In the future, will humanity be united and money extinct

no, this title is utopia and pure loss of time

 

Until Fenix or LK finally locks this Ill take 10 minutes of my time to respond to this parroted rubbish:

1. I'll concede. Perhaps no building before 9/11 did. I won't be bothered checking if you are correct or not as it is not relevant to what happened in NY at 9/11.
2. I know nothing about that. As far as I know the (incomplete) manifest was released the very next day. It is not easy to handle such information so the passenger list came in separate pieces.
3. Well actually that is not entirely true. NORAD was not left with just two planes and it does not really matter if they had 2 planes ready or 200 since they were never alerted in time. (first real heads up came after first planes already crashed)
4. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers on the collapsing of NY buildings on 9/11. It collapsed perfectly in accordance to the law of physics without the need for any additional explosives. Tonnes of falling concrete have enough inertia to break through stuff with such force as to almost keep the constant acceleration of g.
5. That is a lie. Just google it. Plenty of debris.
6. First of all: There are plenty of things in an office which burn at high enough temperatures to melt steel. Second of all: Nobody claims that the steel must liquify in order for the building to collapse. A giant whole in the structure together with extreme temperatures caused by the fire is more than enough to cause catastrophic failure.
7. The guy who you got your argument from, Dewdney, said: "experiments show that a cell phone has only a 9% chance of successfully completing a call at 8000 feet; a 30% chance at 6000 feet; a 44% chance at 4000 feet, and an 89% chance at 2000 feet" So even according to his data at 2500-5000 feet (where the calls have been made) the chance of making couple of phone calls was very feasible.
8. I would call demolishing my biggest city an act of war, yes.
9. I had a discussion on this recently and I don't feel like repeating myself all over again. (in fact I think it might have been on this very forum) Ill let someone else have this one.
10. People don't like to get sued.

How about instead of talking to yourself while pretending that you are talking to dead people how about you stop twisting their deaths into pseudo-evidence of your mythical NWO.

 

can i ask what's up with all the fancy coloring and fonts, it makes it a lot harder to read.

 

I really hope that money does become extinct, and society is unified. I can see a world where the highest quality food, goods, technology, and education is freely distributed to members of the human race, thus making trade obsolete and in turn making money a thing of the past. We may adapt to a new system of managing our resources, and with technologies like automation tip top we may no longer need humans to be running the factories and stores. So all you have to do is live, and pursue your dreams with everything available to you; the first ever free humanity. For such a system to be sustainable, we really do have to change a lot of our ethics and ideals, and were along ways from getting there but I do hope we get there. The possibilities and potentials of a free humanity are endless.

As for this 911 debate/rant, my opinion is that it was an inside job, but the evidence I have in my hand is not so elaborate and organized that I can say I have smoking gun proof so I will leave it as a very strong possibility. I have looked at the official story, and I have looked at the alternative story, and the science, the motivation, the evidence that I have found are overwhelmingly supportive of the alternative story. What I think is necessary is another official investigation. The 911 commission was a joke, its head had connections to the bush administration and not many of the questions victim family members had were answered unless it was aligned with the official story. We need an independent group investigating this and their finds publicly broadcasted for any truth to come out.

Before you are so quick to disbelieve the alternative story, don't listen to the crazies who shout 9/11 was an inside job without knowing much about the evidence, as they are the ones to discredit it, do some research on your own from reliable sources who can elaborate effectively on the issue. On 9/11, what we have produced here are two conspiracy theories. We have the official story, and then we have the alternative story, and yes both are conspiracy theories. The official story states that men armed with box cutters were able to hijack several flights, defeat the most sophisticated defense system in history, and make incredibly difficult flight trajectories into the world trade center towers and the pentagon as a means of their terror agenda while the alternative story suggests that the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon were perpetrated or lead by criminal elements within the united states government as a means of expanding policies suited to their agenda. At this point, its whatever you believe, but I believe that the alternative story is much more credible and rational then the official story.

 

The shorts seen on the day are common place and were infact smaller than the average of the big packages of shorts which generally appear on airline stock since it's a pretty risky business.

People make money when stocks go up or down in this case they made relevantly little.

 

I wouldn't call that reasonable evidence as much as reasonable suspicion... there is mountains of much greater conclusive evidence then that. I have noticed most people are quick to disbelieve the alternative story without looking at much of the evidence in believing their government is not capable of such diabolical acts against its people. A look at history will tell you that governments have orchestrated false flag operations in the past, and continue to do so today. Since 9/11 were seeing a military industrial complex have its contracts triple, huge rise in popularity for the presidency, radical shifts in foreign and domestic policies, the start of two illegal wars, the signing of the unconstitutional patriot act, all perfect things for a government to gain more power.

But isn't there another topic on 911 that we can discuss this?

 

Ronin2011 was stupid enough to actually present his case. Rebel Head seems to understand that without dancing around the subject and avoiding actually presenting that 'very persuasive evidence' he would be forced to defend his case instead just being allowed to mess around and make an appeal to emotion.

Edit: Oh and by the way I am not really interested. Even rebutting Ronin2011 took longer than I wanted it to take. It is not like I've heard anything original in a while. It is the same old debunked arguments over and over again. But there is too many of them to be bothered to refute them. So please get out of this thread and preferably out of this entire website if you want to incite non-sense like this.

 

Higgs this topic will get another chance at life. Ok, everyone will now get back on the original topic (or at the very least drop the 9/11 topic), if you find yourself unable to get off the 9/11 topic in this thread you WILL find yourself temporarly removed from the forum. If anyone wishes to continue the 9/11 topic they are free ressurct a past topic on it, and assuming there was never one dedicated to it in the first place, you are free to make one about it. Have a nice day.

 

man, this turned into a 9/11 consipracy thread fast. how long until godwin's law is invoked?

anyways: humanity united? i doubt it. even if we somehow all merged into a single country, people will naturally divide themselves into communities of like-minded individuals. see: religions, political parties, mac vs PC, nerds and jocks, etc.

money: i could see this happening, but only if we managed to do away with employment, as well. if, say, we got robots to do all the work- construction, manufacturing, garbage disposal and sewage, farming, etc... if people didn't NEED to do anything to stay alive, then we also don't need to hoard bartering tokens to make sure we get what we need to stay alive. there's still the problem of human greed, though. even without money, it'll still arise. it's just the natural urge to be better than your neighbours, and out-compete everyone. hopefully that can still be done without money- i.e. education (free and unlimited, of course) and sports.

 

Money is merely a way of taking out bureaucracy when it comes to distributing rescources. Secondly no money = little growth (Unless a central power controls rescources). As money can work as a contract between people (pools of rescources) so that one is willing to make a short loss today for a larger gain tomorrow.Essentially a society without money is a communist society. I do not see such cooperation occuring throughout the whole planet however a single currency is sure to come about eventually as countries which are exploited by currency exchange eventually gain the leverage for a global currency.

 

if (material) resources were infinite, what use is money? this is why i think a prerequisite for money being abolished is for all our needs to be taken care of automatically. food, housing, clothing, education, medicine, etc. the only thing of value for people to trade with each other are skills and time.

if people still need things, money will continue to exist.

 

Even with infinite resources there is still a need for money.

1. To pay for services/goods we are to lazy or not skilled enough to make/do for ourselves.
2. Human greed. Still some people will want to have more than others.
3. As a medium for exchange. The old barter system had it's flaws. Your cow might be worth 3 chickens to one man and 4 to another. Money is an easy way to put a value to items.
4. Some crimes would flourish and others would dissapear. No money = no fraud. But all the crimes of passion like violence, rape, theft etc would increase as there would be no money to pay a Police force to police it.

Well this all assumes a standard government rules. A perfect Communist government would not need money as the state/head would dish out all goods/services and jobs. And there would be no want as everyone would have what they need. The only catch is this has only ever existed in the real world in the form of a bee or ant colony or maybe the Zerg in a way if you remove kerrigan from the equation.

 

Hey the8thark, I would like to present some possible solutions to some of your claims...

1. I think in this case education of any skill, trade, science, etc should be freely available to the public this way there is equal opportunity for anyone to become skillfull and knowledgeable in the fields that is necessary for them to survive.

2. Human greed seems to be a product of the scarcity of our resources. What I think is necessary is to apply technology to making our currently traded goods in such abundance that anything people need and want is available to them.

3. Well, this falls along to what I suggest in number 2. With everything in abundance and freely available to everyone, trading material things becomes obsolete. What I can see is the exchange of skills and knowledge, but that's okay because it's not like you are going to lose that knowledge once you share it.

4. Crimes of passion have always been a problem, and it is something I have no suggestion for. However, the majority of crimes are money related, and with the removal of the monetary system and scarcity we could be looking at a 90% cut in crimes... maybe more.

I don't see these as perfect suggestions to complicated problems, but if we as humans come together and use our creative minds we can overcome any problem and forge a much better society and finally become what we were born to be... free and independent.

 

There was an artical I read a long time ago, they were talking about atoms and how over time we may perhaps be able to create large machines that could break down almost any material and re-form it into something else.

An example, your going to work and this machine prepares your work uniform, you come home but you have a fancy dinner after work, you strip your uniform off put it back into the machine and tell the machine to make you a suit, the machine breaks down the clothing, re-colors it and makes it into a suit.

If we ever have machines like that... what a world. Of course this will never happen but I figure I would throw it out there.

There will never be a united humanity because people are not united in common goals beliefs or causes, and never will be. We are however moving towards what they call a 'cashless' society, that's for sure.

 

Moving towards a cashless society?
I can't see a global trend that points towards that.

And about your argument for humanity not uniting: Most people in a country don't share common goals, believes, though maybe a little causes.

 

You're just not looking in the right places. Business wise a cashless society making use of credit for everyday purchases much like it is used today is what I mean by the term "cashless society" people think that if the trend of online purchasing continues to grow and further develop we may over time move away from using money in the same way we do now.

It won't necessary mean you will never use cash in hand, but it would not be the standard form of transaction. If you want my opinion.. I think we are moving towards this, but I do not think it will work the way they want and we'll keep cash in hand with credit.

It's typical human nature, as long as two people can argue on a street corner, nations will continue to wage war lol. Resources, water, fuel, whatever the reason it doesn't matter. A lot of blood would have to be shed to unite this planet, a lot of people don't like to admit that.

 

All i can see is our medium of money changing into non-material. that doesnt even come close to cashless

 

True. But I still hope for a cashless society where the best technologies, foods, and other products are freely and openly available to all. We should really start to look into our automation technology, there is great hope in that field. I can imagine all technologies given to the public built to last, and made to be taken apart easily so materials within it can be recycled rather then thrown away when the person seeks a more up-to-date tool. If we aren't generating waste, our resources can be managed well enough so that everyone has a huge piece of the pie, enough to suit their needs.

 

Isn't this from Star Trek?

 

I don't know, I never watched it (except for the new movie which was pretty okay). I was inspired with this idea by the Venus Project.

Now that I remember, I believe it is in startrek, pretty cool.