You are reading a page from a free video eBook called Heaven or Hell It's Your Choice, for more information click on the website button above.
Section 4 / Page 158
The public are already having their brains formatted into accepting the introduction of virtual people, they see them in films, video games and now we even have virtual pop stars. This is making the masses accept these creations as just another wonderment of the modern age, not truly understanding the real issues involved. Most of the general public seem to think that I.T. literacy starts and ends at a Microsoft G.U.I., it also seems to me, that this is how I.T. is taught to the masses. It makes me wonder how the public will deal, with the challenges ahead.
Throughout history the masses of the world have only ever wanted one thing and that is to live in peace, whilst wanting equality for themselves and everybody else (a bit idealistic, but this is how I see it), this will never happen while the world relies on money. Money defines boundaries and promotes inequality, the truth is we are all equal, there are no real differences between people. There are masses of people who have died for the cause of freedom, we owe it to them and ourselves to learn, that the generation of wealth for the few is the problem. So if the government is willing to set a minimum wage, then how about a maximum wage, lets say a hundred thousand a year, then any excess cash earned could be given back to the people who really earned it and not just to fat cat execs, now let's see if they find that reasonable, and NO STOCK OPTIONS either. Oh yeah Bill Clinton tried it, but business and the banks, accountants etc, are all smarter than government backed initiatives.
The question for the powers that be is not about money, the real question is how do you motivate people into doing any of the things that need to be done, whilst maintaining control. We need doctors, we need some public services, but the pressure that the poor feel under is something we don't need. The rich and powerful can alleviate some of this pressure if they where willing to accept that their wealth does not really belong to them. They may think it does, but in general, wealth can only be created by the collaboration of many people, the problem with the rich is, that this jointly earned wealth is not shared equally. No one person can earn wealth, so all the rich have ever done, is learnt how to sponge it or in some other way, take it off the working class. So while the smart rich, teach their kids business etc, the poor are taught how to become builders, plumbers, toilet cleaners etc. The smart rich wouldn't dream of turning their kids into such products, but they do teach their kids how to manage such products, whilst also making a tidy profit of everyone else's labour.
Of course most of the poor could also learn such things, well that's if they could afford such an education and where allowed to network at the same level as the elite, whilst of course having a nice back up of working capitol etc. Oh yeah and don't forget whilst the poor have to struggle to pay bills during this learning process, the rich still get to enjoy their life. Of course the rich and the controllers of the system, will tell you that this is just how it is, so deal with it (nice setup for the rich and if your poor, then always keep in mind that you where setup, right from birth). The rich and powerful will always have the upper hand as long as the human race is prepared to buy into a system that accepts money or a variant thereof, as a form of motivation. Mind you if you are prepared to let these fellow equals, do most of the thinking for you, then what do you expect.
The problem always comes back to that of greed and some of the darker sides of human nature. It’s surprising to me that the masses have allowed this situation to develop to the point that now exists. Look at Microsoft, society should have put its foot down somewhere along the line and stopped them from basically taxing almost every PC in use today, (thank God for Linux). Most of the profits made from the sale of Windows, should have been diverted into developing better public services or something, and not just to make Bill Gates and Microsoft as much money as it has. There should be a cut off point where the wealth owned by a single individual or company is too much and therefore no longer acceptable, then reclaimed by the people or society that created that wealth. This can be done, but only if the masses reclaim some of the rights that some governments and corporations have in effect stolen from us all.
You must consider this, we all have an equal right to the world’s wealth and no system is fair until this is recognised and brought about.
The Microsoft problem i.e., generation of wealth for the few, is set to get worse. Current attempts to dollarize the global economy along with globalisation, means that certain individuals, companies and governments are going to increasingly benefit from a mass worldwide workforce that will in effect have no defence against their will. Companies now have the ability to freely move money and resources around the globe, this means that almost any countries workforce can be manipulated into working cheaply for these corporate & government vultures. This type of globalisation is not good by any means, the masses are being exploited by the rich and powerful in a way that should never be allowed, yet society does allow it. Just remember that there is more of us, than them and its our actions to a large extent that defines society.
Indonesia was a prime example of how corporate and state collaborated in the exploitation of its own populace. So to stop this type of thing happening, will take a massive effort by the people who are actually creating the wealth i.e. the masses. Yes I am talking to you, you will have to change your view of yourself and the role that you are playing in this problem. All these new technologies being introduced and created, not by Governments or corporations but by you, i.e. the public, should be used to help the whole of the human race and not just for the people who can afford it.
This will only happen when you sit up and take action (not violent action), but economic action to inflict a financial penalty on any company which is prepared to use codes of conduct that are morally questionable. I believe a counter advert should be run against every company that is proven to be using immoral codes of conduct, plus that counter advert should be paid for by the offending company (call me an idealist). Imagine trying to sell a pair of Nike or Adidas training shoes next to a picture of an Indonesian worker with no shoes. Just remember your work and spending power, funds this trade and each and every system we currently see in society. Simplistic arguments, like well at least foreign investment in 3rd world workforces produces at least some wealth for those people, well yes of course it does, but companies are hardly doing this so as to benefit the peasants who are doing the actual work, they are doing it for profit and to benefit their shareholders and investors.
The problem with this
scenario is this, if you extend this philosophy into an A.I. / nanotech future,
then no human workforce will be able to compete economically speaking. I just
wonder if the WTO, has factored in any of the
things outlined in this eBook into their deliberations. On that note, if
nanotech does turn out to be as powerful as Drexler envisions, then there will
be no need for a WTO and the protestors could all go home, safe in the knowledge
that they managed to get what they wanted, but not in the way they expected?
Please report any problems you see on this page -such as broken links, non playing video clips, spelling or grammatical errors etc to:-
I don't have the time to individually respond to every email, so I thank you in advance, for your help.