crims

Umm... can we just have this discussion? I just wanted to hear what people thoughts were on those quotes from John Titor... Okay?

The subject deserves a new thread in light of recent events.

No doubt a lot of you already know about the supposed timetraveller 'John Titor'. I read a lot of stuff by people trying to disprove and show that he's hoax, but I haven't found anything especially convincing. These following predictions by John Titor were the most convincing and made me think he could be real: Plus he said there would be a woman president in 2008 (Condi Rice or Hillary?)... which would make sense for Condi, since she's an expert on Russia/USSR and John Titor predicted Russia would nuke USA in 2015... Anyone have anything that could prove him as a hoax? But please keep it simple... I don't want to go through a pile of links just to see the argument.

(Unfortunatly the video file is too large for me to attach it here. You might have to wait a little while for it to fully load: http://www.technocracy.org/media/video/OperationColumbiaSM.mov)

Most of the stuff in the briefs is based on the Study Guide, which uses statistics from the US Department of Labour itself (you can read these references at the end of each chapter).

Please point me to ANY instance of such doctrine in Technocracy. ANY at all. Why can't you see that it is USA that is egalitarian? You recognize that "it is self-evident that all men are created equal." But what evidence do you have to prove this? In every instance man has made hierarchal society. What is self-evident is that one person always dominates other. It is biological nature of human-animal to have those with higher status and those with lower. Technocracy merely takes this principle to mean that any hierarchal structure must acknowledge this natural order and not perverse it. Current economic model perverses this natural order - talented people work for ignorant managers, managers use their power to hire their unqualified friends, unqualified people make decisions for the company that affect the lives of many hardworking people, etc. Under Technocracy, those who are most qualified to make those decisions will be in charge. Sort of like is happening right now in the USA? Look - corruption can only happen when there are large organizations with power (corporations, mafia, political party, etc.) How would individual people get power under Technocracy? They certainly can't bribe people because energy-credits are non-transferable (only one person can use them). So how would an oligarchy exist under Technocracy? Even if you don't believe corporate interests control your government, you must at least admit that an oligarchy under the current goverment would have a feasible control mechanism (corporate funding). That's right, technology cannot be used to control every aspect of society, that is why Technocracy uses Democracy to make decisions concerning the Constitution, Laws, and Order - the issues that matter most to the people. Science is applied to objective problems that involve technical matters (e.g., the best way to construct a building, the most efficient way to make a car, etc.) Perhaps you could actually read the Study Guide to see arguments for yourself. I don't know where the "5%" figure comes from, though. I didn't come up with these numbers, the Libertarian did. I don't know how he would know such specifics without any working model of the actual Technate. I don't know what else I can say. Ok, tell me what you know about history from the other side. Can you tell me anything about America's intervention in the Russian revolution, or the Civil War of 1993, or whos pockets the USAID money filled, or what ethnic group currently controls Russia's economy? I just think it's unusual for the average American to know these things (since I never see them being talked about).

Could you give an example? Okay, can you actually explain what Technocracy is? No, of course not, one can't just say "Let's go!" and make Technocracy work. There's still a continental infrastructure that needs to be built to facilitate the Technocratic apparatus. It's all described in the websites I gave. That's wishful thinking on your part. What stuff are you refering to? Technocracy borrows ideas from systems that already exist today that work well (e.g., the Bell telephone network). Technocracy might suck, but it's the most conclusive research project to date. As for your comments about my understanding of history, I think you should take them back. I was born in the USSR and I have seen history from both sides. I believe this gives me a fuller understanding of history than anyone could have from just one viewpoint.

Do you understand what I mean by politics? It is the decision making process where opinions, philosophies, and ideologies are in control of society. Why do I dislike politics? Becuase it is un-scientific and useless in technical matters. Do you see the distinction between politics and Technocracy? Technocracy is a scientific design for society. Tomorrow someone might come and disprove Technocracy, and I would gladly thank them for that because I could stop expounding a worthless idea. Many have tried to do this, and either became frustrated and stopped trying, or have become supporters themselves. I'll reply to your previous message anyway, but in the future I won't bother replying to long, unbroken messages. What is so unbelievable? We already have the productive capacity to provide everything we need. The current barrier is an antiquated form of government. Nobody has ever attempted to divide everything equally, even in communist states. But why does this even matter, because this is NOT what Technocracy is about! When you say it is impossible, say what type of work and why. Most of the work done today is already done by machines, and people only work to maintain, improve, and use this technology. We won't have such jobs as bureaucrats and accountants anyways, because there will be no need for them. In Technocracy, the people are the government, because Technocracy is not about controlling people, but technology. Such issues as Constitution, Law, and Order would be resolved through Democratic means. The government of Technocracy would embrace every socially useful function performed on the North American Continent. The political and financial superstructures would serve no use, so they will be disposed of. You have nothing to fear from such a government.

Whoa, whoa, slow down. First of all, you are saying such things as "that's bad", which is an appeal to emotion. You guys accused me of being un-scientific, so I'll use the same standard. Second of all, break up your message. Organize your ideas into smaller paragraphs so I can address each one separatly. I didn't come here to debate politics. Political debates never end. The only reason I posted this here is because "politics" is the closest approximation of the term "human society".

I'm trying to think if there are any exceptions, but that's an accurate description as far as I can tell. You're right. People in competing countries view each other as bad. Same thing with people in competing communities. So do people in competing schools, ideologies, and religions. It is only when they have accepted some of the same ideas that they sympathize for the other side - that is when they're competing for the good of the same thing.

Racism and xenophobia are extreme forms of the "Us vs. Them" mentality. Prejudice in general is a destructive form of this trait. The "Us vs. Them" mentality is actually a natural trait that evolved as a mechanism that reduces internal disorder. Up until recently, before the rise of such things as nationalism, this trait has never been purposefully used - it's always been in an instinctive on/off state. First, let's look at what evolution is (this should be familiar). The process of evolution requires three things: 1.) A population of individuals. Some can be identical, some can be completely different. 2.) The replication of these individuals. Sometimes replication isn't perfect, and there's a slight change to the individual. 3.) These individuals compete with each other over limited resources, and are filtered based on competitiveness (ability to compete, survive, adapt, reproduce). That is the basics of all evolution. Genes are one example of evolutionary systems. You yourself contribute to this system by propagating your own genes (or do your genes use you to propagate themselves?) Now, I realize many people never studied memetics so I'll have to start from scratch. Memetics complements our understanding of biological evolution, and helps us understand ideological evolution. So let's look at what is evolution of ideas (culture): 1.) There is a population of ideas. Some are similar, some are completely different. 2.) These ideas are replicated many different ways: chatting, watching movies, reading books, etc. But all communication is ambiguous, and ideas are sometimes slightly changed in the process (mutate). 3.) Ideas must compete for limited resources (minds) based on their competitiveness (ability to compete, survive, adapt, reproduce). There are many ideas, so they have to struggle for popularity. And even then, people disagree, so ideas directly compete for survival. That is the basics of cultural evolution. By telling you this, the "cultural evolution" idea has just reproduced itself in your mind. The "racism is bad" idea is systematically replicated in white Christian culture. To acknowledge race is seen as something to be ashamed of. You are yourself propagating this idea (or is the idea using you to propagate itself?) Cultural evolution runs side-by-side with genetic evolution, and they affect each other to create the dynamics of race evolution. Let's look back at just biological evolution. Within the genetic population, organisms form different species. Different species are isolated from each other by their inability to interbreed (chicken can't mate with dog). Individuality within a species is the genes' mechanism to ensure its own survival (the more individuals it inhabits, the more likely it is to persist.) For example, the genes of different hair colors depend on genetic individuality for survival. Within the species, there are more cohesive breeds, which are isolated by geography. And within those are even more cohesive families, which are isolated by heritage. But by resolving internal contradictions within the species, species form competing macro-populations. Each species competes against other species for the survival of their genes (mice help mice, dogs help dogs). Different species form co-habitations when it increases chances of both their genes surviving (dogs help humans). Likewise, within the ideological population, individuals form different cultures. Different cultures are isolated from each other by their inability to replicate ideas (different langauges, geographic boundaries, political barriers). Individuality within a species is the ideas' mechanism to ensure its own survival (the more individuals it inhabits, the more likely it is to persist.) For example, the ideas of different musical styles depend on individuality for survival. Within the culture, there are more cohesive strata, which are isolated by circumstances. And within those are even more cohesive communities, which are isolated by participation. But by resolving internal contradictions within the culture, cultures form competing macro-populations. Each culture competes against other cultures for the survival of their ideas (Russians help Russians, Christians help Christians, Nerds help Nerds, etc.) Different cultures form co-habitations when it increases chances of both their ideas surviving (e.g., Christians help Conservatives.) Evolution works on many levels. Education systematically retards us and blinds us from this fact. No, we're not brainwashed, but we're held back. We don't even mention such things as cultural evolution because it might be considered racist. I don't consider it racist. I think we gloss over the signifance of evolution to day-to-day life.

Do you want a Yes/No answer?... The answer is Yes, many will enjoy getting higher education. People read books and go on forums for a hobby, right? If they have more free time, doesn't that mean they can study to get the certification they want? Of course, these are just specifics, and I'm not certain about them. The forumites at http://www.technocracy.ca know more than me (if you are interested.) Yes, police will still be needed, but to a lesser extent. Those would-be criminals will be able to find the psychiatric help they need. But even then, Urbanates will have no slums or dark alleys, since they will be designed from top to bottom, so you will be quite safe from degenerates.

I don't see the problem. You're judging me based on how I worded something? I am interested in what other have to say, so long as they aren't opinions. Did I give that impression? I felt I was only adhering to scientific dogma. Do you understand what I mean by opinion? I make distinction between hypotheses and theories that are subject to the scientific method, and opinions, which are not substantiated with proof or knowledge. Why do I dislike opinion? Because it has 0 use in technical matters. Seriously, how can one learn the truth by relying on opinion? There are two main categories of decisions: democratic, and technical. Here are very simple and concise explanations for both: http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/democratic.htm http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/technical.htm Compare that to our (antiquated) political system: http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/politics.htm Stop, stop, what are you talking about! Technocracy does not say such things as "suffering and death and starvation are bad". Like the website says, "The Goals of a Technocratic government are simply to provide its citizens with the highest possible standard of living while maintaining the ability to do this for the longest possible period." They have no political or economic aims, they just do research and try to find the best solution based on these criteria. Technocracy is simply a technology that we can choose to use, because it is not the imperative of the scientist to force people to do something - no more than it is an imperative of the engineer to force people who use his car to go from A to B. There is Technocratic, and there is Technocratic. I think you've confused what I mean with this Technocracy (bureaucratic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29 You can read what Technocracy is NOT on the misconceptions page: http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/isnot.htm There's nothing wrong with those. Technocracy will not take away any of your freedoms. But they do not require a political government. Censorship and dictatorship are political ideas too! If anything, political government hurts freedoms. Read about the problems of political government here (it's very short): http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/politics.htm We do make a plethora of goods. Thanks to automation, we do not do back-breaking labour (most of us). But we have a problem because automation displaces jobs and destroys purchasing power. And even then, capitalism artificially enforces a scarcity because abundance is death to free-market economy. You know why companies give razor-blades artificial life-spans? Because if they didn't, people would never need to buy new ones, and the companies would go out of business. Farmers over-produce goods, which leads to competitevely shrinking prices, so government has to subsidize farms to make sure they can make a living. Do you know what that means? It means we could eliminate starvation (if we were so inclined). What is work? Does it have to be unenjoyable? If people no longer had to work to make a living, would'nt they enjoy making open-source software, pursuing science, filming movies, writing music, writing novels? We don't need anyone to break their backs doing farm work. You must understand that Technocracy aims to automate and eliminate the need for work we are forced to do. What type of technical decisions? A Technate is organized into different Functional Sequences, each one suited to different areas of expertise. The Directors not only have to make the decisions, but they also have to execute them, each Director in his own Sequence. This necessity, in contrast with present legislative bodies, offers a serious curb upon foolish decisions. It is neither democratic, autocratic, nor dictatorial. It is dictated by the requirements of the job that has to be done. Philosophy is not subject to the rigours of the scientific method. That is a valid concern. I have read intelligible answers about most of these. These are specifics, but the needs for a lot of jobs will be eliminated (farming, accountants, factory workers, among others.) I do not know about specifics, but I can say that thanks to the free time availible, many people will be able to get the education they need to become doctors, teachers, technitians, and inventors. When all the human beings are properly fed, clothed, housed, and have all their other biological needs adequately cared for, we will create a high standard of health, freeing up hospital rooms, and allowing doctors to find new cures and solutions. Police are a product of the price-system, and many of the crimes that exist today are done for economic reasons (for money, or goods.) Crime is never abolished solely by coercieve measures or moralistic railing, so long as there's a reward to those who commit crime. Many crimes will be eliminated under Technocracy simply because there will be no need to commit them. Archictecture and the educational system will be completely remade. Archictecture will adhere to a new standard, and Urbanates will be planned from top to bottom for maximum safety. Education will no longer rely on the same antiquated, traditional model, but will work on the basis of human conditioning. Thanks to more free time, many more people will be able to pursue higher education at their leisure. Still need more? Perhaps this is not something I can condense into one reply. If you want, you can read this article about human motivation in a Technate: http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=22&page=1

Meritocracy is an abstract system where people recieve according to their merits. Technocracy is a specific system where people recieve according to their needs. This is not an opinion. This is fact. As a scientist, I try to be as objective and impartial as I can, so I try to avoid opinions. I have no experience editting the Wikipedia, and I have no interest. No, you didn't understand me. I said the problems expressed in the Wikipedia were NON-issues, because they were already addressed. I had the problem because the comments were posted by someone who did not understand the subject. Take this for example: I find this to be biased. Instead of focusing on real arguments, it attacks a superficiality. Communism is a philosophy, but Technocracy was dictated directly by science (it is covered extensively in the Study Guide I linked to). Yes, I do realize that these comments represent what the opposition believes are valid issues, but I'm saying that if you read about Technocracy you would see how it all fits together.

I'm very surprised that Technocracy has NEVER been mentioned on this board! For a science forum, I would have thought you would have already seen this. I was hoping to discuss your own prospects about Technocracy, but I guess I'll have to be the first to introduce you all to this scientific design for society. Some helpful websites: http://www.technocracy.org http://www.technocracy.ca Beginners' articles: Beginner's Page (old) http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm Why Technocracy http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b28 Energy Accounting http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b29 Scientific Government http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b63 Environment http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b73 Technocracy: Technological Continental Design http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/ttcd/ Discussion forum: http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=index In-depth study guide: http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/tsc/ Wikipedia on Technocracy This entry is actually quite dissappointing. It doesn't explain the concepts as well as I hoped it would, and the "opposition" section is skewed against it (these non-issues are addressed in-depth on the Technocracy websites.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement After a look at the discussion behind the wikipedia, I learn that the "opposition" section was written by a Libertarian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocratic_movement Which explains the

Thanks... that was the quickest debunk I've ever seen. =D

First of all, I wonder if any of you have heard of the story of the supposed time traveller who called himself "John Titor" (Timetravel_0). http://www.johntitor.com/ Before leaving our timeline, John Titor himself made several appearances on web forums, and made some scary predictions about the future and discussed the workings of the time machine. I know many of you are experts in different fields of science. What can you tell from the posts of John Titor? Does the time machine, the way he explained it, seem possible? Or does John Titor's whole story seem like an elaborate hoax? Are his posts internally consistent? Are they in compliance with known laws of reality?

Radiowaves, microwaves, and visible light are all part of the same big spectrum. If the only difference between these spectrums is wave-frequency, then how is it that some waves are able to pass through objects (like radiowaves), and light waves are blocked? How does the quantitive change of frequency cause a qualitative change of being able to pass through matter?

I see, so carbon fullerenes possess many unique physical properties. Thank you, swansont, Ophiolite, ed84c, and Skye! I have learned all I wished to learn.

Thanks everyone, I think I get all I cared to know. And I apologize for re-creating this discussion when the same topic had been raised in another discussion (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8308). I'll use the search feature next time. And Christ slave, no offense but I'm really opposed to your spiritual-political leanings (I didn't want to discuss those things here). But it's refreshing to know people disagree.

Ok, I see that it's fairly established that carbon can be arranged to conduct electricity. Stupid question I guess. And I've learned a bit about special properties of carbon molecules from fullerenes (http://www.mindspring.com/~kimall/Fuller/fullerenes.html). But I really still don't understand if pure carbon molecules can have the properties of a wide variety of other substances (I don't mean to ignore ed84c, but I think there's some discrepency on this point). I'll post reference to the original comments instead of trying to paraphrase it. Here's the comments I read in novel that I'm refering to: http://webcenter.ru/~lazarevicha/ntn_toc.htm

I have read on this subject only briefly in novels (Arthur Clarke's "2010: odyssey two", and Alexander Lazarevich's "The NanoTech Network"), so I'm interested if something like this is really possible. I really don't know much on the subject of chemistry, so I apologize if I say something that doesn't make sense. My first question is, is it possible to create a lattice of carbon, like a metal, that conducts electricity? My second question is, is it possible to arrange the structure of the lattice in such a way that it would have the chemical properties of a different substance? My last question is, what affect do the combinations of neutrons, protons, and electrons have on the chemical properties of the substance? That is to say, if we knew the atomic structure of an atom, what can tell about the material it makes? (Because if we can emulate any substance with carbon, couldn't we create subtance with all the properties we wanted?)

Note: I post this as a purely theoretical question, since I base all this on understanding of evolutionary principles and not any statistics or numbers. In biological evolution, a species exists only as far as it can continue to survive and reproduce in many numbers. It would seem that the longer the life span of an animal, the greater the chances are that it would have reproduced, therefore species with greater life spans have greater survivability. So, if this is true, that would mean that biological evolution favors those species that have greater life spans. Given this, why are there still limits on life span of all species? Is it not possible for biological reasons, or has evolution not been fast enough to create such species?