# INTPs and their amazing ideas

#### cheese

##### Prolific Member
I read a lot of people saying they've got all these incredible thoughts and if only they were allowed to run the government (and if only they had enough discipline to do it without getting distracted by anime) their country/the entire world would be fixed in a matter of days. (It's just so obvious to me, man.)

Anyway, I'm curious to hear what some of your amazing ideas, thoughts, visions, dreams, etc are. Also your age. Thanks. (No, really.)

No REALLY! I do read some pretty incredible things sometimes, and I am quite amazed. I don't have apocalyptic dreams any night, let alone 80% of the time. I don't think I've ever had an amazing idea in my life, though I have experienced amazement at some of my own thoughts before. (Not for good reasons.) So I'd really, really like to have a part in some of this uber-cool stuff all you brainiacs are coming up with.

Pick a problem, and show me your solution.
Share a freakyass dream.
Run through one of your weirder thought processes.
Describe a slightly-cooler-than-average day for you.

Thanks.

#### Jesse

##### Internet resident
When I was young I had this wicked dream with a war. I was in the trenches and a giant bomb went off that came up slowly like a wave that stopped before it hit me.

I don't have these amazing thoughts that solve problems, I do notice probably more problems in the world than others though.

#### ElvenVeil

##### Active Member
People who have amazing solutions to solve complex and unsolved problems are in almost any situation wrong.. They do not see the big picture, therefore (ironically) they see the 'solution'
having said that, then it's time to get personal, and run through the different things I could share, which seems to be the core of your question : p

Share a freakyass dream.

1- I am not certain this counts in your research but: I have for many many years had this idea of writing books / making art.. (since I was about... 13) . The ultimate goal was to create a beautiful pattern between the images that I had drawn, and the images that my poetry should put in your head.. That all adds up to some higher aesthetic goal in my head.
I never got that good at drawing but I got rather good at writing, so I guess it is not a dream that will become true. This idea has driven me to work on something 8-10 hours straight, or wake up very early in the morning just to grab a pen and turn my dream into poetry.

2- I have also always had this childlike dream of 'saving the world' but so far it has remained a dream : p

Run through one of your weirder thought processes.

again, I will just try and see if I hit what you are searching for (how insecure your questions make me chesse!)

1 - When I was about 8 years old I was the popular kid in school.. I had many many friends and people looked up to me etc.. Then I realized that by being socially popular you must climb the ladder .. and crush others to remain on the throne.. you find people whom you can make fun at and other people will join in and bathe in your succes.. In other words, being popular means that you are a jerk.. The sweet and really nice people that shared their feelings and such with others were never welcome.. they were the people being laughed at.
Therefore, when I had 5 people lined up in front of me just waiting for my orders (there is much order and ranking in such a young age ) , I realized what I wrote above, and I refused to continue down that path. .
That also meant that I stopped being social active, people began to interst me less and less. . I am adding this because I think it is a pretty elaborate thought process for an 8 year old.

2 - At exams, I also see my own thought processes more clearly as I come under some sort of pressure, since I never studied for the exams.
That means that my mind was racing when confronting the teacher.. I focused details like body language, talking about whatever I had read, while my mind was mostly focused on how the exam would look in 5 minutes time (planning ahead) . . As I never studied for exams I would often get question that I did not know the answer to on before hand. two of such questions (these are some I remember ) were.
- so why did odysseus not leave the island ?
I had no idea. . I knew the odyssee (some of the stories) since very young.. I knew that at some point in the story his boat was wrecked.. Therefore the likelyhood that odysseus did not leave the island because his boat was wrecked was great.. Therefore I had said that , completly secure of myself while waving my hand. (it was ofc correct)
- Why do some suspect that the Sagas were in fact written by christians?
As they say 'suspect' I could rule out the possibility that it was signed by a priest ^ , therefore it was a simple matter of looking at 'how could it be shown that christianity had a part in this'
As it is unlikely that God would have been mentioned, we pretty much narrow it down to ethical and moral questions. Therefore the obvious answer became 'because the characters acts with morals that did not seem to propper for their time, but propper for a time where christianity had taken over.' Since/If that is the case then the likelyhood the christians would have written some of these texts , has had a major increase. These two situations thought proccess naturally only takes about 1 second, as a dialogue is going on

Describe a slightly-cooler-than-average day for you.

meh.. I am the laziest person in the galaxy.. I don't have cool days =p

anyway I hope I hit something that you could catch your interest cheese.. If not then it is ofc okay

#### Bird

##### Banned
INFJs and their amazing ideas.

#### warryer

##### and Heimdal's horn sounds
Problem: Finite resources.

Causes wealth based class system, unequal distribution of wealth, unequal access to opportunity based on where one is born.

Solution: Nearly infinite resources.

One solution I had was that we should be developing technology to be extracting resources from rocks in space. The thought is that there is a finite amount of resources on this planet. We spend most of our lifetime devoted to obtaining these finite resources. Space is nearly infinite in scale to the size of the earth. Therefore the resources in space is nearly infinite compared to those available on earth.

We have the tech to do it- it seems like a matter of resources to get over the initial "activation energy" hump.

This would allow us to dedicate more time to science, art, entertainment or just plain being lazy.

I discovered that there is a website dedicated to promoting space mining. http://www.permanent.com/index.htm It's an interesting read.

I do realize it's more complicated than just saying "hey let's go mine space rocks."

This will happen eventually. (Unless of course we kill ourselves first).

#### Bryson

##### INTposer
Share a freakyass dream.
I dream of a world without automobiles. Instead, we would all use bikes. For longer distances, either planes or subway. May sound like a regression but i bet our life quality would improve a lot.

pros:
*Noise reduction would make going out much more pleasant.
*Air polution would be much reduced.
*Sedentarism would be almost impossible, which would lead to people having healthier lifestyles, which would make obesity a smaller problem, which would make health care costs decrease, make people live more, and also make people more attractive.
*Parents wouldn't have to worry about taking their kids to school, they would go by themselves.
*Mortality on road traffic accidents would be almost inexistent.

cons:
more than i can think of, actually
Less security
More time to get into places
You usually don't get girls with bikes
etc

I still think it's worth it tough.

#### GarmGarf

##### Active Member
INFPs and their amazing ideas.

#### cheese

##### Prolific Member
Thanks everyone, and especially ElvenVeil - yes, that was what I was looking for.

Bird said:
INFJs and their amazing ideas.
GarmGarf said:
INFPs and their amazing ideas.
Pfft! No ideas for you!

##### think again losers
Problems: too many lower socio economic people reproducing too quickly, and having too much say in democratic countries in proportion to the worth of their thoughts.

Solution: free vasectomies.

Not my idea, but the elegance of it astounds me.

Problem: as above, but in evolutionary terms. Humans being the 'alpha-race' have managed to eliminate almost all major selective pressure, effectively halting our own evolution. Also, capitalism.

Solution: artificial selective pressure. Instigate a two child policy similar to what has been in place in China, (note: assuming everyone reaches their 2 child limit, the population remains completely stable, as it takes 2 to make 2). Create a socialist type system of government, replacing capital with reproductive rights. Have a government body delegated to the qualification of human worth, as well as handing out reproductive credit. Criteria would be innate potential as measured by tests such as IQ etc.(more work will need to be done on our current tests available) and life achievement (people who work hard).
Bullet points for ideas I haven't thought out too well:
- There may be other criteria, I haven't really been thinking about that part.
- superior people genetically will have little incentive to achieve.
- dehumanization in the ethics section.

Meh thats all I can think of for now. The second idea is my brain child I'm working on as of last month, I don't really have any delusion as to it being world changing or what/ev, but it's fun to think about, and I hold small hope

#### cheese

##### Prolific Member
Problems: too many lower socio economic people reproducing too quickly, and having too much say in democratic countries in proportion to the worth of their thoughts.

Solution: free vasectomies.

Not my idea, but the elegance of it astounds me.
I'd go one better and say enforced vasectomies.

Aside from the ethics of the situation, enforcing (reversible) sterilisation just seems like such a great idea. I think Cav first brought it up, on the abortion thread. Whoever wants to have kids would go through a screening process, some parental training, and then be somewhat regulated by a team of highly knowledgeable parenting scientists.

The whole idea is rife with pitfalls, but god at least we wouldn't have to suffer those ill-bred little monsters anymore.

Problem: as above, but in evolutionary terms. Humans being the 'alpha-race' have managed to eliminate almost all major selective pressure, effectively halting our own evolution. Also, capitalism.

Solution: artificial selective pressure. Instigate a two child policy similar to what has been in place in China, (note: assuming everyone reaches their 2 child limit, the population remains completely stable, as it takes 2 to make 2). Create a socialist system of government, replacing capital with reproductive rights. Have a government body delegated to the qualification of human worth. Criteria would be innate potential as measured by tests such as IQ etc.(more work will need to be done on our current tests available) and life achievement (people who work hard).
Bullet points for ideas I haven't thought out too well:
- There may be other criteria, I haven't really been thinking about that part.
- superior people genetically will have little incentive to achieve.
- dehumanization in the ethics section.

Meh thats all I can think of for now. The second idea is my brain child I'm working on as of last month, I don't really have any delusion as to it being world changing or what/ev, but it's fun to think about, and I hold small hope
This sounds almost as awful as what I suggested (actually, probably more). On the other hand, it IS the sort of thing that's extremely fun to ponder.

*edit
It really would be artificial evolution, though. Basically eugenics, as opposed to random mutation. We don't actually know what's best for survival. You'd have to have a team of statisticians to analyse the data on survival rates and genetic traits, and then cross-reference that with the experimental batches of humans you've bred. Of course, immortality would be enormously useful for the researchers, in which case the entire project would have to be top-secret so the unworthy don't start demanding the rights to be gods.

Now you have to think of a cover story!

I wonder if some politicians have been experimental humans? Hmm.

#### Lobstrich

##### Prolific Member
(and if only they had enough discipline to do it without getting distracted by anime)
I hate anime, yes hate.

Oh yes, and the idea.. Some day, when I'm up to it. It seems like so much work.

#### Causeless

##### Active Member
I do realize it's more complicated than just saying "hey let's go mine space rocks."

This will happen eventually. (Unless of course we kill ourselves first).

I agree though!

That seems to be the funny thing, it isn't that the ideas we have are absolutely amazing all of the time... They're just simple ideas that make logical sense, which we're surprised no one is exerting more effort towards.

Because, hey, we know we aren't gonna do it.

#### persuedsmile612

##### Member
When you think everthing must be utilized appropriatly.

And when you hope someone will understand the vastness and depth of a previous statment you posted on a form.

#### Artsu Tharaz

##### Resident Resident
Your ideas would be logical if only everything else were.

#### Systems

##### Worshipper of Banjulhu
Im not an INTP, but I have to comment on one of the "amazing" ideas posted here... Perhaps fantastical would have been the more appropriate term for it.. (sorry for rant, not trying to go for the person, but the idea).

More specifically, Im going to argue against the points made by Warryer, and try to explain why they, in my point of view, aren't amazing but actually just wrong..

Warryer state that:

Problem: Finite resources.

Causes wealth based class system, unequal distribution of wealth, unequal access to opportunity based on where one is born.

Solution: Nearly infinite resources.
Yes your problem is correct and starts with a factual statement. There are finite ressources. It is not necessesarily, however, the finite ressources themselves that leads to class based system, unequal distribution of wealth etc. It's the economic system of production and distribution.
One could actually argue, that having this many ressources have led to the specific economical and social structure, namely capitalism, which is indeed a system that generates unequality through competition, under which we live today. The prime mover for capitalism was the invention of the steam engine and the utilization of coal in the industrial process. The enormous gain in that process led to huge profits, that could be reinvested into yet more capital, which is the defining trait of capitalism - the reinvestment of profit into new productive capital.

I'm not saying, that capitalism would be entirely impossible without the steam engine and coal, but it would never have produced nearly as much, since the gains would be smaller and the means to power large machinery unexistant at the time. Energy ressources are at the base of any society or biological entity.

With regards to equality we were actually the most equal, when we were poorest. During the hunter period of the stone age, you had no means of storing energy except for body fat and a few select tools and real wealth were non-existant. Therefore there were not enough excess production to allow the unproductive lives of a select group of people. Kings and priest and soldiers first appeared in agricultural setting, where the capturing of energy was large enough, to allow for not each and everyone collecting food. Increased access to energy, which is the ultimate foundation of wealth, led to the possibility of increased inequality and the unproductive lives of the elite.

So what have we established so far?

* Real wealth is based on energy throughput and storage.
* As energy throughput increased through a society, it tends to get more unequal as some people are better equipped to utilize it than others. They will get richer and more powerful, and will start to create a system that benefits them and help them get richer -> enter capitalism.

And precisely energy is at the crux of the matter here. Your solution:

One solution I had was that we should be developing technology to be extracting resources from rocks in space. The thought is that there is a finite amount of resources on this planet. We spend most of our lifetime devoted to obtaining these finite resources. Space is nearly infinite in scale to the size of the earth. Therefore the resources in space is nearly infinite compared to those available on earth.
fails because of this.. The energy contained in the ressources you could extract from the ressources would be nowhere near what you would have to spend to get it. I.e. it would be uneconomical in the very truest sense of the word. That space is nearly infinite doesn't really help us at all. Travelling infinitely far, means using infinitely much energy. There is really no way around this, as crew members would have to eat, or in case of robots - have batteries. Remember infinity is a long time / way.
Even if we supposed we could overcome the need for sustenance, energy for equipment etc. you would still have the problem of time. A growing economy needs new ressources at an increasingly greater rate. Time between a ressource is needed and brought to the place is therefore of great importance, and infinitely long wait times (from travelling infinitely far away (or near, I get it)) is an infinitely bad deal and wholely insufficient for the needs of the economy.

Now the page you link to, is indeed an interesting read, but only from the viewpoint of comedy.. They make the claim that:

We can do this NOW with present-day technology and a philanthropic investor
Which really begs the question. If we could do this now, with the technology at hand, why do they need a philantropic investor? If the deal is so good, why not just let normal investors do it? The obvious answer is of course, that the deal isn't good. Actually it's not just bad - it's totally absurd becuase of the fact that having to use more ressources or energy to get something than you get out of it, is a bad deal no matter what monetary system (or none!) you are using.

This will happen eventually. (Unless of course we kill ourselves first).
No it won't. We will never do this because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. And it's not a law from which ignorance exempts one. It's the law of matter, energy and life and it is total in it's application and jurisdiction.

My conclusion to all this is. Either we grow up collectively and face up to the fact that there are limits, or we will indeed succed in eradicating ourselves and perhaps wipe out most of the other species on the planet.. So far we are doing a damn good job.

Ps. I hope I haven't been to harsh.. No personal attack intended

##### think again losers
^^
Way to ruin a vibe man...

I agree with you that it is not possible with modern technology, though not necessarily with your proof. The fact that something is not happening does not mean that it could not be happening given a different set of circumstances.
If capitalism is what motivates us, and capitalism is ultimately stupid, maybe we are just being stupid?
Also, there is the chance of an investment paying off. If I told you to give me $100 for a one in 1,000,000,000 of winning infinite$, would you give me \$100?
The answer is no, because you have no use for infinite money past what you can spend in your life time, regardless of the risk/reward ratio. The same could be true of these capitalist investors.

#### Systems

##### Worshipper of Banjulhu
Why do I have a feeling you only gave my post a cursory glance

#### Bird

##### Banned
Thanks everyone, and especially ElvenVeil - yes, that was what I was looking for.

Pfft! No ideas for you!

We horde them all!

#### warryer

##### and Heimdal's horn sounds
I get what you're saying systems. (And don't worry no offense taken. I don’t check the forums daily.) There is no denying that energy is at the heart of everything- to say otherwise is stupid. We cannot obtain energy without some kind of device to capture/convert it into something usable. So which came first the chicken or the egg?

As I said, it is much more complicated than saying 'let's go mine space rocks.' In that I meant all of the surrounding issues which I did not feel was appropriate given the topic of the thread. I will elaborate on my thinking in hopes that you see where I am coming from.

I used a spoiler to save those innocents from the dreaded wall of text.

Yes your problem is correct and starts with a factual statement. There are finite ressources.
A better way for me to have put it would have been that there is a finite amount of obtainable/usable resources. IE- the molten iron in the Earth’s core does me no good when I am trying to make steel girders for a skyscraper. It may as well not exist since I don’t have the means to access it.

It is not necessesarily, however, the finite ressources themselves that leads to class based system, unequal distribution of wealth etc. It's the economic system of production and distribution.
One could actually argue, that having this many ressources have led to the specific economical and social structure, namely capitalism, which is indeed a system that generates unequality through competition, under which we live today
What is the production and distribution controlled by? My knowledge of economics is basically supply and demand. Which tells me that production and distribution is limited by the supply and/or demand.

In the materialistic world we live in, I find it hard to believe that people have a limited demand. Based on that thinking, it is the supply which dictates what people have access to.

* Real wealth is based on energy throughput and storage.
* As energy throughput increased through a society, it tends to get more unequal as some people are better equipped to utilize it than others. They will get richer and more powerful, and will start to create a system that benefits them and help them get richer -> enter capitalism.
No denying your first point. It’s your second point which I disagree with and not in terms of your logic. I disagree with it in that people should be given equal opportunity- which is really what I would like to accomplish.

I guess I could have put that as my original statement but I think lack of resources (and available energy) to be the root cause.

The energy contained in the ressources you could extract from the ressources would be nowhere near what you would have to spend to get it. I.e. it would be uneconomical in the very truest sense of the word. That space is nearly infinite doesn't really help us at all. Travelling infinitely far, means using infinitely much energy. Remember infinity is a long time / way.
I did not intend for my statement to be take in this way. I do see the futility of gathering resources which are infinitely far away.

In mining space rocks- I mean; moon, asteroids, and comets. Why would I go to another galaxy when everything I need is in my backyard? You could counter by saying: why not open up previously inaccessible resources on Earth? And I would agree with you…. why not? The problem is the available resources.

There is really no way around this, as crew members would have to eat, or in case of robots - have batteries.
A factory can be made fully automated. Technology does exist for this today. As for a power source maybe a scaled up atomic battery for when solar is unavailable or transport conventional batteries from energy rich sites.

Even if we supposed we could overcome the need for sustenance, energy for equipment etc. you would still have the problem of time. A growing economy needs new ressources at an increasingly greater rate. Time between a ressource is needed and brought to the place is therefore of great importance, and infinitely long wait times (from travelling infinitely far away (or near, I get it)) is an infinitely bad deal and wholely insufficient for the needs of the economy.
We have a growing economy no matter what. The population continues to grow. Eventually, we will reach a point where we have hit the maximum possible population that Earth can support.

No it won't. We will never do this because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. And it's not a law from which ignorance exempts one. It's the law of matter, energy and life and it is total in it's application and jurisdiction.
It will happen. Maybe not across the vast reaches of space but, we will be extracting resources from space in some economically meaningful way. (I don’t count the lunar soil brought back during the Apollo missions to be economically meaningful.)

I am human and can therefore say that it is within human nature to want to grow. If I don’t have to put limitations on myself then why should I? We will use the power of our minds to continually push the boundary.

I am sure there will be a point where we can no longer expand. At that point we will have reached our maximum potential be it total universal colonization or sticking to our planet. When we get there, we will exist that way until the end of time. As you said the forces of matter and energy will step in and enforce equilibrium.

Until then I leave you with this quote:

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
-Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

Phew after all that it seems to me, systems, that we are really discussing how far can human potential go?

#### Stoic Beverage

##### has a wide pancake of knowledge
1.) If I'm ever stuck on an exam, I don't guess. I close my eyes, and think "What would I guess if I were smarter?". For whatever reason, this is usually different that what my guess would be.
While I've never formally collected data and tested this, it seems that this method of guessing gets me more correct answers than pure chance would allow.

2.) When I was between 6 and 8 years old, I came up with a theory regarding mirrors. I was convinced that mirrors were actually portals to another universe. That universe is exactly the same as ours, only reversed left-to-right. In theory, anything could technically pass through this portal. In reality, though, nothing can.
Imagine I'm standing in front of a mirror. I can see Stoic Beverage(2) in the mirror. He's thinking the exact same things as me, at the exact same time. So, when I reach out to put my hand into the other universe, he does at the exact same time. We push with the exact same amount of force, so neither of us gets anywhere.
I had a small problem with the fact that I don't feel the body heat of Stoic Beverage(2). I rationalized by thinking that the portal needs energy to exist, so it leeches a small amount of energy from things directly near it. When I touch the mirror, it leeches some body heat from both me and Stoic Beverage(2), so it feels cool.

I smugly believed this until I was about 9, at which time I decided I should do some testing.
To test that the mirror leeches energy as I hypothesized, I stole (stole from an upstairs cabinet, that is,) a couple of candles and a match. I say "stole" because my mom wouldn't trust me with candles, so my experiment had to be carried out in secret. I lit both of the candles, then placed one of them near a mirror. I placed the other one on a dresser several feet away.
I figured the mirror would leech energy from the closer flame, making it burn slightly slower.

My mom busted me with the candles after about 10 minutes. I tried to explain my theory to her, in hopes of getting a supervised run-through of the experiment, but she just looked at me like I was crazy.

When I was 10, though, I disproved my "theory" in concept. I imagined pointing a flamethrower at a mirror, and realized that flame wouldn't repel flame, and it therefore would bust the explanation of equal force from each universe.
The day I realized this was a sad one.

#### cheese

##### Prolific Member
^Wasn't it a little creepy looking into the mirror, then? And you did that every day for about three years!

#### Systems

##### Worshipper of Banjulhu
Hi Warryer! : )

Thanks for a well thought out response.

Also, great idea with the spoiler

What is the production and distribution controlled by? My knowledge of economics is basically supply and demand. Which tells me that production and distribution is limited by the supply and/or demand.

In the materialistic world we live in, I find it hard to believe that people have a limited demand. Based on that thinking, it is the supply which dictates what people have access to.
Production is driven by the expected demand. If people can't purchase your wares at the price you sell them, you will soon be out of business. It is governed by our technological efficiency, the cost of ressources and the wealth of the consumers.
Distribution, however, is not directly bound to these things, although they can have some influence. The distribution is largely politically controlled and reflects to which degree the common people or the elite control the system. Back in the early days of capitalism in england, the industrialists were so great at cutting their expenditures and increasing their profits, that they were actually killing off their worker base at a rate greater than replenishing.
It was quite obvious to all of them, but no single one industrialist could do anything about it, since they were bound by the inner logic of the system; to survice as a producer means to be better than average - therefore lowering your competetive strength through better treatment of your workers would soon leave you without a business..
What happened then? The government enacted laws that protected against child labour and put a maximum level at the hours one was allowed to work pr day. Now this was in the interest of the Total Capital, since it secured it's work force, but none of the Single Capitals could do it, since that would mean lowering their competetive strengths..

This is a good example of why we in the west typically have (have had) strong governments. A more equal distribution of the ressources is a way to protect the system, which is driven to concentrate wealth which eventually erode the whole structure itself. Equality is therefore not the workings of supply/demand, although the supply determines the overall level of afluence (not it's distribution). They merely reflect it. Equality is a socially and politically negotiated, and it is no surprise, that the more equal contries are typically those with a large state and a high level of taxation.

I disagree with it in that people should be given equal opportunity- which is really what I would like to accomplish.
A most noble viewpoint that I wholeheartedly agree with. What I was talking about, however, was what is - not what should be. People are inherently different, and I don't think that you ever can, or indeed should, overcome that. Therefore I would posit, that we shouldn't make people equal, we should ensure that inherited wealth and connections play as little a role as possible, in determining a persons future succes. Equal and free access to education and healthcare seems to be a fundamental in this regard. I am sure you agree here

Now you write this, which I find very interesting:

We have a growing economy no matter what. The population continues to grow. Eventually, we will reach a point where we have hit the maximum possible population that Earth can support.
We have had a growing economy only for the last few hundred years (noticeable growth). But for hundreds of thousands of years, humans have lived under the same conditions as the previous generations and not had any growth.
The capitalist economy needs to grow for three reasons:

1. Increasing productivity: The competition in the market necesitates increasing productivity, since the competetion drives the profitrate towards zero. In order to stay above average and not be consumed by better capitalists, you need to increase profits, which is often done through increased productivity. Increased productivity have the interesting effect though, that you can do the same with less people. If you automate a factory a lot of people get unemployed, and if you don't want to lose their disposable income (which is necessary to keep production going), you have to have growth in order to create new jobs.

2. Increasing Population: This one presents itself in much the same way that increasing productivity does. With more people wanting the same standard of living as everyone else, you will have to increase production to keep everyone satisfied and the system functioning. Increase in production at a rate lower than the rate of increase in population, means that the average standard of living falls.

3. Credit: The way credit is issued into the system is as debt that increases exponentialy. If the rate of growth is lower than the rate of interest, the interest will accumulate and take up a greater and greater portion of the disposable national income. The more money being used to pay interest, the less is available to investments and production. A debt based economy, needs to grow faster, or at the same rate, as the interest rate, or it will eventually subcomb to the burden of debt.

Now this is why an economy need to grow. But will it always grow? This is determined by the following.

In order for a economy to grow, the profit gained (P) must exceed the cost of ressources used in production (C), the amount of money used on interest (R) and the money used in repairing old infrastructure, investments and such (I). (The letters are not official or anything, just an easy way to describe it).

So for an economy to remain stagnant:

P = C + R + I.

In order for it to grow, P must exceed it. Now, if the problem is that we have too few ressources, and we go to space for them, the value of I and C would rise dramatically. People would simply not have the money to buy it. If the materials in C and I are to come from more expensive sources, the amount of capital diverted to these areas need to increase, meaning less is available elsewhere. Therefore, more expensive ressources means less production, which means less economic activity and recession until a new equilibrium is found, at which suply and demand are equal again.

What is the production and distribution controlled by? My knowledge of economics is basically supply and demand. Which tells me that production and distribution is limited by the supply and/or demand.

In the materialistic world we live in, I find it hard to believe that people have a limited demand. Based on that thinking, it is the supply which dictates what people have access to.
Production is driven by the expected demand. If people can't purchase your wares at the price you sell them, you will soon be out of business. It is governed by our technological efficiency, the cost of ressources and the wealth of the consumers.
Distribution, however, is not directly bound to these things, although they can have some influence. The distribution is largely politically controlled and reflects to which degree the common people or the elite control the system. Back in the early days of capitalism in england, the industrialists were so great at cutting their expenditures and increasing their profits, that they were actually killing off their worker base at a rate greater than replenishing.
It was quite obvious to all of them, but no single one industrialist could do anything about it, since they were bound by the inner logic of the system; to survice as a producer means to be better than average - therefore lowering your competetive strength through better treatment of your workers would soon leave you without a business..
What happened then? The government enacted laws that protected against child labour and put a maximum level at the hours one was allowed to work pr day. Now this was in the interest of the Total Capital, since it secured it's work force, but none of the Single Capitals could do it, since that would mean lowering their competetive strengths..

This is a good example of why we in the west typically have (have had) strong governments. A more equal distribution of the ressources is a way to protect the system, which is driven to concentrate wealth which eventually erode the whole structure itself. Equality is therefore not the workings of supply/demand, although the supply determines the overall level of afluence (not it's distribution). They merely reflect it. Equality is a socially and politically negotiated, and it is no surprise, that the more equal contries are typically those with a large state and a high level of taxation.

It will happen. Maybe not across the vast reaches of space but, we will be extracting resources from space in some economically meaningful way. (I don’t count the lunar soil brought back during the Apollo missions to be economically meaningful.)
And this is of course, where I disagree with you. It is simply not economical to do so, and I highly doubt that it ever will be, given the physics of it. The enormous cost of going into space to acquire ressources would drain the economy of the capital needed to buy the ressources in the first place, thereby negating the whole idea.

I am human and can therefore say that it is within human nature to want to grow. If I don’t have to put limitations on myself then why should I? We will use the power of our minds to continually push the boundary.
Yes like any other organism you want to grow. But like any other organism you are bound by the laws of physics and the law of dimnishing returns. It is obscured by the price mechanism, but is certainly also in effect for humans.

Also with regards to your quote:

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Was obviously false, and I don't mean to say that we have reached the highest levels of technology obtainable. We are, however, approaching the limits of thermodynamics in many places and the rate of improvement has faltered the last many decades. Technology doesn't overcome the laws of physics, the abide by them and try to utilize them..

Well this is it for now I am eagerly awaiting your next reply.

- Systems.

##### think again losers
Why do I have a feeling you only gave my post a cursory glance
Maybe you only gave mine one?

I directly addressed - "Which really begs the question. If we could do this now, with the technology at hand, why do they need a philantropic investor?"

aaaaAAAAAAND

I'm a giant dunce, who only gave it a cursory glance. Seriously. never talk about this again.

#### Claytoe

##### Noshirt
I am constantly thinking about endemic issues, those involving supply and demand are doubly interesting. The infinite-supply solution seemed initially reasonable, though I felt intense mechanization, nationalization and concentration of food production was probably the right way to go. The technology exists to do that now, not the will or capitol though.

I changed my basic goal, which was to preserve the Earth as it is now while keeping our current population viable to simply keeping the population viable. Floating cities is my crazy thought right now. Needs a lot of fleshing out though. Rather than lay out my thought process, because I am lazy, I will let you all think about it a little bit. I will probably (maybe) post some more details as I think about them!

#### Zmaster

##### Member
How about a 30 year dream that you were in a comma since 1966 ( being actually born in 1971)and that there is a secret spiritual war going on in your head that involved on one side Vampire Spiritual Guardians ( similar to the movie The Adjustment Bureau) and the other side were misleading angels whose job were to convince you to become mindless helpers of Pure Energy ( similar to Becoming an Agent Smith in The Matrix ) and for the past year you could not talk to anyone because you figured they throw you in the looney bin. In fact you only recently decided that if something was gonna happen it would have happened many years ago. Now your life is relatively simple in comparison but sometimes you still miss it so you temporary lie to yourself just to feel excitement again! Mind you that you had all of these thoughts well before any of the movies came out.

#### Poetic Justice

##### Member
1.) If I'm ever stuck on an exam, I don't guess. I close my eyes, and think "What would I guess if I were smarter?". For whatever reason, this is usually different that what my guess would be.
While I've never formally collected data and tested this, it seems that this method of guessing gets me more correct answers than pure chance would allow.

This is the beginnings of a series of very useful techniques which I use all the time

The trick is to get an answer to a question from the creative right side of your brain (I know the right/left thing isn't that simple but it'll do for this explanation) before it can be edited by your logical left side.

Thoughts usually come in the form of sensory specific metaphors and representations i.e pictures/sounds/smells etc. They are then assessed for usefulness/truthfulness by our language/logic parts of our brains. Anything that doesn't fit is dismissed. What we beleive to be true has a massive impact on what gets through this filter so it's rather difficult for new ideas to slip through the net

The problem is that the vast majority of our memories and "processing power" lie in the pictures. This is where our highest form of intelligence is based yet the relatively stupid left side gets the final say

We are so used to dismissing these images that it is now automatic.

The main technique is called image streaming which is where you ask yourself a question with eyes closed and then watch what images pop into your mind. The pictures that come will be a visual metaphor for the answer to your question.

You can also imagine travelling to an alternate universe where you meet a version of you who has already figured out the answer to your question and get the answer from him. You could also imagine travelling back in time and meeting Einstein or anything like that

You will be pleasantly surprised by the innovative ideas you are capable of coming with using a llittle imagination

If you have managed to read through all this and are still interested I can teach you how to do these things properly. PM me if interested

#### warryer

##### and Heimdal's horn sounds
Systems:
And this is of course, where I disagree with you. It is simply not economical to do so, and I highly doubt that it ever will be, given the physics of it. The enormous cost of going into space to acquire ressources would drain the economy of the capital needed to buy the ressources in the first place, thereby negating the whole idea.
I can now see why you disagree. I am prone to make jumps in logic based on assumptions which are sometimes false as in this case… I assumed you had the full picture I have painted in my mind when in reality you only have part of it.

My proposition is that we scrap the current economic model. Technology is meant to make work easier. I think through technology that we can get to the point where almost all of the population would no longer have to work in order to survive. Work to survive as it currently stands seems very inefficient.

Through our discussion, I am convinced that you are correct in that mining space rocks will not achieve this end. A flood of resources does not necessarily mean equality because of distribution. Distribution it appears would be the real culprit where at first I thought it was scarcity. (It’s so nice to finally have a concrete idea to work with!)

Distribution, however, is not directly bound to these things, although they can have some influence. The distribution is largely politically controlled and reflects to which degree the common people or the elite control the system. Back in the early days of capitalism in england, the industrialists were so great at cutting their expenditures and increasing their profits, that they were actually killing off their worker base at a rate greater than replenishing.
It was quite obvious to all of them, but no single one industrialist could do anything about it, since they were bound by the inner logic of the system; to survice as a producer means to be better than average - therefore lowering your competetive strength through better treatment of your workers would soon leave you without a business..
Interesting. I appreciate the economics lesson. So then there are people out there that are aware of the problem yet they don’t do anything because it would disrupt the system they have going. If what they are doing works, why mess with it?

What happened then? The government enacted laws that protected against child labour and put a maximum level at the hours one was allowed to work pr day. Now this was in the interest of the Total Capital, since it secured it's work force, but none of the Single Capitals could do it, since that would mean lowering their competetive strengths..

This is a good example of why we in the west typically have (have had) strong governments. A more equal distribution of the ressources is a way to protect the system, which is driven to concentrate wealth which eventually erode the whole structure itself. Equality is therefore not the workings of supply/demand, although the supply determines the overall level of afluence (not it's distribution). They merely reflect it. Equality is a socially and politically negotiated, and it is no surprise, that the more equal contries are typically those with a large state and a high level of taxation.
Good insight into how a capitalist govt is supposed to work. It makes intuitive sense to me. Like I admitted earlier I knew next to nothing about this sort of thing.

A most noble viewpoint that I wholeheartedly agree with. What I was talking about, however, was what is - not what should be. People are inherently different, and I don't think that you ever can, or indeed should, overcome that. Therefore I would posit, that we shouldn't make people equal, we should ensure that inherited wealth and connections play as little a role as possible, in determining a persons future succes. Equal and free access to education and healthcare seems to be a fundamental in this regard. I am sure you agree here
I did not mean that we should make people equal with one another. I do agree that we are physically different from one another but, philosophically speaking, a human is a human and that makes us all equal on that front.

You have then gone on to state what it is that I do think. And I do agree. I had a conversation about this a week ago and we reached the same conclusion that free healthcare and education would represent ideal freedom.

Yes like any other organism you want to grow. But like any other organism you are bound by the laws of physics and the law of dimnishing returns. It is obscured by the price mechanism, but is certainly also in effect for humans.

Was obviously false, and I don't mean to say that we have reached the highest levels of technology obtainable. We are, however, approaching the limits of thermodynamics in many places and the rate of improvement has faltered the last many decades. Technology doesn't overcome the laws of physics, the abide by them and try to utilize them..
I never said that machinery (or anything for that matter) was going to ignore physics. I am an engineer so I know full well the laws of physics.

Heres a thought then. How about instead of attacking the supply we go after the distribution. A similar model to that of the internet: decentralization. One piece of technology that could achieve this is an atom manipulating printer. You could plug in a blue print into the machine and have yourself a brand new ferarri, a pair of shoes and then enjoy a freshly printed hot pizza.

#### Melllvar

##### Banned
IMHO the mostest cleverest idea I ever had was to use the temperature gradients in ocean water as a source of renewable energy. Unfortunately it seems they already came up with that idea back in the 1880's and the main thing stopping it these days is the high start up costs for commercial-scale power plants and the already existing energy infrastructure (oil, gas, coal, etc.). In theory though the system would be able to provide hundreds to thousands of times more energy than necessary to power the entire planet (at current usage levels). It's basically like using the oceans as a giant solar energy collector.

On the plus side the entire experience made me realize that harnessing energy from the natural environment involves finding energy gradients (which is pretty obvious when stated like that, but it hadn't really occurred to me that way at the time). A similar thing that I didn't come up with myself is osmotic power (harnessing salinity gradients where saltwater mixes with freshwater).

There are two main problems with most of my good ideas: either they can't be implemented by one person working alone, or they've already occurred to other people before me. One day though... one day...

#### scorpiomover

##### The little professor
Instead of having a real war, just have an online game war. The winners get whatever it is they are fighting over. No-one has to die. Plus, everyone enjoys the war.

#### EyeSeeCold

##### lust for life
Instead of having a real war, just have an online game war. The winners get whatever it is they are fighting over. No-one has to die. Plus, everyone enjoys the war.
How about instead of a war, we just let the two idiot leaders fight to the death for their own policies. Or not even that..just box it out.

#### pIngthIs

##### Redshirt
Hello all, kinda new to the site but this captured my attention and me and my friend had this discussion last night (we didn't really see this eye to eye) let's see what you all think ok?

Problem: Startling amount of teen pregnancies

In my research (i'm sure there's some more in dept studies) i've found the round number of 750,000 teens anually become pregnant. That's 750,000 teens faced with a decision they are not ready to cope with, 750,000 who's future is now in jeopordy, and potentially 750,000 kids who will have to go through a hard childhood do to lack of experience on parents behalf.

Solution: Implement manditory birth control insert (the ones that keep you infertile for 5 years) to help curb that number. Being that it would be manditory for women who are entering puberty (13/14) it should be provided free of cost (let's not get into what our government is doing now. for the people by the people my ass).

In my eyes, teens are always going to have sex. Not all, but apparently 750k of them do and have kids. Why not implement a measure that prevents the pregnancy by 99.9%?

My friend argues that it would promote unsafe sex, i have to disagree. It is that style of thinking which has hindered the production of the male birth control, and in other realms hinders our advancement in a myrid of other fields. Still teach the importance of safe sex cuz AIDS and herpes ain't goin nowhere (unless big Pharm companies release their hold on medical advancements and look towards HELPING people instead of making money) but at that point in time, it's that individuals responsibility to prevent the aquisition of an STD. My method would hopefully cut that 750k (considering the 99.9% effectiveness) to 750 teen mothers a year. He just wasn't hearing it though. Me personally, I'm all for it. I begged him to give me a negative to the situation. This process would be regulated and insure that there are no major side effects of having this implant, and it would have to be a non invasive procedure.

But maybe this is just another CRAZY idea of mine. What do you all think?

P.S. I LOVE BEING AN INTP!!! If only others could see the world we could live in

#### pIngthIs

##### Redshirt
How about instead of a war, we just let the two idiot leaders fight to the death for their own policies. Or not even that..just box it out.
Right?!?!?! War is only interesting in a video game. In reality, it's just to individuals sacrificing the lives of their citizens because they couldn't be adults and reach a neutral agreement. So when my kids have a conflict at school (no kids now, hypothetical) I should encourage them to manipulate others to fight for their cause instead of being the bigger person and working the problem out??

#### hample

##### Redshirt
Just wanna get this of my mind (im from Sweden so my grammar will be 100% Not 100% correct.)

What if we constantly jump between time-loops. Like, we think that time is a straight line, but actually it is an infinite number (or finite number) of time-loops.
I'm writing this sentence over and over again in a one loop, but I jump to another loop whenever I make a decision.

Don't flame me for being Off-reallity (if I am) and......ye, this is my wicked mind speaking.

I'm sorry.

Do you think I have Schizophrenia?

#### boondockbabe

##### I am a little cold hearted
I NEED A FUCKING "LIKE" BUTTON. SOMBODY GIVE ME A FUCKING "LIKE" BUTTON. WHY DONT WE HAVE A "LIKE" BUTTON.

#### EyeSeeCold

##### lust for life
Just wanna get this of my mind (im from Sweden so my grammar will be 100% Not 100% correct.)

What if we constantly jump between time-loops. Like, we think that time is a straight line, but actually it is an infinite number (or finite number) of time-loops.
I'm writing this sentence over and over again in a one loop, but I jump to another loop whenever I make a decision.

Don't flame me for being Off-reallity (if I am) and......ye, this is my wicked mind speaking.

I'm sorry.

Do you think I have Schizophrenia?
Like in Groundhog Day?

#### hample

##### Redshirt
Like in Groundhog Day?
What Day?

Okay, saw the trailer.

Like that. But not That.

#### Dr. Freeman

##### In a place outside of time
What if computers controlled everything?

#### Jah

##### Mu.
I NEED A FUCKING "LIKE" BUTTON. SOMBODY GIVE ME A FUCKING "LIKE" BUTTON. WHY DONT WE HAVE A "LIKE" BUTTON.
Because we're not playing fucking Facebook.
(see I threw in a little "fucking" for free... Thought you might like it )

#### Dr. Freeman

##### In a place outside of time
Facebook needs a dislike button. (that isn't malware)

#### Reverse Transcriptase

##### "you're a poet whether you like it or not"
I NEED A FUCKING "LIKE" BUTTON. SOMBODY GIVE ME A FUCKING "LIKE" BUTTON. WHY DONT WE HAVE A "LIKE" BUTTON.
HTML:
 <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#"
<title>INTP Forum</title>
<meta property="og:title" content="INTP Forum"/>
<meta property="og:type" content="forum"/>
<meta property="og:url" content="http://www.intpforum.com/"/>
<meta property="og:image" content="http://intpforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif"/>
<meta property="og:site_name" content="INTPforum"/>
<meta property="og:description"
<body>
<fb:like href="http://www.intpforum.com/" layout="standard" show-faces="false" width="450" action="like" colorscheme="dark" />
</body>

#### TheAndroid

##### Redshirt
Okay, I've had a few weird thoughts.

Thought one - using a public toilet.
I'm not sure if everyone has this thought process, but I kind of assume everyone does.
When using a public toilet I like to try and use the least dirty and therefore the least used (assuming everyone has about the same level of ass hygiene). So firstly I think to myself:
"surely most people use the first cubicle as it is the closest to the door"
So I head toward the second cubicle, and it hits me:
"what if most people think the same thing and therefore use the second cubicle"
Then it would be logical to use the first.
But what if I'm wrong?
Nothing! these thought serve absolutely no purpose because they just continue in a vicious circle, and the toilets are probably the same level of dirtiness anyway. However I can never stop myself from thinking this.

Thought two - The universe is not infinite.
I assume this one is incorrect and would like someone to tell me why! please let me know if my knowledge of this theory is wrong or missing some crucial element.
Einstein theorised and proved that (in simple words) the space around planets and other objects with an extremely large masses, pushes down and bends around the object, thus creating gravity on the object as well as bending the light around it. The larger the object, the more space the object takes up and the higher the gravitational force that pushes down on that object.
If my knowledge is complete (which again I expect it is not), wouldn't it be safe to conclude that the universe, or at least our part of it, must be contained inside some sort of 'box' that allows the 'pressure' of the space around it to build up?

One major sign that I am wrong is that each planet has its own unique gravitational force whereas my theory would predict that all planets gravitational forces would be equal..

I hope that all made sense. And I'm sure that Einstein would have picked up on this and I feel like Im insulting him by just proposing this. Anyway, let me know what you think!

#### MissQuote

##### kickin' at a tin can
"Run through one of your weirder thought processes"

Train of thought I had today:

I spent the morning babysitting my friends toddlers, there was this weird kids show called Yo Gabba Gabba, on and one of the puppet monster creature character things was this one eyed pink phallic looking thing, who happened to be dressed as a super hero or something, so as I am watching the show with the little babies I start wondering why there is always a one eyed phallic character in so many completely non sexual situations, then I wonder what vision perception would be like with only one huge eye, whether it would be better or worse than with two small eyes which leads to the thought that two must be better for humanoid shaped beings or animal life in general because we evolved to all have two. This makes me imaging a creature crawling out of the proverbial puddle of goo with its eye indentions that are fused shut like a new born kitten, then eventually, as this thing reproduces, somewhere down the generations real eyes are formed, then I think of the circumstances that may have led to the need for vision and the process of eyes in general evolving to fit the need. Now I am thinking about all of the five senses and there place in survival, all the aspects the senses are used for and what changes they may have undergone through the vast history of life before they compacted into the efficient things they are today and I began wondering what, if any, other senses may have been discarded in the process as unessecary because they weren't useful in meeting basic need or warding off danger, then I realise that perhaps this makes the idea of ESP make more sense as something that could have merit to it. But I also think that the concept of ESP barely touches on what I am wondering, which is what other things might be going on all around that we all have no ability to concieve of or imagine because we have no sense perception to even alert us that it is there and I wonder if I tried hard enough if I could imagine the unimaginable but I think it would be sort of like trying to describe a color that doesn't exist.

At this point I laugh at myself because I am still staring at the same show and characters but I have no idea what is going on with the simple plot because I wasn't using any of the senses I was thinking about to take in the show.

#### Chimera

##### To inanity and beyond
Pick a problem, and show me your solution.
I can't find what I want in a big store. I don't feel like asking an employee. Solution: store-specific electronic maps, similar to GPS.

Also, there needs to be a graphic design-oriented iPad (for lack of a better term). You know, something that you can use photoshop or sai or whatever on, and be able to take full advantage of the programs. I dunno if the iPad can do that yet, but I doubt it.

Share a freakyass dream.
When I was younger (8ish to 13ish), I had a recurring dream about this corporation-type-thing called "Absolution". Basically the gist of it went like this: it drew in people who were down on their luck or going through a hard time, promising them happiness and peace. As people got closer to the main building, they fell into a sort of sleepy trance. At the door they were given drugs and then ushered inside. There were countless rooms which offered different ways to die: gunshot, being run over by a train, drowning, strangulation, et cetera. And people were lining up outside these rooms with blank smiles on their faces, holding the hands of their children and loved ones.
I dreamed about that place so many times, and no matter what, I was always keenly aware of what was actually going on, even though everyone else was in their trance. No matter what, I couldn't break it, and more than once I got to watch family and friends die with that damn smile on their face.

Run through one of your weirder thought processes.
I wish I could answer this one, but my weirder thought processes all happen in images. :c

Describe a slightly-cooler-than-average day for you.
- Wake up.
- Walk 10 miles down the railroad collecting interesting looking things (colorful bits of glass, sparkly rocks, a half-melted barbie doll (true story), feathers, animal bones, et cetera).
- Take a break and sit on the wooden bridge where the tracks cross the river in the woods.
- Walk home (remember to make faces at the small shady-looking government base when passing).
- Depending on how many interesting things were collected, and how well they "work" together, come up with ideas for sculptures and art projects involving them.
- Possibly start said projects.
- After the sun goes down, return to the railroad and walk in the opposite direction since it's in near town and better lit.
- Don't bring a flashlight.
- Pick up a large stick if feeling paranoid.
- Try not to fall asleep outside or anger wild animals.
???
- Profit.

#### cheese

##### Prolific Member
When I was younger (8ish to 13ish), I had a recurring dream about this corporation-type-thing called "Absolution". Basically the gist of it went like this: it drew in people who were down on their luck or going through a hard time, promising them happiness and peace. As people got closer to the main building, they fell into a sort of sleepy trance. At the door they were given drugs and then ushered inside. There were countless rooms which offered different ways to die: gunshot, being run over by a train, drowning, strangulation, et cetera. And people were lining up outside these rooms with blank smiles on their faces, holding the hands of their children and loved ones.
I dreamed about that place so many times, and no matter what, I was always keenly aware of what was actually going on, even though everyone else was in their trance. No matter what, I couldn't break it, and more than once I got to watch family and friends die with that damn smile on their face.
This sounds a lot like the typical INTP's conception of church, or religion in general. Is it related? Were you raised in a christian/catholic household, and were you having problems with it at this age? It seems a very strange dream to have otherwise, so young.

MissQuote - happens all the time.

#### Vecho

##### Member
The whole structure of society based on bureaucracy and CCTV. The world ran by non-professional political parties but rather the councils of professionals in particular spheres. Professional peace keeping force(let's say I'll name them WSF-World Security forces). Of course I'd close all borders from migration. Institute anti-corporate blobbing policy to restrict the destruction of society. A society can't exist without centralization therefore every region would be centralized in such way maybe we could save the ozone. I'd focus on modernization and volunteering(yey free labour). BTW the WSF would be centralized and would respond only to one authority, the Central Divisional Institute(CDI). It would be like Shogunate but more centralized. Rather than promoting a very material consuming lifestyle I'd support libraries, theatres, art galleries.

#### Arak

##### Redshirt
When i was 7 or 8 i though about how the structure of our solar system was similar to the structure of an atom with it's photons and electrons orbiting around it. A surprising thought hit me: What if our universe with all it's planets was in fact a "cell" of a greater universe the same way a collection of atoms make up a cell in our universe? What if that greater universe is then part of yet another greater universe? What if our atoms/cells are in fact complete miniature universes like ours that are composed of even smaller atom/universes? Could there be an infinite number of universes scaled this way into each other? I couldn't sleep that night because i kept visualizing all the implications of this discovery and project it to infinity.

Thinking back now i'm not sure where i learned about atoms at such a young age (there was no internet back then) but i clearly did somewhere. Perhaps a teacher mentionned it at school even if it wasn't the official subject.

#### jamesreed292

##### Redshirt
All this is new and interesting to me, please keep it up.

#### dubiouspropriety

##### Redshirt
My idea is that humans almost seem like an invasive species on this planet. The vast majority of them are incapable of living in balance with the Earth, and take far more than they give. I say purge the humans.

I question everything I see around me, buildings, roads, whatever we've constructed. I am in opposition to the progression of humanity for the past millenia, and the sequence of events over those years that have led us to be in the condition we are now, with a planet we have thoroughly F***ed. At least we'll probably go before it does, unless we manage to blow ourselves up before then.

Sometimes, maybe this a bit far-fetched, but I wish that humans in "developed" countries were still more-sufficient, in general, and that they weren't reliant on a multitude of items with a price tag on them for their continued survival. In other words, I'm not only saying "cut back," I wish for an entirely different reality, one in which, say, people grew their own food, made use of wasted space, and relearned the survival skills that have been lost (many over the most recent decades) to disuse. Without those supply chains, without that grid... well, let's just say I don't like feeling helpless, and I can clearly imagine a world in which that which we take for granted, that which we assume will always persist, is gone. I'd rather not be stranded, helpless, almost like an infant, but that would be the reality for many were life as we know it to be put into question.

Seeing as how our society is based on resources that are rapidly dwindling, with no one really making any concerted effort to research alternative energy, conserve, not be f***ing greedy/wasteful, it's impossible for life to continue exactly as we know it - oil and its derivatives are in an excessively large number of everyday products, and that's certainly not going to be around forever. My dream, then, as someone who loves technology, computers, science, etc. - is for humans to be farmers, hunters/gatherers, to live in balance.

Or maybe just a giant human exodus/annihilation from Earth, whichever.

#### mainiac

##### Member
Well, first I would have to be emperor of the world and have the world be terrified ogf me enough that i would get what I want done. The first thing that I would do is redistribute the wealth. In the future no one person could have say over ten million if he wanted to work that hard.

Since 2 or is it one percent of the people have most of the wealth this would be a good thing. Second no more millitary industrilists. Take america and the rest of the world off war time economies. Third develope natural resources world wide and send them where they do the most good not the most greed. Fourth , get rid of all special interests groups that have nothing to contribute and waste money and resources for a very poor return.

Now of course none of these things will work with out some form of world wide coperation. I used a fantasy scanerio to get my way. What would happen in real life is there would be dozens of micro and macro civil wars anything but give up power and stop the vampirism of the poor. In the end the workable policies would only bring down the house in flames. There goes the whole infrastructure and way over half the population.

Now the rest pick up the peices and more or less start the seeds of the same hell hole they just crawled out of. There is no way to stop this. especialy now..there is no fixing the issues that keep the majority in misery or worse. To wrest from the culprits there place of head canibal only destroys the rest of the world. Also if everyone is not killed it only starts all over again no one having learned a damn thing this time around either.

The difference between now and the past is that you had smaller groups of cannibals to deal with. The citizens could revolt and win once the keep was stormed and the guards killed and the cheif cannibal roasting in his own fire pit. It was simple and easy mob them with superior numbers. That doesnt work anymore.

The areas and populations are so vast that in the chaos, should those that weild power feel the end is near will take everyone with them any way or make it a place no one can live in for long. It happens all the time on a smaller scale like sadam igniting his oil wells. or Gadafi wacking citizens. What ever, But when you are talking superpower overthrow these homicidal meglomainiacs will die in happiness knowing you went to hell with them.

and there you have it. No policy no law no political change will ever overcome power mad greed that knows no bounds. Exccept now it effects the whole world instead of small dictatorships or one small country. When through out history has it ever ben any different?

#### LabRat

##### Redshirt
Hmm... I like the idea of the alternate universe scenario where people are gatherers and farmers
and coexist with their environment, but having failed at that already i still don't see why we don't
harness the suns energy by placing huge solar panels in space that would charge batteries for ten years or so then we could make trips to harvest and replace these batteries and use the vast amount of energy gained to power the world... That being said I am by no means an expert on the technologies required to do so and would like a good reason as to why this wouldn't work. As far as the mining of space rocks (LOL) why not send remote controlled ships to attach onto said rocks and crash them into the moon therefore providing us with easier access to their minerals? My only objection to this is the modified gravity this would eventually give to the moon and in turn earth when we bring it here... I've always thought that building a bridge like structure to the moon would be awesome until i realized that the moon would have to stop revolving around earth in order for this to work which might screw with our gravity as well as pull us closer or further away from the sun (again I'm not sure about any of this I'ts all theoretical to me who has done no research). Another idea i had was if we do end up finding an infinite source of energy and mats wouldn't we then build factories to build everything for us therefor eliminating the need for a human labor workforce? What would we do? Especially now that the population has gotten so high already with no interest in slowing down anytime soon or until I'ts too late and we have to start fighting over scraps of food again... Which begs the question will there be enough space on earth (the only planet so far that can provide us earthlings with things to eat) in the future for farms and other such food harvesting thingys? sorry i tend to ramble on...