6 Comments
User's avatar
Troy M's avatar

I agree with you that conflicts should not be fought over ideological reasons only. I believe that there is a good strategic reason the United States invaded Iran. In some ways there are resource incentives. There is the future of BRICS or really they are going to have to change their acronym now. I agree that the United States only doing it for ideological reasons is dangerous. I do believe the world is slightly safer because the Iranian regime only fought a shadow war for Ideological reasons. I believe that the people of Iran were suffering and I saw clear indications of genocide over the years of its own people. I truly believe the people of Iran will fall in line with the Iranian Prince and it wont be sunshine and rainbows but i do believe that the country and the rest of the world will be better off without Iran funding proxies.

The best path is always a peaceful resolution but unfortunately I saw them not wanting that.

Doktor Snake's avatar

In the end, it’s the “ghost in the machine” — belief and the emotional brain. As in driven by emotions and belief is part of that.

There’s also criminality and corruption on all sides, so that plays a part.

And survival of nation states — so competition geopolitically means it is dog-eat-dog… in a world of scarcity you have to try and get the lion’s share of resources.

So in a sense with 8 billion people on the planet it doesn’t work like it did when humans were hunter gatherers.

BUT: there’s fabricators / replicators in the long-term pipeline.

That would mean the end of scarcity, and a world of abundance… in turn it would mean the end of money.

With fabricators you’d be able to create anything you want or need from base atoms. Right now the tech is at molecule stage.

It’s like the replicators on Star Trek.

Thing is though, there’d be vested interest that would not want this to come to prime time, and would seek to control it.

Equally, humans aren’t ready for a world without scarcity.

So with new tech you get massive benefits, but also probably ten issues in its wake.

Troy M's avatar

I so agree I mean in theory we can now print so much intellectual property, I hope that people within 40 years could start using the replicator thing. I do agree that the infrastructure to do that with its high-power demands will require fusion versus fission for nuclear power but yes i agree with you fully that I'm looking foreword to seeing a world where it is like that with more abundance.

Doktor Snake's avatar

It's incredibly hard to imagine a world of abundance — outside sci-fi that is.

It's so out of our remit of aeons of scarcity.

One look at abundance is in the Michael Moorcock series of books, Dancers At The End Of Time.

Just brilliant. All Moorcock's books are.

Those books though showed the final humans utterly bored. And then a woman from Victorian times turns up in that timeline

I've forgotten how that came about.

But it's a nice interplay.

Troy M's avatar

For me it is that I believe that Iranian leadership never intended on peace and with a heavy heart I do believe the only way was a regime change. Because of how they still behave in a way that needs progress and I'm only talking about the IRGC and the people in power there I believe that all civilian casualties are unacceptable and not okay. I also believe that the Iranian regime genocide way more than that per year.

J.W Qiyamah//King Shamballah ©'s avatar

Black Easter in real time