Xero's Rule: by the time a species has progressed to the point that they can travel to other inhabited planets...they would have discovered the positive correlation between trading and progress. While it's entertaining/exciting/scary to watch movies with alien space invaders attacking our planet in order to take our resources...the concept has no basis in economic reality... Scarcity is relevant no matter what solar system you're from Progress depends on how scarce resources are used Different perspectives can see different uses of the same resource Therefore, the rate of progress depends on... - how much difference there is between people's perspectives (diversity) - how much freedom people have to apply their perspectives to their scarce resources If a species has 100% freedom but no variation in perspectives...then they won't come up with different uses of their resources...which will result in a 0% rate of progress. Same thing if a species has 0% freedom but incredible variation in perspectives. Of course neither extreme is possible...but where a species falls on the spectrum will determine its rate of progress. In all likelihood it would probably be relatively easy for an advanced alien civilization to enslave/kill/eat us and take our resources. They would then be able to use our resources in their own alien ways. But if they did take our resources then they would be greatly hindering their own progress. This is because if they hadn't taken our resources...then us humans would have been able to apply our very different perspectives to our resources. We would have come up with new and innovative uses that the aliens would have been able to benefit from...but wouldn't have thought of on their own. The same concept is applicable to different groups within a species. China could certainly try and invade our country and take our resources. And if they were successful...then they would temporarily benefit. They would have more resources...but they would still just be applying the same set of perspectives to them. And having resources isn't nearly as important as what you do with them. Therefore, China would be sacrificing the significantly greater benefit that they would have derived from all future American innovations. Here's what John Stuart Mill wrote in 1869... And here's what Mao Zedong wrote nearly a 100 years later... Subjugation/taking greatly slows the rate of progress. This fatal conceit squanders the most valuable resource... individuality/uniqueness/originality. Therefore, the rate of progress is far greater if we rely on persuasion/trading. Unfortunately, as a species, clearly we still are not aware of the positive correlation between trading and progress. The pattern is there...but most have yet to see it. As more and more people start to see the pattern, there will be more recognition of the immense value of giving taxpayers the freedom to shop for themselves in the public sector. The unique perspectives of millions of diverse people would be applied to public goods and the result would be infinitely beneficial. If people aren't free to shop for themselves...then the specificity and ranking of their preferences and the uniqueness of their circumstances will not be input into the function which determines how society's scarce resources are used. As a result, the output will be the wrong quantities of an extremely narrow selection of poor quality products/services. Pseudo-demand, pseudo-supply. Garbage in, garbage out. Pragmatarianism can't be implemented if the positive correlation between shopping and progress is not clear to most...just like we won't be capable of traveling to other inhabited planets if the pattern is not clear to all. Given that economic reality is not constrained by time/space... convergence is certain: an alien civilization won't be able to visit other inhabited planets before they've seen the pattern. What I've shared is basically a consequentialist argument against taking. Or conversely...a consequentialist argument for trading/liberty. It should be clear that consequentialist arguments for liberty have far more substance than moral arguments for liberty. The amount of benefit the future holds depends on you! So please carefully read the following passages on heterogeneous activity...
OK....I will now post why the above is incorrect. In order for anyone from any planet to be able to achieve VIABLE Interstellar Capabilities such a civilization would need to completely understand the UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. Being able to both achieve and understand such a theory would allow Matter to Energy Interchange. This would not only allow anyone understanding this theory to be able to generate the sufficient directed Energy to represent Mass for the purpose of generating a Gravity Well or a Fold Space Event....which would allow a craft to jump from one point to any other point in the Universe instantly.....but would also allow those understanding such a theory to be able to use Energy to instantly create any resource needed and as well be able to generate LIMITLESS ENERGY. Any society or civilization capable of doing this would have no need of any resource upon any existing Celestial Body thus Interstellar Travel would be for the purpose of Science and Exploration. The above Opening Statement is Sociological Tripe. AboveAlpha
Understanding thermal dynamics means understanding extracting energy from temperature differentials is inherently inefficient. I expect the same applies to the unified field theory. For example, we have known how to extract energy from the atom using both fission and fusion. And......? What percent of the population gives a rats a$$ about science and exploration? They would rather waste away watching "reality" TV. Economics is sociological tripe?
Actually, they would have to discover the correlation between cooperation, competition, and progress. We're too busy playing king of dunghill One of the many kings of dunghill. Please be quiet, I'm trying to watch reality TV. The bulk of the population just want to live their lives. Some want to be king of the world, some want change the world (some for good, some for bad - which is which, depends on your world view), some want to understand, everything. Progress comes when some that want to rule their part of the world (business) are also excited by those that want to know, and do. Small, fail safe, rocket engines are combined, and commercial space flight becomes reality. Carbon becomes wide belts of graphene, and space elevators, and multi-mile in diameter space stations, solar sails. Explorers colonize the moon, Mars, the Oort cloud, the stars. Or, we will divide ourselves into ever vitriolic minorities, demanding government defend our rights to be idiots for the next billion years, until the sun fades and the planet freezes.
Anything good on? So what are your thoughts on allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go? Here's the pragmatarianism FAQ if you're interested. Is it the next best thing since sliced bread?
I actually spend much of my spare time listening to London School of Econ podcasts - to much drivel TV for my taste. The average taxpayer pays less attention to how their taxes are spent than they do the politicians they vote into office. And, the politicians thank them for it by spending even more of their (actually their children's) tax dollars.
In order to generate the energy required to represent Mass to Fold Space/Time a Matter/Antimatter Reaction is necessary. Even still there is not enough Antimatter in our Universe to equal the amount we would need so what has to happen is a Matter/Antimatter Reaction must be achieved in a Multiversal Cascade Reaction thus one would be able to access Energy Generation for Multiple Divergent Universal States thus solving the issue. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - Oh and yes....Economics or rather a person trying to figure out Economic Trends is self defeating tripe. AboveAlpha
What argument? A series of vague assertions does not constitute an argument. What do you mean by "taking"? For that matter, what do you mean by "trade" & "liberty"? What does "free to shop for themselves" mean & what does it have to do with society's allocation of resources? What do you even mean by "freedom" & "liberty"?
As a civilization progresses, the chances that they'll see the connection between trading/progress increases exponentially. By the time a civilization has progressed to the point that they are capable of solving all the problems they'd have to solve in order to build a star cruiser...it would be impossible for them to fail to see the obvious. In the beginning there was darkness. Progress is like letting more light in. By the time an alien civilization can build a star cruiser, there will be enough light for them to clearly see the mechanism responsible for their enlightenment.
