CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
One has to have money to have technology. To further advance science you need technology. You need scientists or a some form of education to understand or/and experiment with said technology, which also isn't free. One can stand outside and look at the stars all they want but the unfortunate fact is, without money you can't see beyond your own ability. This is why most Scientists work to gain funding for their projects.
That is a fallacy. Is what you are saying universally true or is it only true in the context of a society in which you need money to have resources in general? Money is a man made concept, one that (I would certainly hope) will not be around forever and was not always here before.
You need scientists or a some form of education to understand or/and experiment with said technology, which also isn't free.
You are right in the sense that education is not free, nor is technology. What you fail to consider is that in tangible reality what things cost is resources, not social constructs. Have you ever considered the prospect of a post capitalist society or do you just assume it's the end all be all?
This is why most Scientists work to gain funding for their projects.
It's also why scientists lack funding while resources are used to build casinos, bail out rich bankers and shoot people for oil and opium while telling you it is to protect democracy. Money (and more specifically capitalism) makes for a society where a bunch of pompous, self serving, scientifically illiterate fucking microdick weasels get to make decisions about how resources are used because they have more social construct points than intelligent and/or benevolent people. For example, that is how you get people like Donald Trump and Thomas Edison deciding what type of energy we use instead of people like Nikola Tesla and people who know that climate change exists.
To encapsulate all that I just said I am going to provide you with one simple statement to consider: As our capacity to create abundance with science and technology increases, so too does our capacity to destroy everything because humanity allowed a bunch of rich ass holes to make decisions for their own gain instead of people who knew what the fuck they were doing or cared about the planet or anything on it other than themselves. Will the day come when decisions about how we use the earth's resources are based on reason and science or will we continue to let a bunch of capitalists give science a measly allowance while they waste everything for profit?
As our capacity to create abundance with science and technology increases, so too does our capacity to destroy everything because humanity allowed a bunch of rich ass holes to make decisions for their own gain instead of people who knew what the fuck they were doing or cared about the planet or anything on it other than themselves. Will the day come when decisions about how we use the earth's resources are based on reason and science or will we continue to let a bunch of capitalists give science a measly allowance while they waste everything for profit?
This is very true and I would not argue against it. One of the quote's I've believed in is "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die", apparently Jean-Paul Sartre said it but I heard it from Linkin Park a while back. Now we have rich people who in a sense are waging war against our very planet by funding the denial of science.
Now we have rich people who in a sense are waging war against our very planet by funding the denial of science.
Nah, it's really the left waging war against the economy with their pseudoscientific magic climate meanwhile they ungratefully bitch about capitalism because they are too gay and stupid to understand how it created more abundance and technological progress.
Nah, it's really the left waging war against the economy
If the socially constructed economy is not compatible with what is actually logical, productive or sustainable then we don't need it.
pseudoscientific magic climate
Reality doesn't care about your meaningless opinions. You throw around words like pseudoscientific meanwhile scientists who have actually done the science work are telling you something that contradicts your baseless opinion and you just stick your fingers in your ears and spew partisan group think.
ungratefully bitch about capitalism because they are too gay and stupid to understand how it created more abundance and technological progress.
abundance and technological progress lead to capitalism, not the other way around. Capitalism is just one step in a process of humanity adapting to differing material conditions.
Now we have rich people who in a sense are waging war against our very planet by funding the denial of science.
So do you now see why money is not necessary for science and technology, and it in fact creates conditions that hold them back? The material conditions that necessitated the invention of currency in and of itself are different from those that created capitalism, now that we are living in capitalism those conditions have changed again. It is not money or capitalism that lead to technological progress, it was a change in how we use resources (including technology) that lead to money and capitalism and will eventually force humanity to create new systems to adapt to different conditions. The monetary system is not technical or scientific, and the more technical society becomes the more scientific it must become. We can't afford to have an economy based on social constructs for much longer, because the more technologically advanced we become the more we need scientific and technical decision making that is aware of and concerned with the physical world rather than the world being run by interests that don't know or care about how our actions effect the physical world or how to address technical problems.
So do you now see why money is not necessary for science and technology
I disagree, but perhaps we are seeing two different sides to it. It seems as if you are seeing a side where money is used to dominate science, which isn't wrong, I see it as a way to encourage and promote discovery with science, which also isn't wrong.
I see it as a way to encourage and promote discovery with science, which also isn't wrong.
So you believe that money is necessary to create an incentive? Money is valued by humans because it gives them access to resources. It does create an incentive, but it isn't the only way to create an incentive, progress in and of itself is an incentive. If you add to science and technology, you make the world a better place to live in for yourself as well as everyone else. For example if I create a better vehicle, I have a better vehicle for myself, but I would also logically want to share that technology because it would improve the general functionality of society and thus effect the goods and services I receive. If you are logical enough, improving the world in and of itself is the most powerful incentive and if this was what culture conditioned people to think like it could replace the monetary incentive.
So you believe that money is necessary to create an incentive?
Only partially. Too often that incentive can be warped to do exactly what I said earlier, but it can also be incentive to study an area that has yet been either undiscovered or only partially studied. Until not too long ago there wasn't much of a call to search for more green energy solutions and energy storage, now with people putting money in the right direction, the cost of solar panels, tax breaks and benefits for having them (which encourages average consumers to justify the up front cost for installation or updates), and the study of it, has paved the way for corporations to spend the time and money to find more efficient means of production and efficiency.
Only partially. Too often that incentive can be warped to do exactly what I said earlier, but it can also be incentive to study an area that has yet been either undiscovered or only partially studied.
Money is an incentive only for idiots. For spiritually dead people with little intelligence who don't understand the value of life. The kind of people interested in genuine "study" are not the same kind of people who are incentivised by material wealth, so you're talking nonsense.
Let me put this another way, a scientist working to create a better battery needs the funds he gets to be able to explore different avenues and test products. You can value life all you want but the simple fact is, money gets your foot in the door to put ideas into action. It seems like you just want to focus on large corporations screwing the economy and the future of our planet just to get more money in their pockets, and yes, that absolutely does happen. But the other side is companies that provide incentive and reward for researchers and scientists to come up with better solution, to think outside the box. So long as they do and so long as it provides a better, cleaner future, who gives a shit what the reward is? One can still be interested in genuine study when there's a boost involved.
But the other side is companies that provide incentive and reward for researchers and scientists to come up with better solution
Companies steal what scientists invent and use it to profit shareholders while those who do the thinking and the labour are "rewarded" with a fraction of what they themselves produce whereas the ones paying them did nothing but own the company.
I work to survive. Bizarrely, it appears you are blaming me for capitalism, which is astonishing given the fact I've spent the better part of two years trying to explain to your stupid self why it's Draconian and rooted in human exploitation. You are beginning to sound just like the right wingers you argue with all day.
Let me put this another way, a scientist working to create a better battery needs the funds he gets to be able to explore different avenues and test products.
Bizarrely, it appears you are blaming me for capitalism
Bizarrely you think I'm blaming you for capitalism. I can only imagine that you don't just work to survive, I imagine you have several electronics and devices for play and leisure as well. Unless of course I'm wrong and you use the computer just to survive?
now with people putting money in the right direction, the cost of solar panels, tax breaks and benefits for having them (which encourages average consumers to justify the up front cost for installation or updates), and the study of it, has paved the way for corporations to spend the time and money to find more efficient means of production and efficiency.
We already have the technology to provide free and sustainable energy to the entire planet. What is holding us back is the money invested in fossil fuels and the profitability of expendable sources of energy. Not to mention that fossil fuels are now tied to the US monetary system itself (petrodollars) and the government will steal technology and hide it from the public if it threatens the current profit-based model or can be used for a military advantage.
We already have the technology to provide free and sustainable energy to the entire planet.
Yes but we can do better.
What is holding us back is the money invested in fossil fuels and the profitability of expendable sources of energy.
That's one of the things holding us back. We are limited by the technology of our time but with research and tenacity we can find better and more efficient solutions.
No kidding, we can provide free and sustainable energy to the entire planet like I said. What is holding us back is fat, greedy capitalists.
We are limited by the technology of our time but with research and tenacity we can find better and more efficient solutions.
We are prevented from even using the technology we already could be using on top of the fact that we are using resources stupidly instead of investing in what matters because of the rotund beorgiosie fops who control our planet's resources.
Again, it feels as if we are debating two sides of the same coin. You are arguing the negative aspect of it, I am arguing the positive.
The positive aspects are what can be improved upon with a better system and the negative aspects are what can be done away with using a new and better system. Both sides of the coin are telling you to look for something better, not to hold on to how things currently are or believe it is the only viable way for technology to progress.
Both sides of the coin are telling you to look for something better, not to hold on to how things currently are or believe it is the only viable way for technology to progress.
I can't say for sure. I doubt a capitalistic society can survive mass unemployment brought on by artificial intelligence and automation. We are already seeing some businesses heading for that in the food services, self check out, manufacturing jobs, etc. As technology improves there will be fewer and fewer jobs for white collar citizens and some to most blue collar. It may sound fatalist but that's what a concern is. So as for what will replace it? I truly don't know. Thoughts?
as for what will replace it? I truly don't know. Thoughts?
The most likely answer is something similar to technocracy, because the more advanced a civilization becomes the less room there is for subjectivity, opinions and ideology in our decision making. In other words not only money, but also politics will be obsolete once we get to a certain level. This technical society is also almost definitely going to be one of two extremes, it will either be socialist or it will be fascist. This depends mainly on how retarded the public remains, because in the socialist version there would be a culture of reason which allows the general population to self-govern yet cooperate with the community as a whole. The fascist version is what will happen if humanity somehow survives it's own profound stupidity despite not socially and economically evolving enough to keep up with technology, and the current class system ends up being made worse rather than being done away with because the wealthy will become transhuman cyborg gods and enslave the human race and/or replace them with AI slaves.
Jewel where does the money come from for the technology that the Leftist need for the infrastructure pertaining to ELECTRIC CARS ? Leftist is that infrastructure being put in place by any Leftist in Washington, D.C. ?
Now according to this LEFTIST DUMMY only the SCIENTIST that the BITCH believes in need MONEY ! JEWEL you and the RETARDED CHILD and your ALLERGIC OLD MAN do not need any money ????????? BITCH is BARNEY SANDERS going to save your LEFTIST ASS ????????????
I don't know, but there does seem to be a lot more science and technology going on in capitalist nations. The socialist ones just kind of use shittier versions of what capitalists invent and try to pass their bullshit economic theories and postmodernism off as science.
Note all the European socialist (or semi-socialist) economies which rank higher than your own for healthcare and safety technology.
Put simply, a conversation with you would likely be impossible since you are completely oblivious to what facts are. You prefer to think and say things which are false, but which appeal to popularity and/or groupthink.
The socialist ones just kind of use shittier versions of what capitalists invent
Except the socialists beat you into space and invented satellites. Shut your stupid mouth, you idiotic propaganda station. You stole your technology from Nazis, son. The rocket technology at the heart of American technological power is Nazi technology, stolen in the aftermath of Operation Paperclip. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
That's because you're looking through the eyes of a moron who has never left his own country, and who couldn't find Europe on a map.
It's right above the two places those countries you mentioned get their insane Muslim immigrants who rape women, establish their own laws, and poop in the streets.
Note all the European socialist (or semi-socialist) economies which rank higher than your own for healthcare and safety technology.
Most Socialist countries didn't even make the list and the ones that did are much more capitalister though.
groupthink
Bwahahahahahahaha
You stole your technology from Nazis, son.
So did the USSR. The difference is America ultimately went further with their space program because capitalism is sustainable whereas communist countries can only copy technology then pump out replicas with forced slave labor.
