Thread: Ukraine Elections 2010 + various political off-topics

Originally Posted by Ramil

You won't be able to change it for those who already lives. You should separate children and their parents to bring a new culture into this world. Would you do that?

I think it's too grim a prognosis. I'll give you an example from the real world. The official language of Israel is Hebrew. However, that language was artificially resurrected and modernized to become a live language. That was a purely political move to settle a dispute between native Yiddish-speaking and Ladino-speaking population.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't mind globalism, btw.
It will help to get rid of racism, nationalism, etc.
There are many drawbacks, of course, but I really think that people should be citizens of the planet Earth, not some petty country.

If it's GOOD, yes... But I don't trust the current leaders of the world to create good globalised world. I think there's a fair risk it would be a very creepy society with no privacy, no meaningful culture, slaving away in an office or factory to generate more profits for a global corporation and soothing your unease with gadgets if you are lucky enough to be able to afford them. Only a very tiny clique actually reach the lifestyle that everyone is dreaming about and even if they do, it comes at a very high personal price.

As a someone with a nominally Christian upbringing I also cannot help seeing that there are some very uncanny similarities between the future globalised world as it is shaping up, and the prophecies of the book of Revelations. Only a few minor things would have to happen and you'd have exactly the situation that it is predicting... Make of it what you want, I am just making an observation.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

You won't be able to change it for those who already lives. You should separate children and their parents to bring a new culture into this world. Would you do that?

I think it's too grim a prognosis. I'll give you an example from the real world. The official language of Israel is Hebrew. However, that language was artificially resurrected and modernized to become a live language. That was a purely political move to settle a dispute between native Yiddish-speaking and Ladino-speaking population.

It might have worked with the Jews, but it won't work with me and people like me, for example. How can you 'persuade' or force me to start using another language? I'll ask you what will I benefit out of it in the first case and I would resist in the second one.

You should start with children (remember when did they start to brainwash children in the USSR). But it's parents who form up a new person. If parents don't cooperate (and they won't cooperate) all your efforts would be in vain.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You should start with children (remember when did they start to brainwash children in the USSR). But it's parents who form up a new person. If parents don't cooperate (and they won't cooperate) all your efforts would be in vain.

No brainwashing needed, it's already happening with English it's just done in a much less obvious way than what you are referring to.

Check what kids are watching on TV, where they want to go on holiday (Disneyland) what clothe they want to wear. (same style as "Hannah Montana" etc)
They are brainwashing themselves thanks to media.

Don't know whether this is a "conspiracy" or not and you probably haven't seen the results in Russia yet. But I have heard Scandinavian kids of 6-7 using English expressions and saying short sentences in English. No way that would have happened 20 years ago.

The generation after that might be bilingual from early childhood and then English takes over.

Unless the current development is stopped.

Originally Posted by Ramil

How can you 'persuade' or force me to start using another language? I'll ask you what will I benefit out of it in the first case [...] You should start with children (remember when did they start to brainwash children in the USSR).

I would say to you: "Dear parent, do you want your children be exposed to the [INSERT THE BAD ADJECTIVE] culture of [INSERT COUNTRY] through their [INSERT THE EVEN WORSE ADJECTIVE] language? You, my dear parent, might think that evil is inevitable for them to adapt to the living in the global world? Well, guess what! Your counterpart parents all over the globe go through the same emotional struggle. And the cultural stress of the new language is on the internationalism, multiculturalism, blah-blah-blah. So, your little one is poised to embrace the globe whilst preserving his own identity. Isn't that just fantastic?

So, to make this wonderful dream happen, my dear parent, all people over the globe must do their part and contribute to form the better future. Are you on board?

And for the spiritualistic parents make up something like: "New Age - New Language!"

(Or something like that, as I'm no good at pulling slogans off my sleeve.)

Originally Posted by Johanna

They are brainwashing themselves thanks to media.

By the way, do you know the slang name for TV in Russian? Зомбоящик (a zombie box).
I know what are you talking about and this is not new.

Don't know whether this is a "conspiracy" or not and you probably haven't seen the results in Russia yet. But I have heard Scandinavian kids of 6-7 using English expressions and saying short sentences in English. No way that would have happened 20 years ago.

Conspiracy is an intentional thing, this one is just an 'evolution'. It simply is and there's really nothing we can do about it. You can't shield a child from TV, street ads, internet etc. But I think it's parents' duty to explain a few things (the earlier the better):
1. TV is lies, lies and more lies. NO EXCEPTIONS!
2. Advertisements are more lies. NO EXCEPTIONS!
With these things every parent MUST brainwash his or her children every day.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I would say to you .... Isn't that just fantastic?

I would say: "I ain't buying nothing dude. Get lost"

To be serious: It's an axiom: you can't change this world to the better intentionally.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I would say: "I ain't buying nothing dude. Get lost"

Alright, but you were bought into the idea of cryptocracy and anarchy, so you are a potential buyer. It's only a matter of smart marketing and wise pricing.

Well, I have a rather strange point of view on the matter.
I'm thinking that the globalization institutions and agents that we have now will finally win, but this at the same time will be their end. They were created to function in a divided nations environments. If their globalistic dreams come true one day, they will discover that they would not be able to function (in their present form) in a new society.

Consider it: one currency, one market, one language, one government, one set of laws everywhere. One thing that pops immediately in mind - no currency trade, no difference in prices and laws, no customs. Well, our technological advances doesn't stop - we travel faster and much more - transportation costs will get lower and lower (the transporat fraction of added value also gets lower), etc. This is just a small list of changes this world is going to adopt one day.
So, Johanna, you can put your mind at rest - no present government will exist then.

It would be great if you turn out to be right.

A borderless world with no evil world government would be great. Utopia... (has anyone actually read that book? I haven't...)

But have you considered this? There are not enough resources in the world for everybody to live like people in the richest countries do! Plus, there would be too much pollution.

If India, China and many others are to reach the living standards of the richest countries, then it HAS to be at the expense of someone else... North America and Europe will have to voluntarily step back and possibly reduce the living standards of people!

Somehow I don't see this happening... We are already seeing oil wars... The richest countries are the ones that have the best armies and nuclear weapons... Not an enemy to provoke unnecesarily, as Saddam and many others found out.

The population of the world has almost doubled since the 1980s. There is an upper limit for how large the worlds' population can get... What when food start becoming really expensive and drinking water short in some areas? Europe has nowhere near as much energy as it needs for it's basic needs, like heating, not to mention oil consumption.

What when China becomes really strong? It is quitely buying up mineral and energy resources around the world. They are not starting wars at the moment, but they are very ruthless in the way they go about their business, seemingly no respect for local populations or for nature.

They do not have the same frame of mind as Europeans (including Russians, lol!) and Americans... Will they be interested in the cosy borderless world or will they want to run it?

Highly relevant for the Ukrainian election 2001

Originally Posted by Johanna

There are not enough resources in the world for everybody to live like people in the richest countries do!

It depends on the amount of energy the humanity would be able to harvest, and not on the way that energy would be distributed. The politics focuses on the distribution part. So, assume our civilization achieved level I (=so it is able to harvest all the energy of the planet). Would that still imply there would be "not enough resources in the world for everybody to live like people in the richest countries do?" No, it wouldn't (if we speak of the richest and the poorest countries of today). In the global economy the poorest countries of tomorrow would live better than the richest countries of today. However, if the distribution imbalance continues, the poorest countries of tomorrow would live like the poorest countries of today, whilst the richest countries would be capitalizing on the resources of the Solar system (e.g. think how much minerals a single asteroid might have).

Another aspect is that presently lots of energy is lost due to the inevitable consequences of national economics (e.g. the armies that defend those economics).

Yeah. I hope somebody will discover the free energy formula... But there may possibly be those who don't even want that to happen!

But for the 3rd world to be flying like we in the West do... Impossible! Pollution would skyrocket and oil would run out in a decade.

I have READ that oil companies are actively sabotaging some of the research in the energy research field because it goes against their business interests. This is not a "conspiracy theory" but more or less a known fact. They buy up institutions that work on this, and literally put the lid on. Probably saving the findings for the day when the oil is really running out.

Same as certain food companies that support consumption of their unhealthy food because it generates more profits for them than any healthier alternatives. The sweetener scandal is a good example. The healthy and cheap alternative stevia root got banned in the EU and USA, after corrupted lobbyist tricked and bribed ignorant and greedy politicians. All the while the dangerous Aspartame (TM) and similar are on sale despite being very dangerous products that cause many deaths every year.

This planet can conveniently support up to 10-12 billion people (I mean food, water, living space, etc) at the present technological level. It can be more.
Overpopulation IS a problem but there's still some room. Besides, there are oceans too. And they too can be colonized.
Energy is not a problem, after all even with nuclear power we can produce enough energy for all.

The only question is - rich countries can afford it and poor countries - don't. This all can be eliminated once the countries disappear. Of course, in some areas people will live better than others but gradually this will averages out. This won't eliminate 90/10 ratio, however, 90% of the world's resources will be controlled by 10% of people but that's another story or the next step if you want.
Globalization will destroy the institution of international politics and currencies and international trade but will not solve any sociologic problems. I don't think that 'unification' will come peacefully. There bound to be some local conflicts but I don't think that things would deteriorate (although the scenario of a global conflict cannot be ignored completely). As Europe has united so will the Middle East, Asia, South America. We'll have 10-15 'megastates' in the beginning. North America and Europe will probably join next (and probably Australia), then it will probably be Asia and Africa - look at Asia I think that everything will be rotating around China the next decade and its influence in the region will grow more and more. (I really don't know whom Russia will stick to and I really wonder about it). If there will be no global conflicts (and I hope there wouldn't be anything like that) the further integration will gradually continue. Free travel is the cornerstone of this process.

Originally Posted by Johanna

But for the 3rd world to be flying like we in the West do... Impossible! Pollution would skyrocket and oil would run out in a decade. [...]

I have READ that oil companies are actively sabotaging some of the research in the energy research field because it goes against their business interests. This is not a "conspiracy theory" but more or less a known fact.

You seem to have the rather biased sources of information if you know so much about the undercover sabotaging and are totally unaware of the open info about the development of a "clean plane" powered by the hydrogen fuel cells.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

But for the 3rd world to be flying like we in the West do... Impossible! Pollution would skyrocket and oil would run out in a decade. [...]

I have READ that oil companies are actively sabotaging some of the research in the energy research field because it goes against their business interests. This is not a "conspiracy theory" but more or less a known fact.

You seem to have the rather biased sources of information if you know so much about the undercover sabotaging and are totally unaware of the open info about the development of a "clean plane" powered by the hydrogen fuel cells.

I worked for a year at a large and well known oil company.
They regularly sending out "informational" emails to staff saying "contrary to what [xx environmental org] says, we are not sabotaging research into renewable energy, in fact, we are supporting it... blah, blah "

It had not occurred to me that they might be doing that, but I got curious and looked into it, and it seemed that some fairly reliable sources had proof that they did... There were similar stories also about their dealings in the third world, which they claimed were perfectly honourable "we build schools and provide drinking water", but which according to the local population was daylight robbery.

I am not aware of any clean low emission way of flying. Can you tell me about it?
How much cleaner is it than, say, a normal Boeing 707?

Originally Posted by Johanna

I am not aware of any clean low emission way of flying. Can you tell me about it?
How much cleaner is it than, say, a normal Boeing 707?

Basically, the only by-product (=the pollution) of the hydrogen oxidation is water. Can it be any more clean?

However, the total environmental footprint depends on the way this hydrogen was obtained. It is yet to be proved (=unknown) that hydrogen could be mined from the certain geological formations. Presently, the most common way to produce hydrogen is to extract it from water by means of electricity. So, technically, hydrogen is more like an energy carrier. If the clean energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) is used for the extraction, the environmental impact of operating such plane is very low (i.e. there are other factors unrelated to fuel emissions).

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

I am not aware of any clean low emission way of flying. Can you tell me about it?
How much cleaner is it than, say, a normal Boeing 707?

Basically, the only by-product (=the pollution) of the hydrogen oxidation is water. Can it be any more clean?

It's not that simple. Large amounts of water vapor may change the weather patterns the same way today's CO and CO2 do.
Heavy clouds - nearly 100% humidity, etc...

Presently, the most common way to produce hydrogen is to extract it from water by means of electricity.

And you spend more energy on producing hydrogen this way than it will produce when burning in oxygen.

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's not that simple. Large amounts of water vapor may change the weather patterns the same way today's CO and CO2 do.
Heavy clouds - nearly 100% humidity, etc...

I have yet to see the research that points into that issue. Intuitively, a hot summer would evaporate more water from the oceans than any amount of planes in observable future could do. And later, the water rains back to the oceans. It's not at all like the CO2 issue because the CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and can only be sequestered by plants or dissolve in oceans contributing to their acidification. The overall environmental impact of hydrogen economy is yet to be determined, however it's not even close to the oil economy (which, in turn, is cleaner than the charcoal economy of the past). I realize the hydrogen economy is not the panacea, but just a temporary measure until the fusion is obtained.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Presently, the most common way to produce hydrogen is to extract it from water by means of electricity.

And you spend more energy on producing hydrogen this way than it will produce when burning in oxygen.

That is correct. Therefore, producing hydrogen cells by means of burning fossil fuels is stupid. It should only be the renewable energy to make this whole thing work.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's not that simple. Large amounts of water vapor may change the weather patterns the same way today's CO and CO2 do.
Heavy clouds - nearly 100% humidity, etc...

I have yet to see the research that points into that issue. Intuitively, a hot summer would evaporate more water from the oceans than any amount of planes in observable future could do. And later, the water rains back to the oceans. It's not at all like the CO2 issue because the CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and can only be sequestered by plants or dissolve in oceans contributing to their acidification. The overall environmental impact of hydrogen economy is yet to be determined, however it's not even close to the oil economy (which, in turn, is cleaner than the charcoal economy of the past). I realize the hydrogen economy is not the panacea, but just a temporary measure until the fusion is obtained.

Why not use nuclear power? It's clean (unless you deliberately blow a nuclear reactor). It's cheap and it's available.
After all, the only drawback is peoples' fear of radiation.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Why not use nuclear power? It's clean (unless you deliberately blow a nuclear reactor). It's cheap and it's available. After all, the only drawback is peoples' fear of radiation.

Well, you can't install a nuclear reactor on board the plane, so I assume you don't dispute the usefulness of hydrogen as an energy carrier.

So, I agree that fission can produce a lot of energy (as well as some radioactive waste). As to the safety of operation, we don't know yet whether or not the fusion plant will be safer to operate than the fission plant.

The fusion, however, is the ultimate source of power in the observable universe as we know it. And it produces many-folds more power than the fission. So, that's the inevitable direction of development as it will allow the humanity to exploit the resources of the Solar system and go beyond the Level I civilization.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Why not use nuclear power? It's clean (unless you deliberately blow a nuclear reactor). It's cheap and it's available. After all, the only drawback is peoples' fear of radiation.

Well, you can't install a nuclear reactor on board the plane, so I assume you don't dispute the usefulness of hydrogen as an energy carrier.

So, I agree that fission can produce a lot of energy (as well as some radioactive waste). As to the safety of operation, we don't know yet whether or not the fusion plant will be safer to operate than the fission plant.

I somehow know the answer and the answer is no, a fusion plant cannot be 'safer'. The only thing that matters is the amount of 'controlled energy'. If it suddenly becomes 'uncontrolled' - the whole thing explodes.