if humans were really an intelligent species...

[neroblack]

So who do you work for? What bank/corporation do you have to line the pockets of first before you can provide for you and your family and what the phuq do they do for you and the future of children?

I work for a privately owned company, and I get paid based on how hard I work (which Bigfooty undermines at times.....).

 

[Mofra]

That's a bit of a cynical conspiracy theory.

Any company / indiviual that discovered this would make squillions out of it, so why would they hide it?

They would patent it then restrict access to it to drive up profit margins - it's a common practice that even Joseph Stiglitz, former cheif economist at the World Bank, has repeatedly criticised. The relatively recent breakthrough in mammogram technology in the US is a perfect example.

Most R&D spending is for diseases only 10% of the population have anyway (pro-Northern) - and roughly 90% of medical R&D is for vanity products - noting of course that drug companies spend for more on marketing then on R&D.

Ths is before we consider the proliferation of 'me too' drugs in the US, where slight changes to existing breakthroughs are discovered, patented, and then huge marketing campaigns launched to compete with the existing drug.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I'm putting my conspiracy hat on right now but....

I'm sure they've found a way to efficiently operate cars/homes without fossil fuel by now. I believe large companies are holding the technology back from the masses on the back of profit.

In regards to health care. Logically thinking we'd be better off not finding a cure for cancer. The world would be filled with people who can't fend for themselves in nursing homes and there is already an over population problem.

That isnt a conspiracy theory, its pretty obvious that other energy sources were/are discovered a long time ago. But our society, due to our lack of internal care, values power/profit above everything.

Its time to smash up the joint for a while. Trying to change a stuffed system is a waste of time, let's just break the whole thing and rebuild in a new way.

The powerful are making bucket loads off fossil fuels, the US structure their foreign policy around securing oil. If we HAD TO come up with new technology we would have done so already. But if we develop other forms of energy fossil fuels quickly lose their value. In order to protect their position, those with power must avoid it for as long as possible, otherwise oil ceases to remain a source of wealth/power and every country will be able to produce their own energy.

6 major corporations own 96% of the world's media. You watch, the internet is next people. Right now the internet is basically free (apart from paying your ISP for access). You wait until the major corporations buy up all the companies and content becomes controlled.

China restrict access, Australia were trying to implement some sort of filter. I don't know what other countries are doing, but there will come a time when the freedom we have at the moment will be a distant memory. The internet will become a mere extension of our personality rather than a separate world we can access anonymously.

Right now we have too much freedom to access the content we want, the powers don't want that. They want to be able to manipulate us and push agendas through scheduled programming like they do with tv.

Get your tin foil hats people

 

[Hot Pocket]

You're not wrong mate, unfortunately.

But the more they deny the access to alternative thought on the internet, the easier it will be for extremists/terrorists like myself to influence people IRL. Its too easy to fall into the trap of slacktivism, and once even that isn't possible, people will be hitting the streets in droves in developed countries.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Don't patents regarding medication only last a certain period? at which point the generic manufacturers can create their own versions?

Looked it up, may vary in different countries but in the US Patents expire 20 years from the date of filing. Many other factors can affect the duration of a patent.

There's patents and exclusivity. A company can have exclusive marketing rights for up to 7 years, and can hold a patent for up to 20.

So like I said, if the major pharmaceutical companies create a cure, they stand to make money for say 3 - 7 years, at which point the rest of the market can jump in and undercut them. Or they can create medication to treat the condition, and then after 7 years have a fresh new product to "treat" the condition.

It all comes down to laws and profit, companies base their decisions on how long the laws will allow them to make money, that's all they're interested in.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

You're not wrong mate, unfortunately.

But the more they deny the access to alternative thought on the internet, the easier it will be for extremists/terrorists like myself to influence people IRL. Its too easy to fall into the trap of slacktivism, and once even that isn't possible, people will be hitting the streets in droves in developed countries.

It's not that obvious though, people won't even know it's happening.

Look at facebook for instance, they've got people locked in. They can pretty much do whatever they want, until something better comes along (which may not happen for a while).

For instance, I was trying to send a file through Hotmail. They didn't let me send it because it was too large, and recommended I use skydrive. I refuse to sign up for a skydrive account (I don't even know, or haven't bothered to find out what the process is, I just don't want to). So now, I've got an email account, but Microsoft want me to set up another account, and another account, and if I don't want to set up that new account my access to the internet will be restricted (ie I won't be able to send my friend a file).

So once the large media companies have done buying out all the small internet entrepreneurs they will funnel all of their customers into certain ways of using the internet, limiting our use.

Now we have facebook, who's gonna go back to using mIRC? With the budgets these large companies have it's going to become increasingly harder to produce the next big thing.

 

[Hot Pocket]

True, that's the erm, "free" market at work though.

They'll push too hard eventually though, there is always a tipping point.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

True, that's the erm, "free" market at work though.

They'll push too hard eventually though, there is always a tipping point.

I think at this point in history, the balance of power has shifted to the people (in terms of access to information).

Internet access has allowed pockets of people who share similar views to locate eachother and communicate.

The internet (IMO) has helped create terrorism (not that I agree or condone it). It's the product of the society/world people live in. The internet has allowed people from all over the world to unite, whether it be to talk about footy, or talk about fighting against power/regimes/government etc.

From a governance point of view, the internet is a pretty scary place. It could help create a monster, whether it's for good eg overthrowing a corrupt government, or evil eg killing innocent people in a terrorist attack. It's in the best interests of the governments of the world, and the powers of the world to restrict the internet. Look at wikileaks as a prime example of things that can go wrong for governments. But right now I think people are becoming enlightened about propaganda and mind control through the media etc.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

double

 

[Papa Juggs]

You can have liberty without capitalism. People just don't realise it.

America putting a man on the Moon was the most socialist thing they've ever done.

The tax rate was astronomically high so they spent the money doing something really cool for the people and by the people for the goodwill of all mankind.

Now instead of coughing up the $50-100 billion it would take the boffins at NASA to put a man on Mars they choose to prop up wall street banks that loan fiat currency around the world making everybody debt slaves to the U.S. Fed reserve.

JFK's socialist vision of putting a man on the Moon was achieved, his other goal of ending secret societies got him a bullet through the head

 

[little graham]

The internet (IMO) has helped create terrorism.

Tell me more bout this thing you call terrorism. when we can agree on what it is we can maybe then get to the bit about how the internet has helped create it..

America putting a man on the Moon was the most socialist thing they've ever done.

The tax rate was astronomically high so they spent the money doing something really cool for the people and by the people for the goodwill of all mankind.

LMFAO..

It was propaganda against the soviets, you know the kings of socialism. It was part of the cold war, a war against socialism.A war that included Vietnam, where it was the poor who took the brunt of it. They spent all this money and time while neglecting the human rights dignity and poverty of the African americans,Hispanics,Asians and Indians ETC ETC.

You make me want to vomit.

 

[Papa Juggs]

It was propaganda against the soviets, you know the kings of socialism. It was part of the cold war, a war against socialism.A war that included Vietnam, where it was the poor who took the brunt of it. They spent all this money and time while neglecting the human rights dignity and poverty of the African americans,Hispanics,Asians and Indians ETC ETC.

You make me want to vomit.

They were getting out socialism'd (made up word) so they had to devote government resources towards serious scientific and technological achievement.

USSR crumbled, they stopped caring lowered taxes let the rich take over and form a plutocracy (not a made up word).

The time will come when they get outdone by China. Who knows what they will do then to prove their superiority.

 

[Hot Pocket]

They were getting out socialism'd (made up word) so they had to devote government resources towards serious scientific and technological achievement.

USSR crumbled, they stopped caring lowered taxes let the rich take over and form a plutocracy (not a made up word).

The time will come when they get outdone by China. Who knows what they will do then to prove their superiority.

Bingo. America's history of one of the super rich dominating a vast and wealthy landmass populated by religious fundamentalists. They are simply reverting to what they've always been: a violent, uneducated playground for the powerful.

Luckily Australia's history is different. We were a nation built by slave labour (mostly from Ireland but with significant contributions from Afghans and Chinese) until the workers united and forced their rich masters to pony up some decent conditions, wages and standard of living. This grew into a true labour based egalitarian movement with strong nationalist tendencies/rhetoric resulting in the democratic socialist system we had right up til the Howard years (most of it is in tact in some form, but many of the key elements have been sold off, dismantled or otherwise exploited).

Our elite have never forgotten the betrayal by us serfs, and they are using the American model to try and re-establish our nation as a slave colony ("convict" is the biggest misnomer in our national vernacular - what crime is fairly punishable by a life of slavery?).

But the way we fight back is vastly different to America. American response to economic calamity is to arm themselves and grab hold of their revolutionary spirit, but likely to be misappropriated by the rich who run their country and most of the world.

Australians will fight as a popular movement as soon as things get too bad for the 'average bloke'. WE won't do it with violence, we'll just put feet on the pavement and take it back via our proud trade unions who built this country and all the things we take for granted in it.

 

[Caesar]

Stiglitz and other socialists live in fairyland.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Fairyland sounds a fair bit nicer than the USA poverty belt. Gotta admit that.

 

[Caesar]

Assuming you are not too fussed about freedom and individualism and all that stuff, socialism is a lovely idea. It just ignores the fact that, outside small social groups, humans are wired to compete.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Assuming you are not too fussed about freedom and individualism and all that stuff, socialism is a lovely idea. It just ignores the fact that, outside small social groups, humans are wired to compete.

Wired to compete huh? Got any evidence of that?

We lived communally in most parts of the world for a very long time. Capitalism requires competition, and I guess supporting that failed ideology is easier when you pretend its part of human nature.

 

[Hot Pocket]

And I don't think anyone really advocates outright state controlled planned economies in Australia. We tend to agree that there should be a market for competition between businesses.

What "Socialists" are actually arguing for is making those markets fairer on small businesses, particularly locally based ones. Having the rich pay their fair share of taxes, and improving the social safety net and working conditions for all Australians with the proceeds. And increased legislation to enrhine our rights to things like privacy, whistleblowing and free speech. You know, all that human rights jazz.

Fairyland sounds pretty awesome. We could really just call it a truly egalitarian system that incorporates the intelligent parts of market economics with the intelligent parts of socialism, if we want to be factually accurate that is.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Even billionaires are admitting the jig is up, and hard work/capitalism/competition didn't cause the obscene wealth in the world. Just wave after wave of cheap credit that lessened the power and living standards of the western world's workers.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...idiculously-rich/story-fnihpjrg-1226751435201

 

[Caesar]

Wired to compete huh? Got any evidence of that?

There have been a lot of studies done around stuff like Dunbar's Number that suggest it's not really cognitively feasible for humans to effectively maintain cooperative relationships with each other beyond a relatively small group. When the group gets too large, interpersonal relationships and empathy break down and you need laws, coercion, etc. to get people to live together cohesively / harmoniously. The reason being that in bigger groups, the needs of individuals (and those within their own 'circles') take precedence over everybody else - hence competition.

When you start placing the large amounts of power required to artificially maintain a socialised, cooperative economy in the hands of the state, you have a very dangerous mix. Which is why we have stuff like Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy.

We lived communally in most parts of the world for a very long time.

In small numbers. And those small groups usually, on some level, competed when forced into proximity to each other.

Competition is a function of many individuals and scarce resources, and in the modern globalised world both those problems are growing exponentially.

 

[Caesar]

What "Socialists" are actually arguing for is making those markets fairer on small businesses, particularly locally based ones. Having the rich pay their fair share of taxes, and improving the social safety net and working conditions for all Australians with the proceeds. And increased legislation to enrhine our rights to things like privacy, whistleblowing and free speech. You know, all that human rights jazz.

That's cool. And I doubt you would find too many people across the mainstream Australian political spectrum who would disagree with too much of that in principle, socialists or otherwise.

Differences basically come down to what various people believe is fair and realistically achievable in each of those areas, bearing in mind we live in a globalised world.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Yes sounds like we have some common ground there. I'm in favour of drastically reducing the human population.

Shit I was at a museum today that said only 8,000 years ago there were about 1,000 homo sapiens on the planet. We are at plague levels at this point, yet we're focused on the wrongest of things.

 

[stralia]

Yes sounds like we have some common ground there. I'm in favour of drastically reducing the human population.

Shit I was at a museum today that said only 8,000 years ago there were about 1,000 homo sapiens on the planet. We are at plague levels at this point, yet we're focused on the wrongest of things.

u wot m8?

 

[Hot Pocket]

u wot m8?

Yeah sounded wrong I thought, cause aborigines even made it to Australia 40k years ago. Unless there were like, 5 aborigines?

 

[stralia]

Yeah sounded wrong I thought, cause aborigines even made it to Australia 40k years ago. Unless there were like, 5 aborigines?

Which museum?

I think estimations of global population at that time range from 5 to 20 million.