Bilderberg plots genocide of 70% of planet Earth by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bilderberg plots genocide of 70% of planet Earth

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Friday, May 29, 2009 13:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3445
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, May 29, 2009 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We have no real application of quantum mechanics in technology, because quantum mechanics is inherently random and impossible to fully predict and control.

You should reconsider that statement, especially given that you're making it using a piece of technology that is almost entirely a real application of quantum mechanics.

Quote:
Furthermore, quantum mechanics occur on a sub-microscopic, sub atomic level. Lasers are not an application of quantum physics, were invented before quantum mechanics came into prominence, and deal with macro-scale phenomena, therefore they are reliant on classical physics and relativity until we find the unified field theory.

The first Laser was demonstrated in 1960, Quantum Mechanics dates to the early 1920's (with it's roots going back to the 1830's), and was the dominant theory of sub-atomic phenomena long before the Laser was conceived. Lasers are entirely dependent on Quantum Mechanics, the field that describes Lasers is Quantum Electrodynamics. Lasers are an application arising from discoveries of the behaviour of sub-atomic particles from Quantum Mechanics.

Quote:
And light is very much a form of energy. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

Lot of that going around. Wave-Particle Duality shows that Light acts as both a particle and a wave. I think saying it's simply energy is a mite simplistic, in light (heh) of it's dual particulate nature.

Quote:

Anyway, there's not much more I can argue about alien life and culture. Just my caution not to narrow our scope or assume too much. I think anything we might find will very likely defy every prediction we could make.

I'm not making a prediction on what Aliens will be like, I'm saying that what they're like is irrelevant, you don't create high technology and all it's supporting structures by accident out of thin air one day.

Quote:

They may conform to our laws of physics, I would hope they would, but I'm not sure even that is guaranteed, because we don't KNOW everything for certain about physics, and we also don't know if our laws are consistent everywhere else in the universe.

If the physical properties of the universe are different to ours where they are, how are they building Lasers?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 29, 2009 7:06 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I say they do imply the other

And it's up to you to prove that, but all I see so far is allusions to a slippery slope.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
and every possible method of proposed of population control I've also shown how they would be a (sometimes indirect) form of selection, and my definition of eugenics is general enough that indirect selection is still a form of eugenics.

Every other method you came up with WAS eugenics, which doesn't prove that population control, of any stripe, will ALWAYS lead to eugenics.

Quote:

Your example of overpopulation only shows that designer babies aren't something we want under any situation, not that the problem wouldn't be made worse with population limits (which I think it would).

It shows, contrary to your claim, that the two issues are not the same, that one can exist without the other. Also, I never tried to argue that the 'problem' (that doesn't exist, nor is it certain it ever will), will be made worse by anything. I said that it is irrelevant.

Quote:

If population control leads to people wanting to use designer baby technology, then they are not separate issues. Cause and effect are not separate.

Cause and effect aren't seperate, but since this isn't a cause and effect issue, it hardly matters. Even if more people want to have designer babies that doesn't mean the two issues are Cause and Effect, policies on population control won't suddenly make designer babies spontaneously gestate.

The two are separate and discreet steps. This is why your argument is a slippery slope, it requires we go from A (Population Control) to Z (Eugenics) through B (Designer Babies). Because if we say yes to A, the technology for B will suddenly spontaneously appear, and we will have no choice but to allow it's use I suppose? Because it's actually impossible to say yes to Population control policies, and no to Designer Babies? Really?

We can say yes to A, and no to B, and then we'll never get to Z. In fact I'll do that right now, Yes to A, No to B, never get to Z. And that really refutes your argument. Your arguments REQUIRES that we can't deal with population control policies, and designer babies separately, either we say yes to both, or no to both.

But as I've shown, you can say Yes to A, and no to B. And that way, we never get to Z.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 29, 2009 7:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Of course, from what I'm reading (and I confess I haven't kept up with the entire thread), all assumptions are that any form of "population control" must stem from human involvement. Historically, most forms of population control seem to have been external forces - pandemic, climate change (ice ages), natural disaster, etc.

So far as I know, none of those are eugenics, other than in the very broad sense that a hurricane is "eugenics" against people living in certain coastal areas...

Of course, none of them are reliable or predictable, either...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 29, 2009 7:43 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Of course, from what I'm reading (and I confess I haven't kept up with the entire thread), all assumptions are that any form of "population control" must stem from human involvement. Historically, most forms of population control seem to have been external forces - pandemic, climate change (ice ages), natural disaster, etc.

Of course the impact of such things have been massively reduced because of our technology. We as a species are far too successful, so successful that we can out breed the environment's ability to support us. It's like built in obsolescence, which would rather fit in with the intricately balanced nature of erm, nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 29, 2009 8:05 AM

BYTEMITE

All right, I bit, and went to wikipedia to check what you're saying.

Quote:
A laser is a device that emits light (electromagnetic radiation) through a process called stimulated emission.

Quote:
In optics, stimulated emission is the process by which an electron, perturbed by a photon having the correct energy, may drop to a lower energy level resulting in the creation of another photon. The perturbing photon is seemingly unchanged in the process (cf. absorption), and the second photon is created with the same phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel as the original. If the resultant photons are reflected so that they traverse the same atoms or gain medium repeatedly, a cascade effect is produced. Stimulated emission is really a quantum mechanical phenomenon but it can be understood in terms of a "classical" field and a quantum mechanical atom. The process can be thought of as "optical amplification" and it forms the basis of both the laser and maser.

I know how the photons were produced, but not that it is considered quantum mechanics. I was more familiar with the "classical" field explanation.

In any case, you still are not CREATING the photons from nothing. A photon is simply a unit of energy that moves both like a particle and a wave. It is not considered particulate matter, but it IS considered a particle. Does that make sense? So when you hit the electron with one packet of energy, and the electron drops to a lower level and EMITS a photon of energy, you aren't creating a photon. Rather, part of the electron's energy is being converted into a photon of light.

As for where I'm getting my information from, I'm getting it from the Physics for scientists and engineers course I took in college for my degree. We covered optics and lasers. Now, I'm not an expert, and wikipedia is likely more correct in its explanations than I am, but my information isn't coming from nowhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 29, 2009 8:19 AM

BYTEMITE

Frankly, I don't think you've shown anything in regards to population control NOT leading to eugenics. You haven't suggested any alternative methods of population control to the ones I've already suggested, and at this point I'm not sure there are any others.

But then, you don't think I've shown anything in regards to population control being equivalent to eugenics. I tried to deconstruct how there's inherent selection in all the population control methods I can come up with, but it seems like I've failed.

So I guess that's fair.

As it is now, I don't think there's any way I can refine my argument further, and I think it's even less likely one of us is going to agree with the other.

But I did enjoy talking about this with you. I think this debate was very civil, considering how volatile it's subject could be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 29, 2009 1:26 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In any case, you still are not CREATING the photons from nothing. A photon is simply a unit of energy that moves both like a particle and a wave.

I thought I already dealt with that though? There's nothing in the definition of create that prohibits it being a conversion. One doesn't create a statue out of nowhere, it is converted from a square block of marble.

As for your implied question, I have numerous qualifications in Computer Science, which by their nature as Quantum Mechanical devices, includes Quantum Mechanics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 29, 2009 1:39 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Frankly, I don't think you've shown anything in regards to population control NOT leading to eugenics. You haven't suggested any alternative methods of population control to the ones I've already suggested, and at this point I'm not sure there are any others.

But then, you don't think I've shown anything in regards to population control being equivalent to eugenics. I tried to deconstruct how there's inherent selection in all the population control methods I can come up with, but it seems like I've failed.

So I guess that's fair.

Technically I don't have too, I was disagreeing with your claim, the burden of evidence is on you to back up your claim.

But, I maintain that we can do one without the other. Your position seems dependent on saying if we do one, we MUST do the other, but I see no reason for this. In fact I think it seems quite natural that we could have population control, and still not allow designer babies. It's a big question that I don't think you've answered, why, if we say yes to A, MUST we say yes to B?

But as you say, we're unlikely to convince either of us.

Quote:

But I did enjoy talking about this with you. I think this debate was very civil, considering how volatile it's subject could be.

I can agree with that, at least

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE