overworking. Why did he have a job? Because he needed money. If you think about it, money really is the root of all evil. I'm sure someone could counter me on this though.

[QUOTE=Contag;29222287]What about haircuts? Different clothes? Different religions? Different beliefs about economic systems? Well screw that, because you're all going to be under the Venus Project. People don't need any of the above. Why bother giving it to them?[/QUOTE] You have taken the Venus Projects point so far out of reach, it's orbiting Pluto right now. [quote]No, it's amiable. Not understanding that billions of people can't drink from streams is, and that water distribution (and more recently, generation) takes a fair amount of resources.[/quote]Money isn't a resource. [quote]In the same way that people yell in order to get their point across, I've increased the size, and capitalized the text.[/quote]You've become more annoying is what you accomplished. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;29223595]I would never leave university if I didn't have to. I'm just trying to recognize that other people enjoy doing other things. How do you create incentives for education or art, for the people who just want to fuck and eat? Do you just force them to go? Deny them some rights, reduce their energy-mass allowance? Or just gun them down? If everyone can have everything, the only way to alter behavior is to take things away. Or brainwash them. That would work too. I don't know the answer, but I'm quite sure that the way to future isn't through limiting people. I'm not sure that society would ever get to the point depicted in Wall-E, though.[/QUOTE] Contags rules for debating: - Make sure your font is ridiculously large - Use Caps. - Take points and over dramatise them so much, Tommy Wiseau couldn't make a film about it. - For example: Go to a bar and when you're told not to smoke, accuse the bartender that he probably wants you, along with every other smoker, to be rounded up and killed. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] Contag, you should watch this, your ideas of individuality seems to be really dependent on shit you buy. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCOd-qWZB_g&feature=related[/media]

[QUOTE=amute;29223992]You have taken the Venus Projects point so far out of reach, it's orbiting Pluto right now. [/quote] I'm sorry, but the purported existence of clean, cheap, renewable and plentiful energy put it outside our universe for the moment. [quote] Money isn't a resource. [/quote] No, it's used as a representation of resources/value.

[QUOTE=Contag;29224245]I'm sorry, but the purported existence of clean, cheap, renewable and plentiful energy put it outside our universe for the moment.[/quote] You're talking about creating clean energy cars as removing peoples right to show individuality through haircuts and clothing. You're either retarded or paranoid. Probably a little bit of both. There IS clean, renewable and plentiful sources of power. [quote]No, it's used as a representation of resources/value.[/QUOTE] It's fake. And people have grown addicted to it. How is that good? The fact society can just play games with money anymore has shown how fucking fake it is.

[QUOTE=amute;29223992] Contag, you should watch this, your ideas of individuality seems to be really dependent on shit you buy. [/QUOTE] Yes, I'm advocating increasing material wealth (and display thereof) in a post-scarcity society. :downs: Or perhaps I'm saying that individuality can be expressed through non-efficient means, such as designing your own clothing. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29224314] There IS clean, renewable and plentiful sources of power. [/quote] Add cheap and name one? [quote] It's fake. And people have grown addicted to it. How is that good? The fact society can just play games with money anymore has shown how fucking fake it is.[/QUOTE] Holy fucking shit. Money is not fake. It is an societal construction, specifically to represent value. I exchange my units of value for things. For example: I provide labour, which is said to have some value, so I get this representation of value, so that I may trade it for other things of value. I see some proto-marxist thought about things like speculators being of no use or value whatsoever (because they just trade money, and make money through trading money, with tangible consequences - see Global Financial Crisis), but just because the overarching financial system is geared towards making the rich richer, and the poor poorer, doesn't mean that money as a concept is null and void. Until we live in a post-scarcity society, we need to represent material value. Money does that. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29224314]You're talking about creating clean energy cars as removing peoples right to show individuality through haircuts and clothing. [/QUOTE] The principle is the same. I mean, let's face it, hairdressers provide no material worth to society. Just mass-produce the best (in terms of utility) buzz shaver and call it a day.

[QUOTE=amute;29224314]You're talking about creating clean energy cars as removing peoples right to show individuality through haircuts and clothing. You're either retarded or paranoid. Probably a little bit of both. There IS clean, renewable and plentiful sources of power. [/QUOTE] This reminds me of a Rush Limbaugh quote [quote=The Rush] Oil is the fuel of [b]freedom[/b] [/quote] [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] Lol, found the real quote and its even funnier. [quote] It's not the energy source of the past but this guy wants to make it that. Why? What in the world? This is petulance. It is classic, uninformed, incompetent left wing stupidity that oil is the great polluter of the world. I mean, oil, the free flow of oil at market prices, is the fuel of freedom. It's the fuel of the engine of freedom, for crying out loud, we got a guy now here undermining it. I don't care if he's doing it on purpose. [/quote] [url]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021511/content/01125107.guest.html[/url] Going to that site makes me cringe.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29224672]This reminds me of a Rush Limbaugh quote [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] Lol, found the real quote and its even funnier. [url]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021511/content/01125107.guest.html[/url] Going to that site makes me cringe.[/QUOTE] Holy jesus, I think I lost about 20 brain cells reading that last quote.

[QUOTE=Contag;29224330]Yes, I'm advocating increasing material wealth (and display thereof) in a post-scarcity society. :downs: Or perhaps I'm saying that individuality can be expressed through non-efficient means, such as designing your own clothing.[/quote] No one, not even the Venus society, is arguing that people don't show individuality through clothing. Straw [quote]Add cheap and name one?[/quote] First of all, no source of energy is cheap. Second of all: Electrochemical Fuel cells, Biofuel, solar energy, wind energy, tidal power, low-impact hydro, biomass gasification, as well as landfill gas wells. Shit even nuclear power is cleaner then fossil fuels. Is being cheap literally the only fucking thing that concerns you? [quote]Holy fucking shit. Money is not fake. It is an societal construction, specifically to represent value.[/quote] Value is something of worth for another. We pretend money has worth and then we attach it in varrying levels to things of actual worth. Then we make even more fake forms of currency, like credit.

He's partially right, in that oil has led to great freedom, much like coal (steam power), charcoal and wood before that. Of course he goes foaming-at-the-mouth nuts when he thinks that should be the power source of the present and future. Like all those other forms of power, it is utterly obsolete. That said, oil will be dominant in many industries for (foresee-ably) hundreds of years, but just burning the stuff like cavemen isn't a great idea. Bring on the fusion, baby! [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29225116] First of all, no source of energy is cheap. [/quote] Oil used to be absurdly cheap. It can be now, if Saudi Arabia turned the taps on full. [quote] Is being cheap literally the only fucking thing that concerns you? [/quote] The quality of being 'cheap', means that there are far less resources consumed per unit of energy. For everyone to have whatever they want, in this post-scarcity society, there needs to very little resources expended in the production of energy. [quote] Value is something of worth for another. We pretend money has worth and then we attach it in varrying levels to things of actual worth. [/QUOTE] Money has no innate worth, which is why it is merely a representation of value, not value itself. However, being universally recognized as a representation of value, it has real value to those who believe it is exchangeable for material worth. Which is everyone in a modern society. You cannot solve all the world's ailments by simply proclaiming that money doesn't exist because it is a human construction. To do that, it would be necessary to remove the key reason why money exists, which is the scarcity of resources. Correspondingly, in order to achieve such a goal (at with regard to material resources), there needs to be an abundance of cheap (in terms of resources consumed), relatively clean energy. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29225116]No one, not even the Venus society, is arguing that people don't show individuality through clothing.[/QUOTE] You were arguing that people choosing inefficient cars over efficient cars (to express themselves - in the case of the hummer, to express themselves as dickheads with small penises) is different in principle to people choosing inefficient modes of haircuts over efficient modes of haircuts.

Wars are expensive. End all wars now. Our military should be for national defense. Not for fighting several illegal regional wars. Cut the defense budget. It doesn't need to be that over bloated. Slowly end the social security program. Future generations of Americans will just have to tough it out when they retire.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;29225420]Wars are expensive. End all wars now. Our military should be for national defense. Not for fighting several illegal regional wars. Cut the defense budget. It doesn't need to be that over bloated. Slowly end the social security program. Future generations of Americans will just have to tough it out when they retire.[/QUOTE] Agree Agree Woah wasn't expecting that! Disagree. Where did that come from? Why shouldn't people who have worked all their lives be given a break at the end of their lives? [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] I mean, increase the retirement age, alright, but aim to cut it completely?

[QUOTE=Contag;29225476]Agree Agree Woah wasn't expecting that! Disagree. Where did that come from? Why shouldn't people who have worked all their lives be given a break at the end of their lives? [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] I mean, increase the retirement age, alright, but aim to cut it completely?[/QUOTE] Maybe it is extreme, but the social security represents a big portion of our budget. Also, social security is just a gargantuan ponzi scheme. Why should future generations have to pay for the retirement of older generations?

[QUOTE=cqbcat;29225633]Maybe it is extreme, but the social security represents a big portion of our budget.[/QUOTE] Maybe they could divert some social security to debt repayment, under the justification that there isn't going to be a country to retire in if American collapses under debt.

[QUOTE=Contag;29225695]under the justification that there isn't going to be a country to retire in if American collapses under debt.[/QUOTE] Well in a debt based monetary system, there is no possible way for us to get out of debt. To put it simply, there is 2.5 trillion dollars in circulation and we owe 14 trillion dollars. The amount of money in circulation is never going to be enough to pay off the total debt, especially considering that the Federal Reserve controls the money supply. The only entity that wins is the Federal Reserve, and they are especially the biggest winner in war. We win a war, they make a ton. We lose a war, they make a ton.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;29225633]Maybe it is extreme, but the social security represents a big portion of our budget. Also, social security is just a gargantuan ponzi scheme. Why should future generations have to pay for the retirement of older generations?[/QUOTE] So does the military budget. And the war on drugs. There are far more things to worry about then helping the disadvantaged economically. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] Because the older generations paid for the older generations as well as themselves. The taxes don't break as soon as you stop being young. Even then, you can ask the same question - why should younger generations pay to protect older generations well being. Why should Medicare be in place?

[QUOTE=amute;29240967] Because the older generations paid for the older generations as well as themselves. The taxes don't break as soon as you stop being young. [/QUOTE] Except it does break when the ratio of workers to pensioners changes substantially.

you don't stop paying taxes because of the ratio of workers and pensioners. What the hell are you talking about?

[QUOTE=cqbcat;29225633]Also, social security is just a gargantuan ponzi scheme. Why should future generations have to pay for the retirement of older generations?[/QUOTE] Is this trolling? I mean SS is broken- but given it's a certainty between price flux, inflation, and the unpredictable nature of health and death that not all people will be able to save enough for themselves to live above the poverty line after they retire, talking like that is just retarded. Unless you're being sarcastic. I'm not entirely sure.