How do you see the future?

[crimsonking]

I don't think we will last that long seeing as almost every country is against each other. We will have had a nuclear war by then that will take out the planet. If there are any humans left there would be very few.

[BlueLancer]

However there is one thing that you seem to be forgetting; changes in social thinking. You can see how different we think compared to when the church ruled, the thought that women are not equal was with us as little as a 100 years age (women could not vote) and even now we are in a ethical debate over human biology (when we should kill people, abortion, stem-cell research etc.) and realistically the next question would be how can we make all these new breakthroughs (cures for cancer, medicine, information technology etc.) available for everyone; when people realise that we can still make a living while sharing our breakthroughs in science then we will be closer then global happiness then ever before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern democracy is indeed a very new phenomenon in the world, as you said it's been around for only 100 years. Now let's think back in history... There is no such period where most people in the world would be able to choose their job, have equal rights and even a say in the running of the country. By the time the masses change their opinions about things, we'll be dead already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apart from you i do believe that every human being has a value, and the right to a decent life. Also, not all rich people are smart and hard working, are they? Some have only got lucky, inherited a fortune, won a lottery etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry indyfan, but I have to agree with this. I too got an inheritance 4 years ago, and it's more than most people would save up in three decades. Does that mean I deserve the rights/priviledges that capital brings me in the capitalist system? I'm not against capitalism (or for that matter, obviously, accepting an inheritance), I'm just pointing out a huge flaw in the system since you are discussing it this way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And corporations make up for the huge gap between people living below the poverty line and those spending millions every month in the casino: The bigger corporations grow, the less possible it will become for new people that are born into the world to start their own succesful business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those people will face a serious disappointment. In this case the "hard work will be rewarded" doesn't mean anything. How are you as a new entepreneur going to try to take a market share of something, when a rival company can easily spend $400 million on advertising and branding every month? Easy answer: You wont get there. Until something dramatic happens, the majority of the world's money will always stay with those companies and the familiesand executives that run them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might want to try it; If you want to be succesful by financial means, todays world is a pretty bad place for you. By working for a company for 20 years, most people wont even make $1 million. Then there are those who get $5 million as a birthday present, do you get what I mean? If you don't take huge risks or start investing, a capitalistic system offers nothing lucrative to the common man who wants to build a good life for himself and his family. That's why I too gave up on "normal" jobs a long time ago and started full time stock day trading.

[Bmw]

It's gotta be overpopulated for sure. Full of disease, with scientists confused and stumped. A terrible place to live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If not, a crater will hit the earth, "restarting" it all over again. We've already come quite far in technology.

[vmser]

I can't see the future yet. That's what makes it the future, I guess.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

 

 

String Theory sounds more like some special mathematics rather then a framework for physics (however I may be proved wrong) so don't expect a breakthrough to happen any time soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know what you mean. I think, however, that at that level it's all one and the same; after all, one used to go to university not to do physics, maths or anything like that, but philosophy, and it was all inclusive. String theory (not that I know anything about it, of course) is most definitely a physics thing, rather than a maths thing: I know that much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that the world will have changed rather little, compared to what others seem to have said. People have said that we are all going to kill each other in wars.... how many wars do you know of in which the entire population of one side was wiped out? I personally cannot name one, (though there probably have been one or two small scale ones). It practically never happens; we're not going to wipe the human race out like that. Besides which, these days war is becoming less and less destructive; more advanced weaponary does not necessarily mean more destructive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technology wise, I think that, though there will have been one or two major breakthroughs, nothing will have happened to make it unrecognisable--or too difficult to understand--to todays standards. I don't see electric cars of the sort we use today being continued, as it will become widely known the more processes one puts energy through, the less efficient that whole process is: where do they think the electricity for the cars comes from? It's from a powerstation: it's far more efficient, in the great scheme of things, to use the fossil fuels straight in the vehicle, rather than burning them at the power station and sending the electricity down the lines to the charging stations--a journey on which it has done work, thus losing energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medicine... I'm not sure how this is going to improve; I am, however, certain that will improve. I think that techniques based around genetic modification will become more widely accepted, and that this will improve the quality of life of most people, if only by a little bit. I also expect that nanotechnology will by then have advanced by leaps and bounds: after all, think how small precision stuff can be made nowadays, then think back to the level of technology they had 100 years back; why, they were still using great big clanking gears and cogs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOO! Good, got your attention: I know how boring I'm being, but bear with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I expect that inflation will continue as it is. This will of course have no effect on anything, other than things will sound like they cost a lot more; after all, it's not as if people will be less wealthy, in that they will still have the power they have, and the resources (including fossil fuels--I, you see, do not believe that they are going to run out all that quickly; prove me wrong, future). The fact that each coin/credit is worth this or that amount isn't important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One way of looking at things is this: has there ever been a really big change in anyones life, one that happened all at once and completely changed the world? Also, is today all that much different to yesterday (using day in the metaphorical sense, here)? No; it's a bit more advanced, but if you pop to your neighbour's house and ask for a cup of sugar, you can still get one--you can round here, anyway. So, it being established that nothing has changed that much, is it really likely that anything is going to change any quicker now? Obviously it might be a bit quicker, in that more knowledge often makes it easier to aquire yet more knowledge, but it's not going to be that much quicker. To those who say that we're going to run out of things to discover: that's silly. First of all (not that this is a particularly good argument, but: ) has it ever happened before? No. Secondly, exactly how many atoms is your chair comprised of? I bet you don't know; I know how many comprise mine, but that's because I'm special (a special child, if you will). The point I'm trying to make is that things like that, though you and I may not think them important, aren't yet known: as we don't know this, so we don't know everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there will have been draughts, famines, disease epidemics, you name it, it's going to happen. So what? It's happened before, and can happen again, for all I care (as long as it doesn't happen to someone I care about, of course). Big giant rocks hitting the Earth? Yeah, I guess, but I can't see it being a problem: something that big is not going to sneak up behind us and shout boo like I did earlier in the post. In the future (and quite possibly there is today) there will be the technology to avoid that sort of problem. The only reason that film--sorry, those films--about a big rock hitting the Earth were only interesting, and only so long because it took the thick people at NASA (the people at NASA are very clever in real life, don't get me wrong) so long to figure out the solution, which is invariably to blow the darn thing up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEGATSUNAMI!!!1!!. That's a buzzword, these days--even moreso now that that big tsunami occured. This one I can't think of a solutuion for, but I can't, somehow, see it as being as bad as they say. I'm not at all worried about it, even though in England one is never more than 75 miles/kilometres (I can't remember which) from the sea. It's about as scarey as global warming, which shall be the subject of my next rant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global warming is another thing that I don't agree with. I know it's happening, but I don't think it's happening for the reasons that they (the proverbial they) say it's happening for. As far as I'm concerned, if we can have ice ages, we can have periods of global warming--naturally occuring ones. All told, we're still coming out of an ice age, and it's quite reasonable for the world to get warmer. For those animals they say will die out? Tough, they should have thought of that before they evolved such specialist requirements for their breeding/food/whatever. Besides which, why can't we just take two of them and shove them in a box designed to replicate their natural habitat until the world cools down enough for them again? We do it already, to an extent, in zoos/animal sanctuaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I won't go into politics, because I don't presume to understand everything that goes on in the world of politics, hence am not qualified to comment. By that reasoning, my commenting on everything else in this post would require me to be the world authority on each subject.... pretend I didn't say any of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poverty? Yes. Lots of it, just like nowadays. Wars? Again yes. AIDS? AHA! No. This is the sort of thing that I can see being changed: if people make enough of an effort, AIDS, like rabies and smallpox, can be wiped out -- rabies in britain, at least: I don't know about other countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't see that robots will have taken over all our daily chores, but I do imagine that a lot of batch processes (ie making tea) will have been taken care of. Not that I'm pro tea makers; making tea is half the enjoyment. Cleaning 'bots? Perhaps, but I don't see the attraction: it's not really worthwhile. Maybe in the future they will have perfected the control systems, and maybe they will have made them run on near cost-free fuels, but in just 100 years? I don't really expect so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robot soldiers? No. Robot planes an tanks? Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't be bothered continuing, and I'm sure you don't want me to, anyway. Perhaps I shall go off and die somewhere. [/marvin]

[seangotgame]

the earth will get hit by an asteroide in 2034 and everyone will die. Thats my prediction.

[Forceape]

the earth will get hit by an asteroide in 2034 and everyone will die. Thats my prediction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your a Jolly old sole Arn't yah... :wink:

[indy500fan]

 

 

Because of the evil greedy selfcentred human nature capitalism will win. We will master the secrets of lfie and death and the ones who can afford it will live forever. As a larger number of people fall below the extreme poverty level the gap between rich and poor will keep growing. Soon we will live in an elitistic society with not much left of the humanitarian ideals of today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goodnight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you sound like one of those people were unsuccessful at life, and want people who were successful to give you their products of their work. i very much would like to "get rid" of everyone like you, ie. socialists. why should the smart, hard working, and successful give their products and wealth to the stupid and lazy people? ill stick to capitalism, where you get what you pay for, and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, not all rich people are smart and hard working, are they? Some have only got lucky, inherited a fortune, won a lottery etc. Most have got expensive educations, payed by the state (the WORKING taxpayers money). Then they would rather make a lot of money and not contribute, give anything back to the community that created their wealth to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are just another example that confirms what i first wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what did they get lucky with? and how? maybe they invested in a get rich quick thing, and lucked out. i call that smart. inheritance? if some one gets an inheritance that they didnt earn at all, and are stupid and lazy, they are just going to squander it away anyways. but that doesnt change anything, the person who gave the recipient the money would have to earn it, and they have a right to do whatever they want with their money. and if you knew what capitalism was (america is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world, but it is by no means capitalist) you would know that there would be NO FREE EDUCATION. those people would have to pay for the education themselves. no more FAFSA, sorry freeloaders! so they would not have to give anything back to their community, because the community didnt give anything to them.

[pedm]

Yes, unless we are lucky, Nukes (and worse) will be the end of us all. Also, people need more religion. Science deals with being able to do things, religion is the morals of being able to accept the resposibility caused by the new science. Unfortunatley, we are lacking of religon and can't deal with the new power; George Bush's "supper power" approach... tell them what you want and if they don't do it attack. People these days are too quick to fight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDM

[logic-is-overrated]

I believe in the rapture of the church, so that's how I think I'm going.

[marpit59]

Theres alot of talk about overpopulation. Copying the Chinese sysetem of the 1 child policy, should something similar to this be introduced worldwide? I resently covered a unit in Geogrpahy centering on population and population control. It is obvious something needs to be done and this type of control is proven to work. Even possiably a 2 child limit would be fine. When the parents die the children replace them in terms of population numbers. While it sounds cold and harsh this type of plan is an effective one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of energy for the future renewable sources are the most practical option. Wind, solar, tidal, water and theromonuclear are all option which are enviro friendly and supply ample amount of energy. In 1999 (i think it was a 1999 report, can't find it at the moment) wind power was considered to be as cheap and as effective to set up and maintain as any other conventional power source. A combination of these renewable power sources will easily solve any power issues we have in the future

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is all ashuming we don't blow each other up of corse

[BlueLancer]

NO FREE EDUCATION. those people would have to pay for the education themselves. no more FAFSA, sorry freeloaders! so they would not have to give anything back to their community, because the community didnt give anything to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How are poor families going to support their children getting educated if they can't afford it? Scandinavia already realized this (This would include Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden) and they have free schooling all the way from elementary school to college and university.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These countries also have the least poverty and corruption of all countries in the world, least crime and most powerful social security network, I don't agree with you that education should be paid for at all in any society. A lack of education can often lead to the children making bad choices with their lives, and if they can't afford college, they'll be in trouble (yes there will be always some very smart kids who will find a way but I'm talking about the masses who need guidance)

[Death_By_Pod]

 

However there is one thing that you seem to be forgetting; changes in social thinking. You can see how different we think compared to when the church ruled, the thought that women are not equal was with us as little as a 100 years age (women could not vote) and even now we are in a ethical debate over human biology (when we should kill people, abortion, stem-cell research etc.) and realistically the next question would be how can we make all these new breakthroughs (cures for cancer, medicine, information technology etc.) available for everyone; when people realise that we can still make a living while sharing our breakthroughs in science then we will be closer then global happiness then ever before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern democracy is indeed a very new phenomenon in the world, as you said it's been around for only 100 years. Now let's think back in history... There is no such period where most people in the world would be able to choose their job, have equal rights and even a say in the running of the country. By the time the masses change their opinions about things, we'll be dead already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you thought of the possibility that it will be possible for you to live longer to see the future happen; medicine in the last 100 years has picked up from almost non existent to some really advanced work done on transplantation an synthesis of new body part's based on the person. I don't think living to at least 200 is far fetched.

[007007008plp]

In the year 2630 the earth will be invaded by the daleks. They will come down in there thousands...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol sorry....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due to global warming and pollution and the useage of fossil fuels...the human race wont last much longer unless we cut down destroying th earth. Personaly i think the human race wont last until the year 2800.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

However there is one thing that you seem to be forgetting; changes in social thinking. You can see how different we think compared to when the church ruled, the thought that women are not equal was with us as little as a 100 years age (women could not vote) and even now we are in a ethical debate over human biology (when we should kill people, abortion, stem-cell research etc.) and realistically the next question would be how can we make all these new breakthroughs (cures for cancer, medicine, information technology etc.) available for everyone; when people realise that we can still make a living while sharing our breakthroughs in science then we will be closer then global happiness then ever before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern democracy is indeed a very new phenomenon in the world, as you said it's been around for only 100 years. Now let's think back in history... There is no such period where most people in the world would be able to choose their job, have equal rights and even a say in the running of the country. By the time the masses change their opinions about things, we'll be dead already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you thought of the possibility that it will be possible for you to live longer to see the future happen; medicine in the last 100 years has picked up from almost non existent to some really advanced work done on transplantation an synthesis of new body part's based on the person. I don't think living to at least 200 is far fetched.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah but by the time that happens we could be very old already, and it wouldn't be much fun living 100 years as an old man who can barely walk and watch all the kids who got a life of 200 years run in the fields and whatnot :P I strongly believe that cell aging can be slowed down or almost stopped, but the current generation wont be the one reaping the fruits of that medicine. It'll be the generation after us. (But then again, aging doesn't necessarily mean bad health. One of my uncles is 65 and he is probably just as healthy as me and he looks like he's about 45 yrs old)

[bs_johannes]

 

 

 

Because of the evil greedy selfcentred human nature capitalism will win. We will master the secrets of lfie and death and the ones who can afford it will live forever. As a larger number of people fall below the extreme poverty level the gap between rich and poor will keep growing. Soon we will live in an elitistic society with not much left of the humanitarian ideals of today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goodnight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you sound like one of those people were unsuccessful at life, and want people who were successful to give you their products of their work. i very much would like to "get rid" of everyone like you, ie. socialists. why should the smart, hard working, and successful give their products and wealth to the stupid and lazy people? ill stick to capitalism, where you get what you pay for, and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, not all rich people are smart and hard working, are they? Some have only got lucky, inherited a fortune, won a lottery etc. Most have got expensive educations, payed by the state (the WORKING taxpayers money). Then they would rather make a lot of money and not contribute, give anything back to the community that created their wealth to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are just another example that confirms what i first wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what did they get lucky with? and how? maybe they invested in a get rich quick thing, and lucked out. i call that smart. inheritance? if some one gets an inheritance that they didnt earn at all, and are stupid and lazy, they are just going to squander it away anyways. but that doesnt change anything, the person who gave the recipient the money would have to earn it, and they have a right to do whatever they want with their money. and if you knew what capitalism was (america is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world, but it is by no means capitalist) you would know that there would be NO FREE EDUCATION. those people would have to pay for the education themselves. no more FAFSA, sorry freeloaders! so they would not have to give anything back to their community, because the community didnt give anything to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not being able to afford an education because you are born into a poor family then? How's that fair? The point is, with a capitalist society you cannot say that all human beings are valued equal. The poor ones will never be able to climb up to the rich mans level, the rich mans kids will have all the opportunities. Go go jolly old capitalism. By by humanism and equality!

[indy500fan]

 

 

 

 

Because of the evil greedy selfcentred human nature capitalism will win. We will master the secrets of lfie and death and the ones who can afford it will live forever. As a larger number of people fall below the extreme poverty level the gap between rich and poor will keep growing. Soon we will live in an elitistic society with not much left of the humanitarian ideals of today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goodnight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you sound like one of those people were unsuccessful at life, and want people who were successful to give you their products of their work. i very much would like to "get rid" of everyone like you, ie. socialists. why should the smart, hard working, and successful give their products and wealth to the stupid and lazy people? ill stick to capitalism, where you get what you pay for, and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, not all rich people are smart and hard working, are they? Some have only got lucky, inherited a fortune, won a lottery etc. Most have got expensive educations, payed by the state (the WORKING taxpayers money). Then they would rather make a lot of money and not contribute, give anything back to the community that created their wealth to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are just another example that confirms what i first wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what did they get lucky with? and how? maybe they invested in a get rich quick thing, and lucked out. i call that smart. inheritance? if some one gets an inheritance that they didnt earn at all, and are stupid and lazy, they are just going to squander it away anyways. but that doesnt change anything, the person who gave the recipient the money would have to earn it, and they have a right to do whatever they want with their money. and if you knew what capitalism was (america is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world, but it is by no means capitalist) you would know that there would be NO FREE EDUCATION. those people would have to pay for the education themselves. no more FAFSA, sorry freeloaders! so they would not have to give anything back to their community, because the community didnt give anything to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not being able to afford an education because you are born into a poor family then? How's that fair? The point is, with a capitalist society you cannot say that all human beings are valued equal. The poor ones will never be able to climb up to the rich mans level, the rich mans kids will have all the opportunities. Go go jolly old capitalism. By by humanism and equality!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL. some are smarter, some are stronger. if the poor people are smarter than someone who is rich, the poor person would get the job. humanism and equality are not on the list of important things in a capitalist society. survival of the fittest is more like it.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL. some are smarter, some are stronger. if the poor people are smarter than someone who is rich, the poor person would get the job. humanism and equality are not on the list of important things in a capitalist society. survival of the fittest is more like it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually studies have shown human gene's have an equal effect as the environment so if you nurture a two people in a similar environment they will respond to the environment with similar effects.

 

 

 

I.e. Take identical twins and place them in separate homes and they will adopt different mannerisms or adopt a child and they will pick up the new families mannerisms; pretty simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So given equal opportunity most people will turn out to be quite similar in nature; of course if you have a child in a redneck family who do care about education and focus on getting them out as quickly as possible then they will turn out slower then others; on the other hand if you are well of and have a child who is spoilt then they will grow up relying on you and for the most of time when they are still adults.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you give equal access to everything (money, education, infrastructure and supportive/good parents) then you will notice that a large majority of the bad people will disappear; where I live most of the bad people live out west and that is due to (economics, lack of infrastructure and parents who just don't care) and are quite different to kids living on the north shore (mum and dad will send you through university and they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have to worry about money or not getting what they want).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flow down effect does not work therefore capitalism does not work as an equitable social framework and that is a big problem wether you like it or not. I bet you are saying this because you are middle-upper class, white and are living in one of those planned neighbourhoods where the aim is too keep the 'bad' people out; look at the situation from another personÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s point of view and you will quickly see why the system as it stands fails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ohh and God would cry at the thought that all people are not equal so dwell on that fact considering (I'm assuming your American) your living in a predominantly Christian society.

[indy500fan]

 

 

 

 

HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL. some are smarter, some are stronger. if the poor people are smarter than someone who is rich, the poor person would get the job. humanism and equality are not on the list of important things in a capitalist society. survival of the fittest is more like it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually studies have shown human gene's have an equal effect as the environment so if you nurture a two people in a similar environment they will respond to the environment with similar effects.

 

 

 

I.e. Take identical twins and place them in separate homes and they will adopt different mannerisms or adopt a child and they will pick up the new families mannerisms; pretty simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So given equal opportunity most people will turn out to be quite similar in nature; of course if you have a child in a redneck family who do care about education and focus on getting them out as quickly as possible then they will turn out slower then others; on the other hand if you are well of and have a child who is spoilt then they will grow up relying on you and for the most of time when they are still adults.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you give equal access to everything (money, education, infrastructure and supportive/good parents) then you will notice that a large majority of the bad people will disappear; where I live most of the bad people live out west and that is due to (economics, lack of infrastructure and parents who just don't care) and are quite different to kids living on the north shore (mum and dad will send you through university and they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have to worry about money or not getting what they want).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flow down effect does not work therefore capitalism does not work as an equitable social framework and that is a big problem wether you like it or not. I bet you are saying this because you are middle-upper class, white and are living in one of those planned neighbourhoods where the aim is too keep the 'bad' people out; look at the situation from another personÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s point of view and you will quickly see why the system as it stands fails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ohh and God would cry at the thought that all people are not equal so dwell on that fact considering (I'm assuming your American) your living in a predominantly Christian society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

einstein was kicked out of school for not getting good enough grades, and he turned out pretty smart, right? so by what you are saying, to become as smart as einstein, i need to drop out of school right away? sorry, people are just NOT EQUAL. and im not middle-upper class, i would best be described as a "redneck" i suppose, but just because everyone around here, and my family, are rednecks, doesnt make me a "redneck". i was brought up under redneck conditions, and i didnt turn out to be one. i am going off to college for civil engineering, not a normal redneck occupation. i have to pay for all my college too, no parents helping out here. all i can see when i look at it from a lower classes point of view is: "should i work? nah, ill just let other people pay for me to live"

[dsp]

the sun will grow twice as big burn up mars and almost burn earth but the launch a sattlelight with solar plates and get unlimited power but earth is still hot so its like hell......BUT FREE ENERGY WOOT LEAVE UR COMPS ON 24/7 WOOT!

[bs_johannes]

Indy, you are way out of it.. Just because you posses a strong will like einstein doesent mean you will automatically succeed. 80% of the worlds population lives on less then 2 dollars a day. Do you think they will be able to climb out of that hole and get education just because they want to? I bet most of them are born stronger and smarter then you are, but they will stay down that hole because they are not born in a rich family/they wont get any support from the government and other people.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

einstein was kicked out of school for not getting good enough grades, and he turned out pretty smart, right? so by what you are saying, to become as smart as einstein, i need to drop out of school right away? sorry, people are just NOT EQUAL. and im not middle-upper class, i would best be described as a "redneck" i suppose, but just because everyone around here, and my family, are rednecks, doesnt make me a "redneck". i was brought up under redneck conditions, and i didnt turn out to be one. i am going off to college for civil engineering, not a normal redneck occupation. i have to pay for all my college too, no parents helping out here. all i can see when i look at it from a lower classes point of view is: "should i work? nah, ill just let other people pay for me to live"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually he was determined, something a lot of kids are missing these day's, they are thrown in a world where no one cares leaving them aimless; that and the fact Einstein had a deformed brain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think that you got to university mean's that you beat the poverty cycle (just because you were brought up by red necks doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t automatically make you one, however if they treated you like one then it could not have helped); engineering? There are quite a few engineering courses where IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ am it's not exactly difficult to get into. Going to a university is half the battle to getting a decent income you need a fair bit of luck to get picked up by a good company that are willing to pay a little more for quality staff and hope they hit it big in order for you to get treated better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even then you have still lost as the rich get richer by reinvesting their earnings; it's exponential (basically the longer you re invest the easier it gets, something that defies logic; almost seems like something comes from nothing after a while) the more you put in the more you get back like a run away train; that is something that should never be allowed.

[BlueLancer]

Even then you have still lost as the rich get richer by reinvesting their earnings; it's exponential (basically the longer you re invest the easier it gets, something that defies logic; almost seems like something comes from nothing after a while) the more you put in the more you get back like a run away train; that is something that should never be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really agree with that, as my living pretty much relies on investing. Yes, it's true that the more you invest, the greater the return will become. But why should it not be allowed? I used to invest in pretty standard companies, I (indirectly) created a few jobs to a few people. I don't see how that's bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you mean the fact that it's "sinful" to live on investing, I disagree with that too. I took risks nearly nobody would take with their money. Should I be punished for that? Many of my relatives thought I was doing bad choices early in my life, now it turns out my bank interest in 3 to 4 years will make more than they'll make in a decade (after deducting taxes living expenses etc.), I think that's a good lesson for them: Don't judge people for what they do, but why they do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The truth is: You'll never be "free" from the endless cycle of living from paycheck to another unless you get to be one of the 5000 well-earning CEO's in America or you start doing something useful with your money, like investing. My dream was that I could improve myself physically and mentally, have fun, travel, be with my friends and sometime later, provide a good environment for a child. I've almost achieved it. But I wouldn't had, if I'd chosen the "normal" way of working for a few thousand a month, just "getting by".

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I don't really agree with that, as my living pretty much relies on investing. Yes, it's true that the more you invest, the greater the return will become. But why should it not be allowed? I used to invest in pretty standard companies, I (indirectly) created a few jobs to a few people. I don't see how that's bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you mean the fact that it's "sinful" to live on investing, I disagree with that too. I took risks nearly nobody would take with their money. Should I be punished for that? Many of my relatives thought I was doing bad choices early in my life, now it turns out my bank interest in 3 to 4 years will make more than they'll make in a decade (after deducting taxes living expenses etc.), I think that's a good lesson for them: Don't judge people for what they do, but why they do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The truth is: You'll never be "free" from the endless cycle of living from paycheck to another unless you get to be one of the 5000 well-earning CEO's in America or you start doing something useful with your money, like investing. My dream was that I could improve myself physically and mentally, travel, be with my friends and sometime later, provide a good environment for a child. I've almost achieved it. But I wouldn't had, if I'd chosen the "normal" way of working for a few thousand a month, just "getting by".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should it be disallowed? Because money does not come from nowhere, some people consider investing pretty black box; money in more money out but that money has to come from somewhere and most likely it is coming from the poor which your nation is struggling to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe it's because I have a socialist aspect to my living but also the belief that people should 'work' for their money, but this is not the case with investment as it get's easier over time (risk is greater spread with the more money you have). I think a return on investment over time graph should look linear rather then exponential (slugging the person more and more tax to benefit the poor they are 'stealing' from; in effect helping provide equality to all. But then again this is coming from a country that does not have 'free' health care).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just don't see why people think capitalism works when in fact a form of utilitarianism would be more effective (working to help each other would produce more synergy and as a result more stuff then any capitalist society could); the skimming of trillions of dollar's from economy only to be placed in the 'corporations' bank to add another zero to the balance to help the beyond rich is a waste of time and could be used to pretty much give everyone a good life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think its a sin to earn from investing however the 'rewards' from associated risks are heavily outweighed; I could open a dozen food franchises and be set for life or buy undervalued floats that will rise as soon as they hit the markets (google for example, a pity I could of never attained a loan for such a venture. With all the hype going on you could have easily on the very worst of levels got a few dollars back per share but in this case the jump was insane) but why just do stuff you don't like in order to gain something which becomes meaningless when you die. My thinking is that the rewards (due to the huge profits and the lowering of quality of life for others) should not be as big as their associated risks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I think I can get a pretty good life the way IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ am planning (a researcher, in physics of all places) sure I won't have millions of dollars but I should in theory have a home and be able to afford to have some electric gadgets (and who even knows I may even fulfil one of my long term dreams of building a small sound studio to make noise). I just don't see why people with 7-8 zero portfolioÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s can just let it accrue and not think about where it is coming from and how it can be better used to help society as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The big difference is in opinion between you and me is our views of social framework; you have a pretty contemporary view (capitalism) and I have a futuristic view (utilitarianism). I may be stubborn about it but I do really think that making the greatest number of people happy should come before the happiness and wealth of one person and very few people could genuinely deny this statement.

[BlueLancer]

You have a good idea at the core, but you keep repeating that the money comes from a "black box". A company operates by getting money from it's customers. So how does the company get customers? It hires staff, builds stores, and so on. But how do they get the money for that if they don't have enough capital? They list it in the stock exchange, and at the IPO multiple thousands of investors will be loaning their money to the company in hopes of getting a good return on investment (such as in the case of google, I'm still regretting I was over-skeptical about it but I made $7k off their IPO nonetheless with 70 of my shares springing up over 2x in value in just a day).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When an investor loans money to a company, it creates a salary for somebody, the money is binded to the bricks of the building. If this company would've never been created, it would mean 3000 more unemployed people in the world. And what's the purpose of the company? The owner obviously created it to satisfy his dreams, which may or may not be material. And he hired staff to do work he doesn't have time to do himself/doesn't bother to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without capital flowing in a business, starting one is nearly impossible in big-scale. So why would anybody loan money to a business? Well, the company gives them dividends up to $2 a year per stock, and the harder the staff works, the better results the company gets and the more rewards the investors gets (his shares increase in value).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a world of logicical world where laws of logic apply (i.e Earth), it's impossible to have only linear, not exponential, returns on a "loan" (investment).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think caveman logic: You have 5000 fish. You want to build a mine where people will mine ores for you, and in return, they get to stay alive by eating fish. And with that ore, you trade it with other cavemen and get even more fish. But when you run out of fish by buying pickaxes and other supplies, how are you going to convince the other cavemen into loaning you more fish?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You promise them that if they give you 5 fishes today, 1 month later you will give them 7 to 10 fishes depending on how good the ore business has been running. How do you generate these fishes to pay those people that lent you fish? You take the ore your "staff" mined you, trade it at a profit with other cavemen for fish, pay the debtors, and in the end, you just profited, let's say, 3 fishes per ore. You got them for free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While other cavemen used their fish for dinners, buying fancy stuff they didn't need, you generated a plan to get theoretically unlimited fish for life, and eventually you will have more fish than anybody in the village and thus you have power over all of them. When you need an annoying person killed, just tell a group of people "you'll all get golden medalions if you go and massacre these guys", and they'll do it. And you'll have no problem supplying those medalions since you have all the fish you'll ever need to buy it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't stop the fact that everything should grow exponentially. Let's say you doubled $1 for 12 years. Calculate that: It amounts to about $40,000 dollars. There's no way it could just grow by 1, 2 or 4 dollars. If it doubles and you have a plan to double it, it will. That's the cold truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people will always play by the rules of greed, and even if you don't agree with their rules (I don't believe in greed), you need to play in the same league to keep up with them, or else they will hold enough power to influence society and it's way of living, even the government.