The point is, instead of spending energy trying to prevent these disasters, they participate in them. They aren't deluding themselves into thinking global warming doesn't exist, they know it does, they're the ones paying the lobbyists to discredit it. Instead, they place their efforts into figuring out post-disaster compounds that can maintain post-disaster life, when it eventually happens. They are "leaving us behind" in the sense of, their attempts to isolate themselves from society.

However, I will agree with you this person writes his point very poorly and then tries to extrapolate further future points as if they are happening within our lifetimes. The human-transference to deathless states, as explored by shows like West World and Altered Carbon, is potential, but unlikely within the next 100 years. While it's interesting to talk about, it discredits him to bring it up in a discussion about how these people believe the collapse of society is highly probable, which they have a better view of as somebody very wealthy and powerful. If he focused on their attempts at micro-nations they can rule after the collapse, and the fact they believe the collapse is likely, it might open more people's eyes.

"are going to be the vast majority of 3rd (and maybe 2nd) world farmers who still have skills needed to continue to produce food."

You don't think food is one of the first considerations they are making for their micro-nations?

You're trying to drive at some sort of false equivalency. Those of us who want to make the world a better place aren't focused on individuals. These 5 guys were talking about how to live longer and secure their private compounds that house just their family and the needed workers. They didn't even bother going, "Maybe we should try and stop these things from happening in the first place."

So, proposing that if we're going to let 'MAGA hat people' into my post-disaster compound is a straw-man, we'd never 'have a post-disaster private compound' where armed guards kill those who try to breach the walls.

So tired of these empty arguments of false situations. There are millionaires who could be billionaires if they didn't work towards the good of humanity. Heck, even Bill Gates would still be the richest man alive if he didn't abandon pure, unfettered greed, and hadn't put all his efforts into his world-wide efforts of making the place better.

In other words, yes, if we were like one of these P.O.S., we'd be a P.O.S. by definition. However, we are not and will not be. It isn't a lack of opportunity to be one, it's a lack of desire to be one.

Can you add the link with the sources, please?

I despise CFL lights. I figured that it was fluctuations in the power that were frying the inverter circuit. People didn't believe me until I started writing the dates I installed the bulbs on the bulbs.

I also hate that 99.9% of the population simply tosses bulbs out in the garbage and now that mercury is in my food.

Another argument:

Since the infrastructure is owned mostly by the public, removing net neutrality is a regulatory taking against all the public and therefore having anything other than net neutrality would require just compensation to all the public.

This isn't a musical instrument they are attempting to create, it's a musical brain capable of playing instruments (digitally).

One thing is, if you start getting rid of all those musical jobs, the career starts looking worse, and little Billy who's a talented musician might decide to become the next Justin Beiber instead of the next Beethoven.

FTFA, "The fear is that electric vehicles are so silent that blind people can't hear them coming,"

Am I a bad person for laughing when I read the parent thread?

Hey man, look at what I just found! They were just sitting over there on that wall, a whole pile of free legos!

Oh, come'on, what a lame argument. Your local gas station owner could always switch companies (especially if he's environmentally responsible). Also, he's probably a millionaire and can afford to lose some business. Finally, even if all of us "morally outraged" people quit buying BP gas, we're such a small segment of the overall population they'd only see a small dip in their profits anyways. Basically, you're demonstrating the classic example in psychology of a narcissistic personality, "If I stop buying gas from them, they'll go out of business." Also, you're acting like a victim. "There's nothing I can do about this that won't hurt me more than I'll hurt them."

No, because typically politicians are not ugly.

I find it funny how a bunch of geeks instantly lose sight of reality when you talk about "the future." There would still be plenty of things that have value in a "replicator" society. Land (which some people want to own miles and miles of), natural resources (so that you can replicate entire fleets of cars), rare resources (who wants to design a circuit board with copper when you could be using platinum!) Sunlight, wind and other sources of energy (replicators sound a lot like teleporting pieces together to me)

But the fact of the matter is, there's never going to be a physical replicator any time soon.

It can probably be helpful in the same vein as the patriot act, warrant-less wiretapping, and many other government uber-powers.

While I generally feel the government shouldn't be in charge of raising our kids, they ARE in charge of educating them (if your kids go to public school).

Also, unlike so many other government programs and tax breaks, this actually helps out poor families more than rich families. If little Delray can make money by studying, he's less likely to go "hang" with a bad crowd and steal money. He even has a chance to help provide himself with a better life now AND later.

I agree, the Pope is bunk.

-- A Lutheran

I always figured it was an ironic statement. You know, we trust God, but nobody else at all. Especially not politicians.