-Demosthenes-

Phi has the same birthday as me (not counting the year) PS: Didn't read the whole first post till now... opps

I thought everyone could?

My favorite word is mofoses.

Um... scary?

Dirty cheater! (haha me too)

Why would we be able to leave if people were using more electricity?

Haha, only us who know biblical sense get this one...wait a sec...ewwwwwwwwwww.

Then I hate Dak

Ditto.

I know that crappy stuff goes on in the world. I know that people die, people hurt other people, and poeple get hurt. There's nothing I can do about it, I can feel bad, but that's it. I could tell everyone, "I feel so bad that something bad happened to some one else." I'm sure that that is what the person who got hurt would want us to do, just to feel bad all the time. I'm sure it helps them a lot. Anyways, everything you have experienced can be (and has) easily explained scientifically, and I see no reason that it isn't just normal feelings of a normal girl.

The one will Anorld the iceman was funny.

When I read this I actually laughed out loud, which I do not do often when reading stuff.

Not as good as Spiderman, good attempt at actually being a good movie, other Batman movies sent me running out of the theater crying like a baby.

I would venture so far as to say that the think similarly, and make the same (if not very similar) basic principles. I agree with revpres mostly, he's said most of what I would have said.

A little embelished, but true to an extent. There were many similar movements in the 30's. Nearly everyone one was poor and many of these ideas surfaced, Marxism or communism and it's ideas seeped into the minds of Americans, and to a larger extent socialism. This was not much acted upon in government (except to elect a liberal president), but the ideas were there. These were large movements, technocracy was a run of the mill idea that lots of people come up in the 30's, there were scores of others just like it. (I am talking about in the U.S., which if you aren't then tell me)

If it's just a "whacked-out theory" then it's not going to be one of out "big mistakes". Millions of poeple everyday come out with "whacked-out theories" but they don't go down in history books for no apparant reason as some "big" thing.

Can you give me an example of how technology can be used to form a government? It's like asking if you can use geometry to make a pie. Magically technology provides everything that we need (with 5% employment ), and we split it all up evenly. Sounds great, but I've already exlained why parts of it are impossible and other's inpractible. They explained a world where only 5% of people work and it provides everything for everyone. You think that a change in continental infrastructure would make this possible? Again more bull @%$#. I really don't know what you mean by this. The sites say specifically that everything will be split up evenly (as I have shown earlier in this post). Governments like this in the past have failed. Using the scientific method (as a "scientist" I would have thought you would know this) we know that governments like this are doomed to be failures, the only fix that is put forth in "technocracy" is that technology will somehow provide everything for us, which is impossible. Why do you continue to bring the same subjects up over and over? Like I said earlier: And before: I couldn't possibly see history from both sides, I'm from the US. Nice stereotyping buddy. Prove it? How? It's not science! These are political ideas, all we can do is see what has happened in the past. Communism and any type of government related to it have always resulted in an oppressive and totalitarian government. It's not conclusive evidence (nothing is this realm of ideas has conclusive evidence), but there is no reason the think that it won't happen exactly the way has happened before.

Facial signals and body language, and in person there are other signs and signals. Humans are social animals, they share their emotions in many, many other ways other than verbal communication, and we can pick up those signals without either person realizing it. And even further we can "feel" for each other, I can feel bad for someone because their dog died, and I can feel bad for someone just because I picked up on the signals and signs (without consciously realizing how) that they have that they are sad or hurt.

The same is true of science, it's useless in political ideas. Government cannot be bases on ideas based in "technical matters". I fail to see how it's anymore "scientific" than any other political idea. You don't quite know what science is, and you are not very analytical. We can make everything we need with 5% emplyment? Bull sh*t. That was the main thing that they attempted, only in practice they didn't. In your sites this is exactly what they said that they wanted to do, to split everything up evenly. Why can't you understand? Most of this stuff has been tried, there has been trial and errror over hundreds of years, and some group of scientists (with no history or political learning) decide to move in and take a shot at it, and they're ideas suck. Read some freaking history, and if you are making a political idea (which this most certainly is) then learn what the frick it is, for the love of Moses!

It is bad, negative, undesirable. Then why did you put forth a political idea?

I'd have to agree with Martin and Ecoli in the beginning of the thread. In person it is very easy to pick up on cues and signals that show what and how they are thinking, and the psychological part of actually feeling what other's feel I would have to agree with Ecoli. It's easy to start feeling for people on the news or TV (in fact the media plays off of it) and it happens to everyone to a degree, especially if you feel responsible for other people, or feel that there is something you could have done, even subconsciously. Most people seemed to have developed some sort of surrealist point of view towards the things on the news and other events. We know that they are real, but we accept it as happening always somewhere else, and to someone else, so that in our minds it is never quite real.

It sounds like you can own property privately and technology will magically provide everything we need, and everyone can be some kind of scholar. It's a dream, an impossible dream, and a flawed one. It is very communist in the respect that everything is divided equally, this has failed in the past because human nature will be as lazy as it can be, no one will work very much if they don't have to for no reason. This is why this certain kind of government has to be backed up with a dictatorship or a totalitarian government, where they can make the people work. This type of government is generally considered bad, it strives to keep it's population ignorant and poor so they can control them, which is also considered bad. There seems a way around this, have technology do all the work. This does seem a good idea, except that it is impossible, and we are far from making it possible. Another requirement would be faith in the government (the government would be far more powerful in this "technocracy"), and the government would have to be true to this faith (make a document they must always live by guaranteeing the most important rights, a type of Constitution containing the government to protect the people, and contain the majority to protect the minority). This is generally impossible as those in positions of power always abuse it (hence the philosophy of 3 branches of government), and those not in positions of power always distrust those in power (unless they can control it, hence democracy). IMO using future technologies to enhance what we already have is the best route. Scientists, leave politics to those who know them, we will do the same

Ahhh, you ruined the cool magic trick Edit: oh I see, like when you stare at a certain color and then look at something white and it apears to be the opposite color of what you were looking at, only super-inposed over the top of the purple dots when you keep looking at the cross in the center.

Some universities require 2 years of a foriegn launguage, but not all.