AsksWhy

Well, yes they would be created before the first day. Genesis 1:1 has been the evidence that the earth was already created before the first day! How many times have I given Genesis 1:1? Read the first few verses of Genesis. Genesis 1 History of Creation 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Earth was already covered with water at this time, and it was dark due to the gases in atmosphere. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Bringing in the light and dividing the light from darkness was the thing that was done on the first day! That means, creation of earth and the heavens were done BEFORE the first day! You're new to the board. In serious matters such as this, I never make claims that I don't - or can't - support. The rest of your post #176, is rendered moot. So basically, you and Richard L. Deem (a religious microbiologist) claim that because Line 1 is written before Line 3 it is evidence that the heavens and the earth were created before Day 1? Wow! I so badly want to jab a fork into my eye right now! - Please don't confuse "beliefs" with "proof". Additionally, you must not have read (or understood) a single word of what I wrote in comment 176, did you? As such, I must assume that when you and Mr. Biology read the bible, you do so more like a computer (line by line); whereas, I read it more like a well written story, where paragraphs contain main ideas and supporting sentences. I was trying to find a common ground with you, by which we could have a civil conversation about the many contradictions in the Bible; but apparently we cannot reach agreement on the third question I had for you: that the word "day" (as written in Genesis > Chapter 1) is an equally divisible element of "time"; thus, each "day" must be the same length? Amazing!

Okay, referring to the first line in post 176, I claimed that you said "the heavenly bodies were created before the first day!", which I can confirm in post 163 for sure. - Whereby, you don't follow it up with any supporting evidence. NOTE: I believe there was another post somewhere, where you repeated the same (or similar) comment, but I cannot find it within this chaotic mess of posts. Now please, if you could answer the question I asked in post 157 (first), and then again in post 176. - Thanks.

You have said this more than once in this thread ... with no supporting evidence; yet, you expect us to accept it as truth. Addressing this, your statement is not likely to be true at all. Q: Since when do we analyze the meaning of every sentence we read? A: Never. Q: So why would we do this when reading the Bible? A: We wouldn't. Take a simple paragraph for example. A well written paragraph will evolve from four elements: Unity - whereby a paragraph is unified around a main idea, with supporting sentences providing detail and discussion. Order - the way in which the supporting sentences are organized. Coherence - the quality that makes the writing understandable. Completeness - all supporting sentences clearly and sufficiently support the main idea. www.time4writing.com Applying this knowledge to Genesis > Chapter 1 (The Beginning), the first line is likely the main idea, and each subsequent line a supporting sentence. Actually, "and there was evening, and there was morning" precedes every "day". - New International Version (NIV). Why would you feel I needed this tidbit of information? - Instead, I would have preferred an answer to my original question. So let's try this again ... Given that a unit is an equally divisible element of a whole, and the author uses "day" as a representation of "time". Would you say that "day" is an equally divisible element of "time" as a whole, or does each "day" vary in length?

Each interval, same length? No, I can't agree to that. Besides, if we apply logic to all the CORROBORATING evidences presented in the other thread, "Why Trust The Bible," that God created the heavens and the earth.......can no longer be called an assumption. I think you might be unintentionally complicating things here. I am not attacking the creation of "the heavens and the earth"; nor do I care how long each "day" actually was, I am merely trying to establish a timeline. Given that man (through Divine Authorship) used the term "day" to describe each unit of time, I assumed that they should be consistent. Is that not a fair assumption? NOTE: Knowing what we know today (that units of time are consistent), it would be contradictory for the word "day" to represent varying lengths of time?

It's like art. Define art. Well, I know it when I see it. We can more definitely state what is not art, and what are not our values. Female genital mutilation, for example, is not one of them. Wife beating/rape: not one of them. Killing or jailing homosexuals: not one of them. Women defined in law as inferior and required to obey men and wear sacks over their heads: not one of them. Gender separation: Not one of them. Societal laws governed by religion: not one of them. Bans on blaspheme and insulting religious figures: not one of them. Sexual harassment: not one of them. One value I'd like to call collective which is sadly in decline: Self reliance. Self reliance ... it makes sense that you'd say that, considering your timeworn Right Wing ideologies. As for your art / value analogy ... Isn't it better to build relationships from common ground? Establish similar values first and work from there.? - www.cmhc.utexas.edu I think as we've seen in Europe, if you allow masses of foreigners to flood into your nation in a short period of time, and they are not assimilated, then what you've done is established foreign influences that water down your own values and culture. The more of them you have, the more watered down you are, until suddenly, hey, the signs are in foreign languages, and there are gender separations in the swimming pools, and half the girls in school wear hijabs and women are harassed at the beaches and pools and in the streets. Then you have police with automatic weapons everywhere, trying to keep order, and you need to spend five hours in a line before you can get on Parliament Hill for a celebration for fear someone might want to blow themselves up... Do you think the Poles have to do a careful airport type search of everyone entering a celebration? Nope. Nor do they wish to start. Do all right wingers have Paranoid Personality Disorder? Marxism has never worked anywhere. And 'sharing personal ownership' means me sharing what I own with people in Africa who own nothing. No thanks. Marxism is merely a theory that suggests capitalist economics will create a class struggle that will lead to crisis, resulting in socialism and eventually communism. To dismiss this idea as "stupid" or regard it as something that "will never happen" is self-righteous and irresponsible. As for your third world country comment: your idea of sharing seems small-scale and naive; perhaps personal space law could be expanded to define maximum personal ownership at any one instance in time. No?

I imply no hidden meaning to the word "day". - Can we agree that it simply refers to an interval of time, by which each interval is the same length? Also, would the following assumption be correct: God created "the heavens and the earth" over a period of six "days", and rested on the seventh?

"confidence in our values" ... What are OUR values as a collective whole? I think it might be hard for the West (or any other division) to draw a line in the sand on this one. "respect for our citizens to protect our borders" ... Protect our borders from who (or what)? Are these real or perceived fears? "desire and courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it" ... What exactly is OUR CIVILIZATION? Again, probably tough to define. ---------------------------- IMO, we all seem a little dazed and confused these days. We don't know how to share this planet, so we stake claims on everything. As such, we are left divided and tuned to the fear of what we might lose, trapping us in realms of distrust and conflict, or an us vs them reality; analogous to what we are seeing from Trump and his administration (US vs the World). More concerning, is that our mainstream business model reinforces and protects this reality (knowingly or not); thus, we are likely to continue down this path until a critical point is reached (possibly a Global Climate Crisis). Personally, I think we can avoid such an event, if we can devise a plan to phase out personal ownership and share things as a collective whole. Along the way, we might discover reasonable approaches to controlling the human population, creating a sustainable environment for everyone. Perhaps a complete revision of the current business model should be considered. The conundrum: How to do this under the current mindset? ... which is: What's in it for me - now?

Boy this is a busy topic! Having skimmed through most of the comments, some things were left unclear to me. As such, and as my alias suggests I might do, I would like to ask a few questions. @betsy: please, do your best to answer simply "Yes" or "No". - Hopefully, this will minimize the chances that your words are interpreted incorrectly. Do you claim that there are "no contradictions in the Bible"? Do you believe that the bible was written by man using God's Word (Devine Authorship)? In Genesis, Chapter 1 (The Beginning), would it be fair to say that the days were listed in chronological order (the order by which these events took place)? I will stop there for now, allowing you to respond. Thank you.

Our government introduce ideas (bills), that later get passed as laws (http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/Education/ourcountryourparliament/html_booklet/process-passing-bill-e.html). In short, they write the rules of the game we play (in life). So the question is: Should our government continue to pass laws that support and sustain the act(s) of competing to survive, or should the laws that get enacted encourage a more cooperative method of survival? Another way of wording this might be: Should we continue to mimic animals and act in ways that push us to compete-to-survive, or should we rise above these lower intellects and choose to support methods that encourage cooperative survival? Based on my experiences, from an economic standpoint, we compete for all things related to: MONEY! - As money gets us: food, shelter, water, etc. But it thrusts us into competition on ALL LEVELS at the same time. Not only that, we have a whole section of our Justice System dedicated to Business Law; thus, supporting this competitive behavior. Would it make more sense (possibly) to scrap the idea of money altogether? Teach our children the difference between NEEDS and WANTS, and that everyone must contribute (in some way, shape, or form) a percentage of their time to assure that peoples NEEDS are met? And then optionally, go after some of the things we WANT in life - in our spare time? Essentially, all we'd be doing is better organizing human output - becoming more efficient. - No?

the original edit was incomplete and posted in error (there was much editing that needed to be done) - I apologize for having fat fingers.

I wanted to respond to some of the comments I passed over previously: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, @Argus said: Well, to begin with, that isn't how we or any other western country operate. I and other taxpayers sacrifice a good deal of our earned money to pay for the heat - and hydro, and food and clothing and shelter and whiskey of those who don't make enough, for whatever reason, to buy these things themselves. Wouldn't the act of paying taxes only be sacrificial if it was something you believed you shouldn't have (or want) to do? Isn't it a tad selfish not to want help those in need? Or did you mean: taxpayers sacrifice a good deal of money, in trust that our "business as usual" government will address the problems that we (as taxpayers) shouldn't have to deal with? Either way, doesn't this approach towards solving problems seem a bit apathetic? Could you imagine if this style of problem solving infected the mind of Albert Einstein? - We might not be having this conversation today now would we? And if this is the attitude that we exude as taxpayers - which makes up the overwhelming majority of us I presume - isn't this problematic on its own? It gives the impression that we just don't care, and is sad really. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said: Also, it is human nature to work for self-improvement, and pretty much always has been. I always thought it was human nature to try and survive! And that everything else is a byproduct of that process. No? And lets not forget that survival of the species includes the process of reproduction. So essentially, hind sight should tell us that there is no room for gender inequality or selfishness - since it takes two to tango - if you catch my drift. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said: If working harder doesn't help you then you won't work harder. Isn't the idea to work smarter as opposed to harder? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said: As the Russians and other Communists learned decades ago, farmers will dutifully grow their crops as ordered on farms they don't own, but if you allow them a small patch which they can use and sell for their own profit, well, wow, watch the food supply explode. So are you telling me that we need a surplus of goods? Why? Wouldn't we only need a surplus if we were fearful of not having enough? And where does this fear come from? - A population concern maybe? Perceived scarcity? Poor infrastructure, distribution or transportation? Perhaps we should take these problems more seriously then. And doesn't fear negatively impact our well being (https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-your-wellbeing/security/facing-fear/impact-fear)? My point is: we have been living in fear since the stone ages. My bet is: we have made some poor decisions while under the influence of this emotional state (including the choice of systems we have chosen to implement throughout). My belief is: we can either choose to recognize this and move forward, or deny it and continue down the path we're on. Heck, fear of the latter is probably what compelled me to head back to this site and respond as I have (not that this is the proper forum to have this discussion). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said: If there is no reward for risk, then no one takes risks. If there is no personal reward for investing, then no one will invest. If there is no personal reward for gaining higher levels of skill and education, then most will not bother. What if we don't understand the risk: of inaction for example? When does investment take place then? How would it ever take place under the current business model? I am convinced that it is the long term practice of "business as usual" economics that will thrust us into the next World War; and personally, that is something I don't wish to see. :| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 5:52 PM, @bush_cheney2004 said: Well, it's not really a "system" at all, but yes, I like individual freedom over collectivist socialism. As per the following definitions: sys·tem / sistəm / noun: a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole It sounds like a system to me. No? col·lec·tiv·ist / kəˈlektivəst / adjective: relating to the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. Kind of coincides with the idea of: "the greater good". No? so·cial·ism / sōSHəˌlizəm / noun: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Have you experienced life in a socialist setting, or is it just the idea of it you don't like? - Because I don't like the idea of getting poked by a needle, but I understand that vaccines - thanks to "herd immunity" (http://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/) - save lives. So it might be for the greater good that I go get that shot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, @Bonam said: Hmm, based on this paragraph it seems like your main beef is with free market economics. However, no one has come up with a better system. Is it even possible to devise a better system under the current business model? And who would finance such a project on the chance that one is discovered? - Because I'm thinking, if a better system was discovered, it may not include a financial return on investment at all; which is "bad business" according to the current model. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said: Collectivism does not work, and it is a horror for those that must live in a society that attempts to implement collectivism. Says who? - Hutterites have been practicing collectivism since the 16th century (http://www.hutterites.org/); just saying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said: In fact, an unbiased examination of actual data clearly illustrates that the system that we do have is responsible for and is continuing to produce the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people that has ever existed in human history. Where is this "unbiased examination of actual data" that you speak of as "fact", or should we just take your word for it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said: As a percentage of the world population, fewer and fewer people lack for the basic necessities of life with each passing year, life expectancies are rising around the world, diseases are being eliminated or reduced in their impact, poverty is being reduced, fewer people are dying in wars, etc etc etc. Almost any metric that can be quantified shows that we live in the best time in human history. Comparing the information I have seen for myself online, and the information you have listed above, there is evidence that supports these statistics; but, should the inner workings of Capitalist Economics get the glory for these successes, or the capacity by which humans can adapt to their environment? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said: The system we have is working, and it's not just working a little bit but it's working spectacularly. The only serious medium term concern that we have facing us is human impact on the climate and resulting reductions in the abundance of resources, but we are well on the way to finding the resolution to this concern through technological innovation. I love your optimism, and I agree that technology will play a significant role moving forward; and it is nice to hear a pro-capitalist bring up the concern climate change might play in terms of increased scarcity ... it shows (maybe) that even capitalists have doubts about current economic theories and their effectiveness (or lack thereof) in dealing with environmental issues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:06 PM, @Michael Hardner said: I do think that the 'system' as it's described IS changing under our feet. Economics deals with scarcity and when scarcity goes away then economics is no longer needed. Scarcity is simply the relation between supply and demand. Too much demand, not enough supply, and an item falls into the realm of scarcity. But the opposite effect of this same relationship is often ignored, because humans are tuned to fear. The question then becomes: Is scarcity real or perceived? If real, then economics will always be needed; if perceived, why do we bother with economics at all? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Hardner said: The main question I would have are: what are you trying to achieve and why ? How would you implement it ? Who would be the arbiter for this new system's rules ? I guess I feel like the current establishment has no mechanism to even start a discussion about an alternate path: For example: To become a member of parliament in Canada (and begin your conversation with those in charge), it is implied that you must be a capitalist: owner of X amount of land and property. - This doesn't sit well with me, as it builds an empire of capitalists for capitalists! If you get over this hump and decide to run anyway, now you are a lone duck in a sea of wolves, and lowest on the food chain - unless you fill the top spot - like Trump, which not all of us have the financial capacity to do! Not to mention, this would probably not be the best environment for ones personal well being. Additionally, you begin dealing with the intricacies of money and budgets ... even though money (and the system created around it) seems to be the mechanism that allows people to put their personal wants ahead of other peoples needs! Creating and preserving inequality, poverty, and corruption! There are many examples that support my claims (i.e. political campaigns, housing bubbles, banking institutions, wall street, etc.) so why not take a look at this system in its entirety and propose a system that might be its replacement? Obviously, I am looking for a channel into the conversation and implementation would be a long way away. As for the arbiter and system rules: again, that would part of the discussion that (at this point) cannot be had! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Hardner said: Maybe it's better to think about ways to improve the current system. Guaranteed income is one of those tweaks that makes a change without throwing the whole system out the door: do you see the value in incremental change ? I get what your saying, and I understand that things take time - yes. But your example (guaranteed income) assumes that the current system is working in our favor and is the best we can do. What if our assumption is wrong? Why do we not have plans to transition to a new system if time proves that the current system is fallible? Think of it like life insurance: a plan that kicks in when necessary, and at the right time. Currently, martial law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law) is our insurance plan; and I'm pretty sure we can come up with a better system than that! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:55 PM, @?Impact said: There is a certain comfort with personal property that I don't see how can be unlearned. I want to come back to the same bed to sleep in at night, I got that turkey and trimmings so I could have a meal but if someone takes it from me all my planning and work is lost. I think there needs to be some boundaries around personal property, but yes they can be far smaller than they are today. Personal space is a basic human need, so obviously people would have shelter and the technological advancements within this structure to provide comfort (like a bed, or a fridge where you can store and preserve that turkey and those trimmings); but if we have no plans to make this happen (for everyone) then it may never come to fruition. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/13/2016 at 9:48 AM, Argus said: Who is blind to what's happening around us? Are people starving in Canada? Do we not feed, clothe and shelter the poor and provide health care for the sick, regardless of their own wealth, or lack thereof? We can do better! And this is not about a single country; but we have to start somewhere - so why not let Canadians take the lead on this?

Why all the hype? The way I see it, this meeting was relatively insignificant. But still, let's have this discussion anyway (for fun)... Going back a bit first ... Trump was elected because he created an image of change - a clear demonstration that Americans are fed up with the current establishment, and the status quo - while Hilary simply didn't do enough of anything (apparently). Ironically, Trump promised jobs, money and everything akin; on a hunch that job security, greed and patriotism would distract voters from the fact that these promises are the status quo ... and he was right. Then, to top it all off, he developed a plan that convinced a majority. Well done Donald! Nonetheless, I believe that his approach is too one-sided, and is a slap in the face to supporters of globalization. As such, there is fear that the US may close its doors on the rest of the World, and the implications of this are unknown. As for this dinner meeting between Trudeau and Biden, the Obama administration is merely reaching out to those who they think may be able to 'carry the torch' on initiatives that the Trump administration clearly will not. - Nobody is telling anybody to do anything; there is no "lackey". Trudeau (under fair council) will deal with these requests, to which the rest of the World will judge his decision. If anything though, his decision to accept the dinner meeting with Biden shows Canada's character: listening to a friend in time of need. Anyway, enough of this meaningless chit chat.

It just makes me wonder... If we let it go too long, is it really "technically possible"? It sounds a lot like the world population problem.

I make a fair sum of money each year, but I don't "own" the land I live on or the property I live in - the bank owns it all until such time as I can pay it off. This disqualifies me for at least 20 - 25 years (or more) based on current economics trends - and I'm one of the few people I know who actually tries to manage my money effectively. Small sum or not, this disqualifies a significant number of people. Please don't fool yourself ... Joe Poor-man would have no money to support an ad-campaign and would be shut out of the conversation before it even started - that's the system they have established. Parliament has a House of MP's to help solidify the illusion that their constituents actually matter - the real decisions are made at the Senate level and up. MP's and their constituents would be silenced automatically by the Senate and those above them if the public decided they are done with the idea of protecting the status quo. Martial law would be activated and people would be further oppressed. Not very democratic IMO.

Not exactly - this is what we call perception: the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. cap·i·tal·ism / kapədlˌizəm / noun noun: capitalism an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. In our beautiful country: PRIVATE OWNERS ARE THE STATE! As early as 1758, qualified voters were "MEN over 21 years old who OWNED PROPERTY" (http://lop.parl.gc.ca/about/parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/time_travel/timeline_content-e.html#1758). They developed a system that allowed themselves to create the rules of the game, which is still in effect to the present day. A great example of The Few choosing to oppress The Many. It seems to me like it's a very one-sided discussion: owners among owners, or owners waiting out protestors... making it not very "open" at all really. com·mu·nism / kämyəˌnizəm / noun noun: communism a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. so·cial·ism / sōSHəˌlizəm / noun noun: socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Based on these definitions it seems like both approaches advocate shared ownership; only semantics differentiate the two. How did we adopt socialism but not communism? You might want to elaborate on your thought here. Things will NOT change through the current process (their process); and if we try to convince ourselves that they will, it will be through the least efficient manner ever - trying to get owners to convince each other that maybe they shouldn't try to own everything. I DO NOT and WILL NEVER wish for collapse - only an idiot would want to experience such chaos and turmoil; but I do believe a better system can emerge if we can fairly assess our current political and economic systems without the preset biased opinion that they are not impeding progress.

The rules of the game dictate how the game is played; to which effect, those responsible for enacting and amending laws in Canada (Parliament) determine how we play the game within our borders. The PM we elect into power, and the Senate that person chooses (which is comprised entirely of Owners - owning property with a net worth of at least $4,000, in addition to owning land worth no less than $4,000 within the province he or she is to represent), intrinsically reinforce capitalist tendencies via the laws they choose to enact... whether we support the current regime or not, demonstrating an illusion of democracy, but furthermore confining our ability to induce significant change. My question is: If we decide (one day) that Capitalist practices do more harm than good and want to escape this way of doing business, will we be able to unravel all that we have tried to protect for the past century?

But when you're blind to what is happening around you, that is selfish! <Drops the mic!>

No other thoughts? Hmmm... kind of disappointing really. Thanks for nothing.

All I'm getting at, is that before any system is implemented and put into service, a conversation has to take place first. And how those conversations went back then - I'm not sure - but a few assumptions can be made: 1) The technology at the time those conversations took place helped determine what type of systems could be realized. 2) Most of these conversations were NOT held in global forums (as they are today), as technology wasn't there yet. 3) Major sections of the world's population provided no inputs into these systems (due to language barriers), obviously shifting the outputs from these systems in favour of those who were involved in the conversation to begin with. My bet is: that if those same conversations took place today - given where technology is currently, and considering the gains we've made in overcoming global language barriers - the systems in place would be significantly different, more impartial and more efficient. For example: Let’s take a look at one of our OLDEST systems: the Monetary System. This system was realized (over time) out of the need to simplify human transactions during an era when personal ownership wasn’t questioned. Therefore, it was designed under the pretense that these conditions were always going to be true – that is: human transactions need to happen, and these transactions will always involve personal property. Thought Experiment: If we were faced with the same issue today, would we come up with the same solution? In my opinion, efficiency through automation would be our goal today. The idea of personal property would become a thing of the past (unlearned over time), and material items would be accessible to all. The new system would allow for inputs from everyone, thus resulting in better outputs. Living standards would be established – poverty would cease to exist! Furthermore, every transaction would take into consideration its effect on our environment; thus, we wouldn’t support systems that allow people to put their personal wants ahead of other’s needs – therefore money would be out! Human effort would always have its place within this new system; therefore, personal time contributions could be established. Progress could continue to be measured in this fashion as well: instead of Tax Returns and figuring our GDP’s, we could establish Time Returns that would help us prioritize our efforts collectively. We won’t have all the answers (obviously), things will continue to change (as they always do), and we will likely stumble many times along the way - but the point is: If we improve (or change) the way we do business now, we can ensure a brighter future for everyone later!

What is human nature? You think your greed is inherent, or is it learned? Personally, I think it is something we learn based on the environment we are exposed to. Our current system is inherently greedy, thus I understand where you are coming from. I only wish that people would see that we can change the environment we live in by upgrading the way we do business.

So it's okay to put your wants ahead of another persons' needs? and you are fine with that approach to life? It seems kind of primitive to me (no offense).

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're saying it would be TOO MUCH WORK to change the way we do business. That's like saying it's impossible. If that is the case, shouldn't we just bury our heads in the sand and kiss our asses goodbye? I like to think: we created this mess, and by all means we can fix it. - Maybe I have too much faith in people, I don't know.

@bush_cheney2004 So you think our system is fine the way it is then?

@bush_cheney2004 freedom to be unequal? really? I didn't even know that was a thing. too funny, but not. @Argus self-interest = motivation... how does one remove motivation if self-interest is always going to be there? - you're not saying money is the motivator are you? because i don't believe that for one minute.

I was just watching the US Presidential Debate and was quite embarrassed for both parties. Specifically, I watched each candidate blame the other about anything and everything, without ever touching on solutions to the issues that really need dealing with - from resource management, to population management, and everything in between - it was utterly despicable. It reminded me of two teenagers bickering at one another over their petty differences, and it is scary to think that these are the prime candidates running for presidency in a neighbouring country! Watching their actions gave me the feeling that we (Canadians included) have become byproducts of our failing systems, causing us to behave in a manner that is rude, offensive, inefficient and unproductive. From what I can tell, we seem stuck on economic indicators - like GDP, taxes, interest rates, etc. - with the overall theme being: "Where can we put our money to try and solve this problem, or that?” And in the end nothing changes - we get deeper in debt, tempers continue to flare, and wars continue to be fought. Is it possible that we are focused too intently on making things work in a system that is ultimately bound to fail? By this I mean: The way we do business? Currently, we volunteer our time, in exchange for money that we are free to spend on whatever we choose - with no allegiance to anyone or anything. In essence, we’re saying: it doesn’t matter if Joe Blow down the street doesn’t have heat in his house for the winter, as long as I have a bottle of the finest whiskey to keep myself warm. This type of business practice breeds selfishness, has spread globally, and has become a cancer in the heart of humanity. The types of work we carry out are given a preset value based on no regards to quality of life, determined by poor economic rationale, ultimately interfering with our efforts to achieve world peace. Perhaps we need to alter the parameters of the game in which we play. I.e) eliminate money, allow time to be our currency, and let our unselfish tendencies guide us to fruition. There is more than one way to skin a cat, we just need to pull our heads out of asses and figure it out. But it can't be Business As Usual!