| Monday, April 18, 2005 - 03:23 am |
so visi, your whole point in all of that is that money is needed because of a belief that it's needed.
no offence, but your sounding like a dissident who is not happy with todays soceity. your argument doesn't claim that money is not a resource, it's a claim that you want star trek to be reality.
I totally agree with you there, I wish beyond all wishes that money wasn't needed. but tell a ferangi that his gold pressed latinum is a false representation of ownership and wealth, he'll simply tell you all about the many rules of aquisition.
btw, humans in the star trex world represent what a marxist soceity would be like. the ferangi represent us in the current trend of things.
also, in the lord of the rings novels by tolkien, the precious represents money, value, wealth, and power. which is what "in the darkness binds them" means. money binds us into slavery.
it's not that I don't understand what you guys are saying. it's just that I live in the real world were money is very much a needed resource. I long for the day when the human barrier of wealth is broken down, but until then I must deal with money as a resource.
An egg can become a chicken,but a chicken is NOT an Egg.
great visi, your now starting us down another tangent. a chicken was an egg b4 it was a chicken. a chicken is not an egg, true, but the egg was nessisary for the chicken to be created. much in the way that a chicken is not money, but to a buisnessman money was needed to buy an egg to hatch into a chicken. just like how if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. give a man a dollar and you feed him for a day, teach the man to make a dollar and you feed him for a lifetime.
this argument is semantics, but for all practicallity, money is a resource.
would you like a real life example? the pertonus towers. this is the worlds tallest building, but the interesting part of this building is that its main support structure isn't steel, it's concrete. this was nessisary because malaysia couldn't produce enough steel to build the towers and didn't have the money to buy steel from the world market. instead of scrapping the much demanded project, they put thier financial resources into the development of a new concrete that could withstand the swaying motion of a large tower without structural failure. thier money, used resourcefuly, allowed them to overcome a damning obstical through technological achievment.
but I suppose if you say tomato, I say tomato.