(V): Most people drop their heads when they sneeze. Not me. If I didn't look up everytime I sneezed, I could easily blow myself out into space.

(V): "As for climate change... we need to be aware of our input as a race."

AND our output. I sneezed this morning. It impacted the planet and forever changed the course of human evolution... for the better. Thank goodness! I was afraid I might have blown the earth off course and into the depths of space.

(V): "The left is responsible for fear of pregnancy? Constant fear mongering...
Now it's the left, not the women!?!"

Stop hiding behind the women.

Left wing fear mongering is common knowledge in the states. Conservatives are always calling them on it and liberals are always denying it. But whenever liberals are backed into a corner, and cannot deny what they have been doing, then they will say everyone does it. hmmmmmm.... why does that sound familiar? Where have I heard that before?

hmmmmmm?

(V): [ ""or fear of what women will have to face if abortion is abolished, such as pregnancy and dirty diapers, not to mention *shudder* the abstinence needed to avoid that threat.""

No mention of the mans responsibility. ]


Read it again. Where do you see me excluding men from the picture? You're reading more into this than is there. I'll wager at least half (if not most) of all abortion advocates are probably men. I'm talking about men who want to get their jollies, but not be tied down financially or personally to any woman. The motivation for these men to embrace abortion and sound their trumpets as champions of womens rights is actually nothing more than self serving hedonism.

But you keep missing the point. I was referring to constant fear mongering by the left. Like fear of global warming, which could be followed later by fear of global cooling (I wouldn't put it passed them), or fear of pregnancy... and we all know what fearful and monstrous things pregnancy can lead to, right? CHILDREN!! Ahhhhhhh, be afraid! Be very afraid! Be afraid of.... Children!!!

There are supposed to be other things we are to be afraid of, but at the moment I can't seem to recall what they are. I'm so frozen with fear I can't remember!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!

(V): "N' what are you blaming me for?"

I'm blaming you for blaming me for blaming women. This has all come from you, dude. The only one playing the blame game here has been you... and you're still doing it. Do you think women are stupid, and all you have to do is to say someone blames them and they will all automatically believe you?

(V): "Please... stop with the stereotyping of women as being the only ones in the loop re birth control."

So how do propose I stop doing what I haven't done? You keep pulling words out of thin air, and then talk as though they are my words. Why do you do that? Please... stop making stuff up and claiming I've said things I've never said to fit with your stereotyping of me.

And by the way, calling abortion birth control is like calling genocide population control. I don't care how clever you think you are, or how you try to sugar coat abortion... it is what it is.

(V): "I'm not saying all women will regret it, and many of them will buy into the kind of response I'm anticipating from you about this... I'm no longer a liberal, but that doesn't mean I've forgotten how liberals 'reason'."

[ That doesn't even make sense ]

Oh, so you're all about making sense now? Next time inform of these changes before I answer, not after. Okay?

(V): "Ok.... Pretty much everyone agrees it's not nice. But you can't blame the women..."

I don't blame the women. I blame you.

"...especially in a country like yours where in many areas 'men rule the roost'."

Yeah, back in the olden days when men ruled the roost. Pfft


"Tell that to feminists who say women do all the work."

[ I'm not a feminist so that's irrelevant. ;P ]

You can't talk to feminists because you're not a feminist? Is that one of your rules or theirs?

"Or do you believe conservatives don't have abortions?"

Are you talking about the men or the women, or both?

(V): You assumed I regreted my political past. I told you I don't have regrets about that. The regrets I feel are more personal. I was a jerk with women, but at that time I saw myself as being a 'nice guy'. I've been forgiven by a few of them, and some of them have even told me it wasn't all that bad... even so I can't help but feel regret for the things I did and said.

Women who have had miscarriages will feel badly about it, even though they have done nothing wrong. So I can only imagine how some women who have had abortions might feel about that later on, when the reality of what they have done begins to sink in. I'm not saying all women will regret it, and many of them will buy into the kind of response I'm anticipating from you about this... I'm no longer a liberal, but that doesn't mean I've forgotten how liberals 'reason'.

Anyway, there's no point in my responding to your response before you've responded, so I'll just have to wait for it.

(V): "The way you talk about women (or a couple) wanting an abortion is bad."

I believe abortion is bad. So? If you want to hear uplifting warm and fuzzy stories about abortion then talk to someone else... I have nothing good to say about it.

"Men have been changing nappies, dealing with early feeds for decades.."

Tell that to feminists who say women do all the work.

"What about men abstaining?"

What about it? Are you for it or against it?

(V): Okay, I'll summarize this for you... and feel free to disagree.

You said I'm blaming women for being pregnant. If women never got pregnant you wouldn't be here to claim I blame women for being pregnant, and I wouldn't be here to see you blaming me for blaming them for being pregnant. It's a ridiculous statement. Unless you meant something else or can show me where I'm "blaming women for being pregnant" your claim is less than meaningless.

I explained why scandals are often tagged with the word "gate". If you disagree with my 'historical interpretation' then please enlighten me.

Bringing up a story of kidnapping and rape and trying to link that to what I was saying was childish. Grow up.

*<(:oPfft

(V): I apologize for distracting you from the points you were making, would you mind reiterating those points? If you've forgotten what they were that's okay, we can just move on to your next point. *<(:oP

(V): And what? Do you really need for someone to explain this to you? If those women cannot watch TV or listen to the radio or go online or go anywhere without being scrutinized or talked about, then the public has effectively made them prisoners in their own homes. And this will be my LAST post on this topic.

(V): They've been asking the public for privacy you mor... er, I mean you champion of womens rights. They've been freed from the troll who held them hostage, and now they want the public to leave them alone and stop hounding them.

Artful Dodger: I don't pull weeds anymore. I just spritz them with weed killer. I spritz the grass too, because the ground is mostly small chunks of bark and bark dust mixed with dirt. I think the previous owner fixed it up so there would be nothing growing out there. It's a small fenced in backyard, and the only thing I let grow in it is a patch of crocus that started growing last year. I don't know where the seeds came from, and I'm pretty sure there were no bulbs in the ground, but there was a powerful wind storm last year that blew all sorts of stuff in and it swirled around in a circle. And in that circle is where I have about a four square foot area of crocus growing.

This year the same patch of crocus is there, and a tiny bird has decided to make a nest under the leaves in the crocus... on the ground. I didn't know there were any birds around here that did that, I thought they all made their nests in trees and other high places. It's funny, the only bird that isn't afraid to share my backyard with me is a very small one.

(V): [ But it gets you hopefully to stop blaming women for being pregnant and using bad arguments yourself regarding pregnancy... it takes two to tango. I don't think we have many virgin births these days!!

That was the intent. ]


No. Your intent was to toss in an emotionally charged story about kidnapping and rape. A story that had nothing to do with what we were talking about. There was a time when no self respecting man would resort to that kind of tactic... but times have changed haven't they.

If you're not buying what I'm not selling, and insist on responding to what I'm not saying, then all you are doing is making political speeches. You don't need me for that... any imaginary opponent saying what you want him to say can fill that void for you.

I wasn't blaming women for being pregnant... that doesn't even make sense. If I was blaming women for anything, it would be for believing the inane idea foisted by liberals about their right to have sex without dealing with consequences or responsibilities. Liberals preach the same message to men, that screwing around is your God given right and you shouldn't have to suffer any consequences as a result.

Since you don't seem to understand what I was saying... I was making fun of people who act as though pregnant women have malignant tumors growing inside of them instead of children. That's sick, and something is seriously wrong with people who regard their own flesh and blood in that way. But what is truly laughable is the fear of no longer being able to behave like a child, but actually being expected to take on adult responsibilities. I'm talking about people who ARE adults... or at least appear to be.

Have you hugged your tree today?

(V): "Do you think those girls who were locked up and got free recently had a choice?"

Do you think resorting to this kind of example supports your argument? If you are suggesting that the majority of women in a relationship are kidnapped and held against their will, and forced to endure what those young women endured, then you need to get out more.

"Unless, you think men cannot be responsible at all and therefore the entire burden of birth control is on women?"

You are absolutely right V, men cannot be responsible at all and therefore the entire burden of birth control is on women... if those women are dating liberals who have kidnapped them and are holding them against their will. Studies have shown that liberals (the men) can be wearing belts and suspenders and STILL have trouble keeping their pants from falling down. We can send a man to the moon, but we can't prevent liberals from mooning the women they 'adore'.

(V): "The 50's golden age for the USA... Paid for by the USA government via the Marshall Plan. They gave money to Europe and Japan, we used it to buy American merchandise from American companies.... hence creating a false cash flow bonanza for American companies."

You are so focused on money you could have become a banker, or an economist... or a doctor, or lawyer. Didn't anyone ever tell you that money can't buy you love? Or happiness?

(V): Gladstone was a British PM governing yall with THAT philosophy? Hoo boy... I feel your pain. So apparently you've had the same problem we have, any of the gains made by your conservatives are chipped away at by your liberals. By the way, if Churchill and Gladstone weren't 'British' PMs, then what sort of PMs would they be?

The 'prudence' our illustrious president and beloved leader has exercised will ruin us if the trust he's already violated isn't soon recognised. Conservatism isn't distrust of the people, it's distrust of government... I thought you knew that. And fear is something we can all live without, like fear of global warming, or fear of what women will have to face if abortion is abolished, such as pregnancy and dirty diapers, not to mention *shudder* the abstinence needed to avoid that threat. I could go on for another few paragraphs about all of the fearful things conservatives are willing to let liberals endure, but right now I'm laughing so hard I can hardly see the screen. Laughter is good for the soul, but I don't need tears of laughter shorting out my keyboard... restraining myself seems the prudent thing to do.

(V): "Hey don't pass on your regrets onto me regarding your past political views."

What makes you think I have regrets? I'd have reason to reget it if I was still a part of it, but if I was still a part of it I wouldn't admit to regreting it even if I did regret it. You don't regret it because to do so would be to admit you've been wrong, but you don't believe you are wrong so you have no regrets. See how that works?

If I hadn't been a liberal at one time I probably wouldn't understand the mindset. What I feel is the opposite of regret. I'm happy about being a part of it at one time for two reasons: One, I'm no longer a part of it and two, it gives me some insight I wouldn't otherwise have.

Churchill knew what he was talking about when he said if you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart... I think you know the rest of the quote. I appreciate the fact that he did not condemn young liberals, but instead he understood them.

I'm not saying it's fair, but folks will often judge the people you're with by the company they keep.

(V): You still don't get it, but that's understandable. You didn't live here and were probably too young even if you did to understand the significance of this.

I am aware of how liberals used Watergate to blundgeon the right for years afterward and claim the high ground. I should know, because at that time I was a member of the Democratic Tabernacle Choir, singing the praises of the left and pointing to Watergate as an example of Republican corruption. The Democrats lost that high ground a long time ago, but the left siding hardliners haven't figured that out yet... some of them are still fighting the war in Vietnam. It wasn't that long ago that someone here accused Republicans of sending teenagers off to war, even though the draft ended in 1973 and the only party responsible for sending young men and women to war for the past 4+ years are the Democrats.

I'm only telling you this so that ignorance cannot be used as an excuse when you go about the business of focusing all of your critical attention on conservatives.

(V): Hello? Wake up V!

Tagging scandals with the word "gate" wasn't my idea. I was simply explaining to you why it's done.

I thought you might catch on when I gated the words 'Whitewater' and 'Benghazi' when no one else has, but apparently the significance of comparing Watergate to other scandals is lost on anyone other than conservatives.

(V): "So we should now use 'gate' on all political scandals?"

What do you mean "should"? How would you enforce that?

"I get that there are scandals committed by members of all the parties and various people in the public eye."

Unless they are commited by members of a party or by people you don't particularly like, then it's okay to focus all of your attention on them. Right?

"... but 'gate' .. .. personally, Iran-gate would be a better example of the right lying, or WMD-gate..."

Well there ya go now, that's the spirit! By the way, thanks yet again for proving my point... not that you understand how, but that's okay. As long as you keep validating my points it doesn't really matter to me whether you know it or not.

(V): [I feel the use of the word 'gate' here in recent posts is over used compared to 'Watergate'.]

I'll bet you do feel that way. After all, Watergate was a misdemeanor compared to Travelgate and Filegate... and Whitewatergate. And now we have Benghazigate. So now, after all of the fuss liberals made for years following Watergate, I think there may be a few out there who are finally starting to get the point as to why so many Democrat scandals are tagged with the word "gate".


And for those who still don't get the point, it illustrates the double standard hypocrisy of the left.

(V): Yeth. And a cunning plan it ith.

Artful Dodger: Not always. As I'm sure you already know, the media does have a double standard to uphold. And it's not just the media. Liberal special interest groups have a curious habit of remaining silent when members of the party they support violate their own particular core beliefs. For example, American feminists proved what a joke they were when they were silent about Bill Clintons escapades, and even went so far as to blame his victims.

Artful Dodger: Clinton pressured someone into making an illegal loan, in a land deal that didn't work out. That person and her husband got into trouble because of it, but the Clintons didn't. So I guess the answer would be they slipped out of the Whitewater scandal by appearing to not be directly involved... even though they were directly involved, and were in fact the reason for the illegal loan in the first place.

Obama does the same, he influences people to "take action" but manages to keep his distance from the action, so his name doesn't appear on anything later. Although that doesn't apply to the lies we were treated to with the Benghazi cover up, because it's pretty obvious who the key players were in that mess. It's more of a mystery (than Whitewater) how that got swept under the rug.

Whitewater wasn't the only scandal the Clintons managed to slip out from under. There was Travelgate, Filegate, and the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster's death. Some people would have us believe the sex scandals were Bill Clintons only "indiscretions". Wow, talk about selective memory!

(V): Ball of yarn?

Artful Dodger: Just for fun I googled my brainking ID. Turns out Iamon is a surname and lyme is a disease.

finite improbability machine?

Quantum weighting?

The Col: Gore doesn't need a ladder. He's so full of hot air he needs to hold onto something so he doesn't float away.

"You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2?"

[ Okay Lemon Lime, assuming an abundance of CO2 always follows global warming instead of preceding it, why ARE they still saying CO2 causes global warming? ]

Because it wouldn't look good to change their story now, after years of beating it into our heads about an upcoming global warming crisis.

[ So what? Science is about learning the truth. What could they gain by not telling us the truth? ]

Nothing, but that's the point. It's what they risk losing by telling us the truth that has them worried. All of the time and effort to make us afraid of global warming would go down the drain.

[ Again, so what? ]

So they would have to switch gears and then tell us all about the horrors of global cooling.

[ Why would they do that? ]

To keep the fear factor in place. Remember, it doesn't matter if the earth is warming or cooling, all that matters is to make people afraid of CO2 so they will reject oil and and coal and throw their money into renewable resources. They can't afford to start telling the truth now, because it would cause many of the people who fell for the global warming hoax to begin doubting environmental scientists... environmental scientists like Al Gore for instance. If an environmental scientist like Al Gore was wrong about global warming, then who is to say he can't be wrong again?

[ I don't believe you! Al Gore is NOT an environmental scientist! ]

You got me on that one. By the way, who are you?

[ I'm your alter ego. ]

Impossible! You can't be MY alter ego, because I'm ADs alter ego... well, at least I was for awhile.

[ That's right, you were... but not anymore. Now I am. ]

NoooooOooOOooooOoooo... okay, yes.

(V): "Uhhhh no. Just you've been told they are."

Uhhhhh, no. No one needed to tell me. I'd have to be pretty stupid not to notice that it's almost all you ever hear about in the news. Carbon this and carbon that, CO2 here and CO2 there and everywhere, the evil carbon will kill you and your children... be afraid, be very afraid. Bwa ha ha ha ha...

"For decades they have been fighting against deforestation."

And for decades I would hear about that almost every day as well. So, is the fuel used to burn those forests down the problem or is it something else?
(just kidding)


You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2? No one needed to tell me this either because it's kind of obvious. Care to guess?

"When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out."

Assuming it does all ballance out and as much oxygen as CO2 enters the atmosphere, then you would still see an increase of CO2. If the ratio of oxygen to CO2 remained the same it wouldn't matter to environmentalists, since all of their focus has been on how much carbon is there.

See how this works? Environmentalists focus all of their attention on one little element and convince us it is an evil byproduct produced by the burning of oil procured by evil oil companies.

I thought I was supposed to be the ignorant religious nut here because I believe in God. So what's up with environmentalists trying to scare people by getting them to believe in the evil oil monster?

"...during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

I should probably explain how this could happen, seeing as how vegetation takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen. Vegetation actually does both... when photosynthesis is happening it takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen, when photosynthesis isn't happening (primarily at night) then it takes in oxygen and gives off CO2. When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out. But an increase of vegetation also means an increase of animal and insect life because of more available food. Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2, so that's how the ballance tips in favor of an increased level of CO2.

(V): "When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

[[ ?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.]]

If that's true then those sulphur gasses would be reflecting sunlight away from earth, not reflecting the radiant energy back, which I presume is what some scientists are saying CO2 does.

The earth is a very complex system, and comparing water vapor and other gasses in the atmosphere to a greenhouse as the main or only cause of weather change is an oversimplification. And yes, when Ice core samples were taken they concluded carbon dioxide in the atmosphere preceded global warming. Later tests revealed the opposite, higher concentrations of CO2 followed periods of global warming. This makes sense, because during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas.

(V): (V): [[ "French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide...

...puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy...

A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total." ]]


There's that word 'carbon' again. That word is key for supporting wind/solar and even nuclear energy. It's too bad so many people are unaware of what carbon in the atmosphere actually does. Al Gore wouldn't have dared trying to bamboozle the public with his scare for profit scheme if the junk science behind global warming wasn't king. When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming.

(V): "Do they..."

Yes. When automobiles were a new thing did the government need to step in so Ford couldn't monopolise the automotive industry? Competition is what prevents monopolies, or breaks them up when someone provides a better choice... that could mean better quality or lower price or more useful features or a combination of those things. That's not a bad thing for the consumer, it's a good thing.


I asked you "Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies?"

You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital. Investors risk losing their investment. But that's okay with me because it's their money being risked, not the taxpayers.

(V): "Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors."

You can't stop monopolies from occurring, they will happen. Competitors always manage to overcome a monopolies stranglehold over a particular industry, unless government partners with that monopoly. A powerful business monopolising an inudstry always attracts the attention of a powerful government intent on holding onto its own power... they will either support the monopoly or oppose it.

I suppose in a perfect world there would be no monopolies. In a perfect world I would also win as many games of chess as I lose, but then I could also forget about any ambition about rising to the top. Fantazising over what life would be like in a perfect world has never improved my game.

(V): "No... to the cost of manufacture of solar charging points and the installation of them. One bad corporation does not mean they are all bad and can't work."

Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies? I'm not talking about good vs bad companies here, I'm talking about the economic feasibility of a wind/solar power company working soley within the confines of the free enterprise system. Solyndra was going to fail whether they tried to make it work or not, because even with a hefty start up subsidy the company wouldn't be able to sustain their operation for very long. The top brass at Solyndra knew this, so they didn't bother to tough it out until their company failed... they did the only sensible thing, they took the money and ran. It may not have been the honorable thing to do, but when you have a president as naive as Obama this sort of thing is bound to happen.

By the way, if you want to quibble over what 'free' means in the context of free enterprise, I leave it to you to figure that out.

Iamon lyme: "Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Okay, you meant solar powered charging stations are not free. Not only that, but it's doubtful they could pay for themselves and make a profit without tax payer "contributions". That was MY point. Solyndra was given a big government subsidy to get started, but it all ended very quickly with the CEO and top brass giving themselves big retirement packages. How long was Solyndra in business?

Yeah, solar powered charging stations costing someone a pretty dime (if not the people using it) wasn't your point, I got that.

So what WAS your point? That even if an enterprise can't sustain itself in a free market it can still do what it was designed to do?

(V): "Your saying no private business is willing to entertain financing them?"

Not only just willing, it's already starting to happen.

"Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?

"I'm not sure that is possible yet as a street level device."

If you mean running a car on only water, that's already happened as well. Saw a video where someone was able to run a pick up truck with no gas in the tank. It was even able to accelerate going uphill without losing pressure. It used a much larger converter of course, but it fit in the back of the truck with no problem.

"Wow, it's legit!"

[ .... Just say I believe you V ;P ]

I do now... I'm a believer in trust but verify. When I saw water in glass jars my first thought was the cold fusion hoax a few years back... cold fusion supposedly taking place in glass jars.

You do realise the downside to this though, don't you? Now we will be fighting wars for distilled water and baking soda.

(V): Wow, it's legit! And it's catching on quick. By this summer some HHO water converters will be on the market in someplace called Bear County... I didn't pay attention to the state this is in, so I'll go back to find the video again. They'll sell for about 1,500 hundred dollars, but there are much cheaper ones you can put together on your own. I suspect the homemade ones will be cropping up all over the place.

(V): "but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free"

[ Some are. New solar powered charging stations for electric cars are popping up in various places. ]

I stand corrected. Solar powered charging stations cost nothing to build or install and maintain. It's all free. And taxes go down instead of up to not pay for those stations.

"The cars carried the water in jars with the necessary electricity coming from the cars own power system to create HHO. No need for a tank to carry the gases.. it's an on demand system.... the videos showed that!!"

When I have time I'll look at those videos and then do a little research of my own. But I suspect having an onboard system for gathering hydrogen from water is about as effective as extracting a little bit of power from the cars own intertia and feeding that back into the electrical system. If a car could run only on the hydrogen from it's own water supply, and channel the water by product back into that water supply, without ever having to fill a hydrogen tank from time to time, then you would essentially have a perpetual motion machine.

But even if we are only a few years away from a practical self sustaining hydrogen car, how do you propose we keep any of our aircraft in the air using only hydrogen power? Maybe we could convince the entire world to give up air travel. Also, there are products we use every day made from oil that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. I suppose we could live without those too. And when global warming finally kicks in, we can give up wearing clothes... we can use parasols for when we're out in the hot scorching sun.

(V): "Like the 12V system used to run the lights, stereo, air con, etc that's attached to the car battery?"

We've learned how to tap into the cars own inertia and convert that back into electricity, but it's not like a perpetual motion machine... inertia can only give back a small part of the energy used to run the car.

I was talking about the power needed to get the fuel for running the car. These cars don't run on water, they run on the hydrogen we get from water. It takes power to separate the hydrogen from water, that's how we get the fuel for powering the car. The cars engine causes hydrogen to bond to oxygen (converting it back into water) which creates enough energy for powering the car. In a worse case scenario you would need to burn coal to power the turbines that make the electricity used to extract the hydrogen from water. Getting the juice from a hydroelectric plant is more environmentally friendly, but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free... people who work for the power companies need to eat too.

My point is we don't need to use energy to create fossil fuels because they already exist. It's less expensive to get that fuel and process it than to create a fuel like hydrogen. In the future, if technology is allowed to progress naturally, I don't doubt we will have sources of energy that make fossil fuels obsolete. But we don't live in the future... not yet. <(:op

(V): I've said this before, the reason we've been able to advance so fast technologically is because private enterprise was allowed to do what it does naturally. Government interferes in this process in an effort to speed up what would naturally occur anyway, and in effect can (unintentionally) cause technological advancement to slow down. Not only that, but it can also create unforeseen conditions and problems in other areas of society as well.

It's called the law of unintentional consequences, and we've already seen what can happen when we tried to make some beneficial changes in nature. An Island somewhere has too many of one kind of non indigenous animal, an invasive species that may have got there aboard a merchant ship. So we decide to correct the problem by introducing another species that will prey on the one that shouldn't have been there to begin with. But now the predatory species has taken over the Island, and is creating unforeseen problems as bad as or maybe worse than the species we were trying to control. Overreaching governments are notorious at doing the same thing, interjecting themselves into a natural process in an effort to control it.