Another suspicious company is Sony, but even if so I like the big tech companies. I believe they contribute a lot to the progress of technology.
Well they bring resources together. Sony is easier to explain Japan found itself in client state status, Sony is an intelligence agency in corporate clothing. In some ways it seems like some kind of Brit Japan hybrid. We will find out that FaceBook is a NSA/CIA/FBI type front. Its a travesty. But its a gearing up of sorts. Its a real measurement gig like the original assigments of street addresses and grid squaring and accounting for physical assets but here they are trying to map relationships degree of social cohesion (not something the necessarily want much of) personal priorities (blackmail coercion points) and preferences and ideologies so as to predict so as to control. Its the manage measure nonsense.
Well, I don’t think Japan just found itself in such position. I believe China and Japan have been heavily manipulating the “young” western powers. For example China and Japan having been enemies in the past was probably just a show to fool the west. The same with the opium wars. And the Art of War a propaganda hit piece handed to the west. The real art of war is to remain outside of the big conflicts. Just look at China who is entering into Africa and other parts of the world with a business model instead of with military force. And they have really long term plans, such as making Hong Kong a financial beachhead into the west.
1 Like
You guys have to be realistic.
Pussy won’t be abundant. 
- The rest is just bridgework.
Actually, while I wouldn’t put it in those words it’s perhaps still an incorrect assumption you’re trying to make.
Quality companionship will probably not be abundant because it’s rare for people to find and receive exactly what they want in another person but if you’re talking about casual flings that probably will be as abundant as ever.
Over time there will be robots, AI, that people will fall in love with and you could have a sort of artificial abundance in some areas but the limitations on abundance are human limitations. They might be cognitive such as in the example of attention scarcity, they might be emotional such as a scarcity of love but that might actually be a side effect of attention scarcity, it might be aesthetic scarcity if you’re talking about aesthetics, it might be intellectual scarcity if you’re talking about the mind.
Human beings are not equal in all areas. Extraordinary human beings will always be scarce. That means extraordinary human companionship will probably always be scarce. Even if there were hundreds of billions of robots indistinguishable from humans to make up for this it wouldn’t change the fact that for reproduction the humans would still be scarce.
There isn’t really a way to use AI or technology to completely change certain social scarcities. Just like you cannot change the amount of rare earth minerals using technology as if it’s magic you’re not going to be able to be able to find a replacement for human attention because in some areas there is no replacement. A robot can simulate human attention but cannot replace it for people who specifically desire human attention.
I think you’re confusing a corporation with a non profit organization Warren. A corporation’s prime objective is to gain profits for it’s shareholders, it’s written right into it’s charter. It has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else believes. It’s cold hard facts about how corporations are structured.
It’s strange but this whole decentralized open source movement seems to be transitioning into what the Venus Project was outlining.
@blindsite2k no I am not confusing anything. The corporate charter was originally a temporary mandate to achieve a specific project for the benefit of the society. Of course at that time it might have been for the benefit of the English king and he had the doctrine of quo waranto to put to death any corp that caused him displeasure. We still have that doctrine. Now it seems some US defense firms are subject to it if they lie about their books on the public dime. Firms are still required to have a binding charter not simply for house keeping reasons but mainly so it can be revoked, but indefinite injunction or break up may come first. Firms have a corporate veil to encourage risk taking and the socializing or spreading out of risk, but if they **** up in the right way that veil can be tossed aside and personal assets seized. Also corporate finger pointing is no bar to the criminal law.
In the 70s this total idiot profit first doctrine came out even though firms prior were not angels they had less idiotic charters. Shareholders are the least of the stakeholders, high profit efficiency strong firms know this. The notion of profit as a legal mandate is a right side help themselves snow job, its there only to keep firms from hiding profit from tax especially as they burn up societies’ resources and opportunity. The real obligation is to the society. In the case of transnationals they find themselves exiled and their investments confiscated when they forget their place.
You could have just agreed.
witty and engaging…your first comment less so… 
Yes well I think that time has long since past. It is clear corporations are no longer temparary entities by any stretch of the imagination and after the fiasco of the BP oil spill or the havoc caused by Monsanto I think it’s fair to say they are NOT for the benefit of humanity.
Suffice it to say corporations have hijacked the system. If the state had or still has any power to break them up they no longer have the will because corporations line their pockets for election campaigns. Governments cover for corporations and corporations bribe government. It’s called fascism. And honestly in a historical sense I really think we should learn from this if we ever plan to create corporations again under some delusion that they will be “beneficial to society” because we of course have seen how they can inevitably run amok and destroy society.
1 Like