Media Into Change
This question being asked by a major publication, owned by the octopus of major money business in the West means something. Major money houses are looking to shift the energy situation.
"What are the obstacles to sustainable energy?" -Newscientist.com
What are the obstacles? Money. We have the technology. It's even cheap. However, how these houses can keep making money and how society can maintain control of populations is the cinch.
If we allowed free energy technology to be publicized in our media and made in our industries, the world would explode into financial and organizational chaos.
Let us take this as a "0" default point from which to calibrate. This will be the case [or death] within 25 years, and more likely within 5 or 10.
What limitations or conditions do we want, if any, on total no-households-barred free energy for every individual business?
What are the probable human choice outcomes of universal free energy? What consequences will the end of materialism have on society? On law? On prison systems? On law enforcement? On major media? On industry and competition? On transit and pollution? On urban gathering? Education?
On religion? Spirituality? ESP? UFOs? On telecommunications? On social and political organization? On business? Research? Medicine? Science? Aerospace and space exploration?
Agriculture and diet? Therapy and rehabilitation? Drug use?
How will conflict change? How will our daily lives be changed? What will stress us?
Military and state marketers, do this.
Advertising will be eliminated, for one...
posted by William Bunker @ 9:42 PM
2 Comments:
I believe that question is open ended. They probably have all the money they need to do whatever Israel/America/their own HQ wants them to.
What is the point, is the question. Yes, our military and media seemingly are being hijacked for the purposes of a foreign power. Do their concerns interest us? Somewhat. They are in a way the front lines of a regional battle that we could potentially become affected by someday.
Probably the first battles of a finalization of an eventuality of population and planetary resources dreamed up by some American or Soviet dream team during the 1950's and 1960's when it became apparent that the Cold War would probably last for 'the long haul', and economies and population and technologies began speeding up to critical levels.
We probably surpassed certain threshholds of scale that they set for us in the past around 2000, which could have been projected by about 1992-3. 6 billion recorded population, resource tagging estimated at over ~84%, remaining resource uncertainty at less than 60%.
This is the D-Day they were waiting for. A time when we would have to fight the Russians for their resources.
They didn't account for sustainability or ambient energy, nor that even having all the world's resources would not save them without understanding *and* sustainability/infinity or both. Even in the face of "megadeaths".
You can't say 1>2 forever. We are also all humans. The key is not to eliminate all others, it is to improve others to a point where they are good to be with, as are you.
This is not done by tagging all the world's people and resources. It is done by review and improvement not in the face of universal annihilation.
Wouldn't it have been sweet for after the Nazis were defeated after WW2, with the threat of universal destruction by nature of race, for the winning nations to disarm their nukes and denounce violence and commit to working together to use technology to provide for all mankind?
That day is... 2013?
I'd also like to state that we could use a movie about this and call it 2013, similar in mood or scope to Dr. Strangelove, but with a fantastic new ending.
Post a Comment
<< Home