Scientific American Calls For World Government

[cheapseats]

I made it very clear I was using "greed" in the sense as understood by Ayn Rand (i.e., not avarice but greed). Here is an OK explanation:


In the 7-deadly sins context, greed and avarice are the same. In Ayn Rand's context, they are different. I defined my context clearly and you elected to omit this.

You will believe as you will believe but, for what it's worth, you were NOT so clear as you imagine. I did NOT deliberately omit your qualified definition. Had I noticed it (it was hard news for me, too, to realize not everyone reads everything I write), I would have called you out on it.

Greed and Avarice are indeed synonyms. "In Ayn Rand's context" holds zero sway with me. I not only disregard idiosyncratic definitions, I dismiss the people who assert them.

Also, the notion of sin - espcially original sin - is a pre-emption on the rights of people.

Free Will DOES imply freedom to sin, but yer mixin' Church and State with "preemption of rights".

The seven deadly sins are about control . . . The 7-deadly sins came from authoritarians that had control and lost the memory of slavery.

I disagree.

I'll grant that Authoritarians self-interestedly disparage/regulate/control Wrath and Envy (and Pride, selectively). But they PROMOTE Greed, Lust and Gluttony (and Pride, selectively).

I am not in this thread to argue about whether Greed is good or bad -- I know damn well that Greed is bad -- nor to derail discussion about interplanetary travel/settlement (tho I think ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is a more pressing issue).

I maintain that Greed WILL be an issue in the General Election, and I STRONGLY suggest that positing that there is a RIGHT KIND OF GREED will go over even WORSE than trying to explain who are the GOOD Republicans and who are the BAD Republicans.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I would volunteer in a heartbeat. Right now, spaceflight is too expensive. The only way that SpaceX is hoping to turn a profit or even break even is to get a multi-billion dollar contract from NASA.

So why not wait until it becomes less expensive rather than throwing stolen money at this grandiose fantasy when we're bankrupt?

 

[Phil]

So why not wait until it becomes less expensive rather than throwing stolen money at this grandiose fantasy when we're bankrupt?

There's no reason to create new technologies to make space travel more. It's not like you can create a spaceship in your backyard and sell them on the street...

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Oh, you mean 10 in this galaxy. And you only mean advanced civilizations. I think I can agree with that. I wish we had more than just guess work to go on. I'm sure Sagan wished the same.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Nope. Just get a bad rap by people like HG Welles and Scientific American... who are all controlled by the Elites to some degree.

It's perfectly possible to be an atheist, not believe in global warming, believe in evolution... and not want world government.

How do I know?

Because that's what I believe.

Straw man logical fallacy. Try again.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Not really, at least in my opinion. Far better for individuals to regulate their own behavior.

We just need to develop and use the Truth Machine, first in courtrooms and government (by law) then in society at large (by custom and subject to voluntary acceptance of course).

Remove the option of lying about one's intentions and desires and then morality will take care of itself.

We aren't quite there yet, but just as the doubters never thought DNA evidence would be admissible in court were proven incorrect I predict that in 10 years or less we will see legal use of brain imaging to detect the mental states corresponding to intentional deception.

I was being sarcastic, Sherlock.

By the way, morality doesn't take care of itself. If you think we just have to know someone's intentions and we can always figure out whether they were doing the right thing, you are fooling yourself. Unless you follow some absolute moral authority (I have said this time and time again) you cannot determine what is right or wrong. Just because you know the truth, it doesn't mean you can always figure out what's right or wrong. I'm sure you can think of a million cases where the ethics of a certain action were in question. Morality isn't something you can just "feel." Morality comes with a person's worldview. If you believe we are all the god of our own universe, then there is no absolute morality. It is subjective and each individual must decide for himself what he thinks is right and wrong. If there are no lasting consequences (think after death), then there is absolutely no reason for any one person to follow the moral code that you happen to hold. It makes the law into triviality. You are absolutely fooling yourself if you think you can just come to an absolute moral conclusion that is binding on everyone just because you sat around and thought about what seemed right to you. Anyone can do this and come to way different conclusions, and there is no reason for you to think yours is the right one of you are just using your own reason and logic to come up with it. Logic and reason cannot determine what is right and wrong. Neither can truth.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh please, that's beneath you.

Scientist are people and have political views just like everyone else.

Science by and large has prostituted itself to the Federal Government for funding, and we have as much of a free-market in science that we do in education or medicine or finances, i.e. almost none.

Don't believe that it is somehow 'scientific' to want world government or tyranny or evil, science is completely ammoral.

It works for everyone, not just those that believe in it.

People make moral choices, not science.

You cannot separate science from morality because science has everything to do with how you interpret the evidence. That is why we have all these "experts" (read: puppets of the state) to "help" us interpret the evidence so we don't have to think. Is there anything moral about that? I advocate a free market as much as the next guy, but the fact that we are not in a free market doesn't exactly help your argument. Science is just one perspective on the world. It is useful and I am a fan, but to pretend that it is the only way one is allowed to think and still be a sane individual is just not true.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Only governments created by free and prosperous individuals actively cooperating with each other through voluntary association can solve the worlds problems and get our species off this single fragile planet and begin the next phase of human evolution.

If you could call that government that is

Here's a clue: NOTHING CAN SOLVE THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS.

People are immoral. People are greedy and evil, by nature. The second we start to accept this "solve the world's problems" bullshit, we begin the backsliding into totalitarianism because our idea of morality comes from man's ability to purge man of his sins by forcing it out through government. If you advocate this, I don't know what you are doing here because your principles are the antithesis of liberty.

By the way, there is no human evolution to facilitate. This is exactly what is wrong with our thinking about the state. We have accepted through the almight science gods of the state that we are evolving into something better. By virtue of our nature, we are becoming more moral and better individuals. We just need to stop the bad apples by letting an authoritative government see the process through. There is nothing wrong with this planet. It is not fragile. If you believe that, then you have fallen to the hype of the fearmongers who say we must be saved from ourselves or we'll wreck the environment and the world will become overpopulated unless we have strict controls on everyone's personal lives.

I don't want to live in your fascist hellhole.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok. Let's go find a planet that is already populated and somewhat advanced.

Ich habe keine Lust.

(I have no desire.)

I like this world just fine and I don't see anything wrong with it. Also, there are no other populated worlds.

 

[Phil]

Ich habe keine Lust.

(I have no desire.)

I like this world just fine and I don't see anything wrong with it. Also, there are no other populated worlds.

Yes there are, lol.

 

[onlyrp]

There's no reason to create new technologies to make space travel more. It's not like you can create a spaceship in your backyard and sell them on the street...

that's what they said about cars and computers 100 years ago.

 

[onlyrp]

Ich habe keine Lust.

(I have no desire.)

I like this world just fine and I don't see anything wrong with it. Also, there are no other populated worlds.

there are no other inhabitable worlds at this time, and while there's plenty of space on this planet, the developed and infrastructure suitable areas are quite limited.

 

[onlyrp]

For once you are right. It doesn't matter because it is clearly a call for global government regardless of whether or not he really believes it is necessary to stop a climate catastrophe.

You think I am right, because you misunderstood what I said. Scientists, and magazine writers are not politicians, they have no authority or power to rally governments. They can provide suggestions and they only go as far as those in power let it. I'm sure he definitely believes its necessary to stop climate catastrophe, whether or not there will be a climate catastrophe is not the question here. Their "call" is about as valid as your call, it's an opinion, who ultimately can carry it out is what matters.

Would you care about a global government if it only protected the rights you agreed with and did nothing you disliked? Is your opposition of global government unconditional? Or conditional on how much it suits your agenda?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Im glad we are stuck on earth, no reason to spread the human disease to other planets. How about, instead of a governmental agency, interplanetary spread was initiated and realized by voluntary actors?

Humanity is not a disease. I agree with the rest of your post, though.

 

[Phil]

that's what they said about cars and computers 100 years ago.

Computers costed sagans (billions and billions, 1 sagan = 4 billion) of dollars to create?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh, you mean 10 in this galaxy. And you only mean advanced civilizations. I think I can agree with that. I wish we had more than just guess work to go on. I'm sure Sagan wished the same.

No, I think Sagan is an expert propagandist that likes the fact that he holds the authority to make all the guesses. How does he hold this authority? By creating an environment in which he holds many followers by playing to their interests and denying the existence of God. Only then can he use their allegiance to create all these pseudo-facts such as "10 advanced civilizations."

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes there are, lol.

What makes you so certain? Your allegiance to the church of Carl Sagan, perhaps?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

there are no other inhabitable worlds at this time, and while there's plenty of space on this planet, the developed and infrastructure suitable areas are quite limited.

Face it. The only solution is to make our world better for ourselves, and the rest will come. Interplanetary travel is a pipe dream. It may be possible, but it's pointless. This is the only world that was made suitable for human life. Any assertion that the planet is somehow in danger is either speculation or fearmongering by an interested party. Do you know what I mean by "interested?"

 

[Phil]

What makes you so certain? Your allegiance to the church of Carl Sagan, perhaps?

Nope, just logic.

 

[onlyrp]

Computers costed sagans (billions and billions, 1 sagan = 4 billion) of dollars to create?

Billions? Maybe not. Millions, most likely, which is equally unaffordable to an average person 100 years ago.