LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   If Earth was threaten with a major danger, will money determine the fate our planet? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=171940)

Windu Chi 10-26-2006 08:56 AM

If Earth was threaten with a major danger, will money determine the fate our planet?
 
I pose this question because most people really believe that money dictates every direction of our society.
I do believe or I could be wrong, that if the planet was threaten with a danger that could destroy the planet, I don't believe the governments of this world will be worrying about how much money it will cost to save the planet.


I will give this example: If Earth was threaten with a human species ending danger such as a micro blackhole that could destroy the planet whole.
I don't believe that the people on this planet will worry about how much money it will cost, say 200 trillion or something higher than that.
If people on this planet, like the people in all the world's government do worry.

Then I will have to say, our stupid ass deserve to be wipe out if we are that damn stupid and depended on money.:lol:

Ray Jones 10-26-2006 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6QUOTE
I do believe or I could be wrong, that if the planet was threaten with a danger that could destroy the planet I don't believe the governments of this world will be worrying about how much money it will cost.

You believe that you don't believe? Or are you wrong not believing it?

Quote:

I will give this example: If Earth was threaten with a human species ending danger such a micro blackhole that could destroy the planet whole.
What if it is a normal black hole? And I'm not sure what to do about a micro black hole? Darn it?

Quote:

I don't believe that the people on this planet will worry about how much money it will cost, say 200 trillion or something higher than that.
If people on this planet, like the people in all the world's government do worry.
Could you please rephrase that?

Oh, and.. I'm just curious.. is there a scheme behind the way you use these colours? I mean, like green is walk and red stop? Or something?

Windu Chi 10-26-2006 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones
You believe that you don't believe? Or are you wrong not believing it?

I meant to say I don't believe all the worlds government will worry about how much it cost to save the planet.
Yes, I said, "I may be wrong", because this world may be that addicted to money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones
What if it is a normal black hole? And I'm not sure what to do about a micro black hole? Darn it?

Well, that will be a more difficult task.
Well, a micro-blackhole is theorize to be created if those new particle accelerators, the scientists are building is turn on.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Oh, and.. I'm just curious.. is there a scheme behind the way you use these colours? I mean, like green is walk and red stop? Or something?

Well, in this case I used lime green for money.
Red, I might used for something I don't agree with or hate.
As you know from that holocaust thread.
Which you know I really hate the holocaust.
So, that is some of the examples of what I use colors for. :)

Tyrion 10-26-2006 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
I meant to say I don't believe all the worlds government will worry about how much it cost to save the planet.
Yes, I said, I may be wrong, because this world may be that addicted to money.

Corporations are, at the very least, working towards the greater net gain. You lose quite a bit of capital when the planet you're working on is destroyed by a meteor...

Det. Bart Lasiter 10-26-2006 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
Well, in this case I used lime green for money.
Red, I might used for something I don't agree with or hate.
As you know from that holocaust thread.
Which you know I really hate the holocaust.
So, that is some of the examples what I use colors for. :)

Well thanks for clarifying your thoughts through the art of color-coding, I find it very helpful in determining what side of the argument you're on.


In the example you gave, where a micro black hole approaches Earth, I'm gonna go ahead and say that money'd probably be sucked in as well, so my answer to the poll question is "No."

ET Warrior 10-26-2006 12:22 PM

Most illogical question ever.

Honestly, even the people who seem to care only about money care about not dying even more. If they are destroyed they won't be able to make any more money or spend it on silly things.

I cannot even fathom why this question would be of any concern.

Dagobahn Eagle 10-26-2006 12:30 PM

What ET said.

Totenkopf 10-26-2006 03:16 PM

Seems that money might be incidental, anyway. Assuming your micro black hole were set to rip the world apart, we're basically to technologically primitive to stop it. Sort of like if the sun went supernova, how much money could you spend in 8 minutes anyhow and what good would it do?

Windu Chi 10-26-2006 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Most illogical question ever.

Why is this a illogical question?
You should think about it more.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Honestly, even the people who seem to care only about money care about not dying even more. If they are destroyed they won't be able to make any more money or spend it on silly things.

What are you talking about?
There are people who are that way on this planet.
Some people on this world will betray their entire family for a certain amount of money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior
I cannot even fathom why this question would be of any concern.

Well, you must didn't understand my question then.
It seems to me that, everything on this world seem to revolve around the dictation of money.
So, I just wanted to get other people's opinions, about if they believe money is ultimate the deciding factor for our society.
If you really believe that some people don't care more about the paper then their lives, then you don't really understand human behavior that well.

Also don't take this as an offense, I am not trying offend you.
I just want to know why you think that.


There are various mind sets of the human psyche on this world.

Ok, I will give you another example.
What if there was a deadly disease kinda like AIDS, but it's airborne.
That was causing major human fatalities, but it cost to much money to come with a cure in the limited amount of time to try to save all the human race; they can only save a few.


Do you think the planet will worry, after the outbreak is over worry about paying for the spend resources lost and the economic damage to the planet
during the epidemic.

I have ask this, since it cost so much damn money for people to get a cure or treatment to some diseases today.

I was wondering will this hold up in such a emergency such as that example, I just gave.
I believe it might, since so much people is dependent on currency in this society.
Even though I have poll no, reason is I hope I don't live on a planet that is that stupid.

But I do have my doubts of the intelligence of some people in power on this planet.

The Doctor 10-26-2006 05:37 PM

[Spock] "A fascinating conclusion. However, you're logic is flawed." [/Spock]

If we're all about to snuff it, I think it's safe to say that nobody, even people like Big Bill, would worry about forking out everything they had to insure the survival of the human race. It's called the survival instinct.

Windu Chi 10-26-2006 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Doctor
[Spock] "A fascinating conclusion. However, you're logic is flawed." [/Spock]

If we're all about to snuff it, I think it's safe to say that nobody, even people like Big Bill, would worry about forking out everything they had to insure the survival of the human race. It's called the survival instinct.

Who is "Big Bill"?

The Doctor 10-26-2006 06:17 PM

Big Bill = Bill Gates = Anti-Christ.

Just to clarify, 'Big Bill' is a play on Big Brother from George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty Four.

Windu Chi 10-26-2006 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Doctor
Big Bill = Bill Gates = Anti-Christ.

Oh, I understand what you mean.

ET Warrior 10-26-2006 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
Some people on this world will betray their entire family for a certain amount of money.

I don't doubt that, but I highly doubt you'd find ANYONE who would be willing to DIE for any amount of money. That is the point, and why this thread doesn't make any sense. There is NOBODY that would choose money over their own survival.

Jae Onasi 10-26-2006 07:13 PM

My experience is that no one has ever said on their deathbed "Gee, I wish I'd made more money". It's usually, when they can, something along the lines of "I wish I'd spent more time with family" or "I wish I'd been able to be a better person to my kids/father/mother/family members/friends."

If you're talking about imminent but preventable global destruction, I think we'll all be putting whatever resources we could into staying alive.

Windu Chi 10-26-2006 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior
I don't doubt that, but I highly doubt you'd find ANYONE who would be willing to DIE for any amount of money. That is the point, and why this thread doesn't make any sense. There is NOBODY that would choose money over their own survival.

There are people who will die for something.
Suicide bombers die for something all the time.
Maybe some of them will die for money, to go to their love ones of course.
Unless you can enjoy your wealth as a ghost somewhere.

Philosophy:
Since that is your belief, do you believe the money in your pocket is ultimately worthless, from a philosopher's point of view?

The Doctor 10-26-2006 07:46 PM

Yes, there are people who would die for something. I would die for many causes. Just for ****s and giggles, I refer to Mahatma Gandhi, who said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahatma Gandhi
Let us all be brave enough to die the death of a martyr, but let no one lust for martyrdom.

But suicide bombers don't die for money. They die to cleanse the Earth of us Capitalist dogs. They die to fight us and our Godless western culture. Money has nothing to do with it, really.

Emperor Devon 10-27-2006 04:25 AM

I find money to be a bad enough thing already, which I only use because I can't live without it. If it wasn't necessary, I would gladly glad rid of it. Money, IMO, is an overrated concept.

It'll do me even less good if I'm doomed. If someone would actually be thinking about ways to make more of it before the Earth's imminent destruction, I'm not sure whether they should be pitied or stoned.

Windu Chi 10-27-2006 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
I find money to be a bad enough thing already, which I only use because I can't live without it. If it wasn't necessary, I would gladly glad rid of it. Money, IMO, is an overrated concept.

I exactly agree with you, Devon.
I really hate money.
I wish I could do without it too.

Mace MacLeod 10-27-2006 08:42 AM

This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure, lots of people have killed and died in pursuit of money, but what good is money going to do anybody if the entire planet's destroyed?

Would the human race be prepared to fork out X% of the world's capital to ensure its survival? Of course it would. Individuals might die for money or declare themselves legally dead for tax purposes, but the whole species? Kind of silly.

Windu Chi 10-27-2006 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure, lots of people have killed and died in pursuit of money, but what good is money going to do anybody if the entire planet's destroyed?

Would the human race be prepared to fork out X% of the world's capital to ensure its survival? Of course it would. Individuals might die for money or declare themselves legally dead for tax purposes, but the whole species? Kind of silly.

So, do you believe the money in your pocket is ultimately worthless, from a philosopher's point of view?

Mace MacLeod 10-27-2006 03:57 PM

If I'm not alive to spend it, yes.

Self-preservation > Greed.

Windu Chi 10-27-2006 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
If I'm not alive to spend it, yes.

Self-preservation > Greed.

You
must didn't understand my question? Mace!

I was saying, since you believe that society won't have no fuss about saving their asses, by saying damn the amount of money to ensure their survival.

Which I mean: Base off your decision, do you agree that the money that is in your pocket now today.
Is worthless right NOW, in relation to if a disaster that threaten the human species ever happen.


For anybody else who still don't understand my philosophy question:

If society don't care how much money it take to save their selves .

Then people in society today should look at their money as worthless paper to be discarded.
They should have this mind set always.
Since that money will not matter no more if Earth is threaten with Annihilation.

Samnmax221 10-27-2006 06:58 PM

Ok lets sum up a thing called capitalism quickly here. Capitalism is when contracts are drawn up dealing with goods and services. Despite what may happen in the future I will not stop operating this way, no one will lay false claim to what is mine, no one will seize what is mine by force, all deals will be by my consent. People who were able to "earn" money before said disaster will probebly still be able to support themselves after this disaster, these people posses skills and knowledge that are in demand and will be able to earn a living like before. There are of course many unskilled people in the world, such as your average conspiracy theorist, these people will probebly starve while some of us try to rebuild the world.

AND YOU KNOW IT!
http://www.filmfodder.com/movies/rev...d_homicide.jpg

Tyrion 10-27-2006 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
Then people in society today should look at their money as worthless paper to be discarded.
They should have this mind set always.
Since that money will not matter no more if Earth is threaten with Armageddon.

Well, wait. That's a slightly different situation than what you originally proposed. Before, you asked that in the case of an impending Armageddon would the greedy use their money to save themselves and the planet. Now you're asking why won't people realize money is worthless because the destruction of the world will render it moot anyway; the flaw with your situation is that it's only a threat of Armageddon, not that it is impending and actual. Even the most stingy of people know that life is fleeting; what they try to do is amass as great a fortune as they can. If there's only a chance that their world will fall apart, it's just a gamble and nothing more(especially more so if the world ends after their death); if it is certain the world will be destroyed, of course they will spend their money to save the world. It's always the rational choice to try and keep some of your riches rather than lose it all.

Windu Chi 10-27-2006 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrion
Well, wait. That's a slightly different situation than what you originally proposed. Before, you asked that in the case of an impending Armageddon would the greedy use their money to save themselves and the planet.

Yes, I meant to ask this question all along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrion
Now you're asking why won't people realize money is worthless because the destruction of the world will render it moot anyway; the flaw with your situation is that it's only a threat of Armageddon, not that it is impending and actual. Even the most stingy of people know that life is fleeting; what they try to do is amass as great a fortune as they can. If there's only a chance that their world will fall apart, it's just a gamble and nothing more(especially more so if the world ends after their death); if it is certain the world will be destroyed, of course they will spend their money to save the world. It's always the rational choice to try and keep some of your riches rather than lose it all.

You misunderstood, I didn't mean Armageddon in the religious definition of it.
I meant to say if the world was threaten with annihilation.
Or the human species threaten with extinction.

Tyrion 10-27-2006 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
You misunderstood, I didn't mean Armageddon in the religious definition of it.
I meant to say if the world was threaten with annihilation.
Or the human species threaten with extinction.

I didn't mean a divine Armageddon, nor did I reference to any factors that would be heavenly inspired.

Windu Chi 10-27-2006 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrion
I didn't mean a divine Armageddon, nor did I reference to any factors that would be heavenly inspired.

So, do you agree that money is worthless to society at large.

Tyrion 10-27-2006 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
So, do you agree that money is worthless to society at large.

That's a bit too general of a question for the situation you're talking about. Money won't be useless if we all die, but that doesn't nullify the fact it's useful when we live.

Windu Chi 10-27-2006 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrion
That's a bit too general of a question for the situation you're talking about. Money won't be useless if we all die, but that doesn't nullify the fact it's useful when we live.

It's is meant to be a philosophy kind of question.
If you agree that society won't make a fuss about the money needed to save it.
Then from a philosophy point of view, it should in my opinion, be a worthless asset to society today.

Mace MacLeod 10-27-2006 10:43 PM

??????????????

This is getting totally bizarre.

You
must to be not am will be really weird logical leaps windu6!

You're really losing me here. Assuming money is useless or valuless in the context of a global catastrophe does not extrapolate to money being useless now. This is...weird.

Dude...what are you smoking? And can you mail me some...?

Windu Chi 10-27-2006 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
??????????????

This is getting totally bizarre.

You
must to be not am will be really weird logical leaps windu6!

You're really losing me here. Assuming money is useless or valuless in the context of a global catastrophe does not extrapolate to money being useless now. This is...weird.

What you don't like philosophy kind of discussions, Mace.
Does my philosophy discussions freak you out? :)


Quote:

Dude...what are you smoking? And can you mail me some...?
:lol:
Like to joke, huh?

Tyrion 10-27-2006 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
It's is meant to be a philosophy kind of question.
If you agree that society won't make a fuss about the money needed to save it.
Then from a philosophy point of view, it should in my opinion, be a worthless asset to society today.

It's a means to an end. A school would have little use when the world is gravely threatened; however if those educated inside the trivial building end up saving humanity, then the school has served a purpose even if in reality it and the teachers inside do little more than consume brick and carbon. By the same measure, money is worthless by itself but as the greatest mediator in the world it can serve as the foundations of society even though it is nothing more than mere paper and ink.

Jae Onasi 10-27-2006 11:51 PM

Money's a necessity at this point in our history. I'd love to have something like Star Trek's society with no money, but this is reality, and I don't see currency disappearing in the forseeable future. I agree with Mace--just because people would give it up for Armageddon doesn't mean they would (or should) give it up now.

I wouldn't mind a few of those chemicals myself.... :D

Windu Chi 10-28-2006 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Money's a necessity at this point in our history. I'd love to have something like Star Trek's society with no money, but this is reality, and I don't see currency disappearing in the forseeable future. I agree with Mace--just because people would give it up for Armageddon doesn't mean they would (or should) give it up now.

You must mean a necessity at controlling the chaos of human society.
I believe money is a control variable to keep society in check.
Because nothing can't be fair for everybody to have what they wanted.
This would mean chaos.

As for Star Trek, they had matter replication technology, so currency was irrelevant and pointless.
Everybody can almost get everything thing they wanted.
They just was limited by the energy storage capacity of the replicaters.

Quote:

I wouldn't mind a few of those chemicals myself....:D
I don't have no damn chemicals and I am not smoking weed or doing crack. :lol:

Samnmax221 10-28-2006 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
I don't have no damn chemicals and I am not smoking weed or doing crack. :lol:

Eating paint chips maybe?

Windu Chi 10-28-2006 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samnmax221
Eating paint chips maybe?

What are you trying to piss me off? :)
Or, are you joking.
Wasn't that you who explain the Capitalist agenda.
Which I don't disagree with you about, Sam.

Emperor Devon 10-28-2006 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
I really hate money.

This isn't my point exactly. I wouldn't say I hate money, as it's only an extension of the capitalistic idea (which I disagree with) behind it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Money's a necessity at this point in our history. I'd love to have something like Star Trek's society with no money, but this is reality, and I don't see currency disappearing in the forseeable future. I agree with Mace--just because people would give it up for Armageddon doesn't mean they would (or should) give it up now.

I think it would only be possible were the government to have complete control over everything. A capitalist soceity with currency is doomed.

But after my brain has been baked, fried, grilled, and otherwise cooked in a debate tournament that lasted from 1:00 to 9:00 today and will go on from the crack of dawn until 4:00 tomorrow, I'm in no mood to argue my views with any of you right now. :)

jon_hill987 10-28-2006 07:49 AM

I'm sure if such a thread did arise the scientists of the world would be quite happy to work on the problem for free. after all if they fail there wouldn't be a lot of use in money would there?

Mace MacLeod 10-28-2006 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6
What you don't like philosophy kind of discussions, Mace.
Does my philosophy discussions freak you out?

No, your philosophy discussions just confuse me because you have a penchant for not making sense when you post in a hurry or a fit of temper, and you keep resorting to using gimmicky bold and colored fonts in substitute for coherent arguments and proper grammar. I mean, look at the title of your thread. Aside from the silly verb tense mistakes, you specifically asked whether money would determine our fate if the Earth was threatened. This is an unrelated circumstance to our current use of money and capital. It's like you're trying to have two debates at once here.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.