Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
12,501 Posts
Technology is a big driver. So far i have purposefully not embraced it fully because I do not trust it. However conditions and regulations may force me to become more technically proficient than I want to be.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
current economy is unsustainable transformation.

3D printers, and CNC machining

chip

Open source, collective production, decentralization of information.

Wikipedia
Arduino

Social networking
YouTube producers

talk about surviving, and thriving.

jobs don't pay and consumerism enslaves

manipulating technology

so the big manipulators will have less of a hold on you.
Sure costs are coming down on some stuff and cost of 3d printers is coming down. There are however still some products that are much more costly to produce to the same quality, particularly steels. I think once we get to the nanocarbon production capability through prototyping machines things will get a lot better. People go to college for this stuff, two college programs I was considering and one I started focused on some of these techs, aerospace manufacturing and electrical engineering. There are lots of peoples with these skills but understanding engineering principles of cad in depth requires a bit of a tech math background, physics, material chemistry, and likely a knowledge of cad. Sure you can use other peoples open source product designs. Some techs are considered "restricted" by US gov for non licensed producers. Take for instance gun parts. There was a 3d printed gun that came out a year or two or three ago - I think it was called the liberator or something. None the less the DOD considered these too much of a risk so took it offline. The designs are still out there but are restricted in the US. The producer openly asked for the designs to be shared, and they were being shared on social networking after his website was ordered to remove them. I was following the story. Now a while later someone asks for a gun part, now you may be flagged if you share that. Take me for instance I obliged the request to share the 3d print file for the AR magazine - guess what it showed up in my investigative file that was disclosed, the cops consider people who share 3d printed firearms accessories to be a public security threat. Note I did contact the minister of public safety who was Vic Toews at the time, and they came back and said the files are not illegal to possess or distribute in Canada. This still doesn't get you out of special attention by police, get monitored and flagged by them. So for chips or otherwise, say it is technology under export bans, sharing that information online could be some type of export violation. If it is ITAR techs in the US you can get in trouble, if it is cryptological tech it could get you in trouble. So government is still setting limits on what you are allowed to share. These techs will become more commonplace as the price comes down, but there will not only be technical limits on it but also regulatory limits on what people are allowed to produce or share. Then of course there is the patent issue as mega corps patent everything from round corners to the groove of a gear.

In my university courses wikipedia has actually been a topic of debate and atleast one essay on the validity of wikipedia as a trusted source. Personally, I don't think it is, it is heavily watered down by propaganda, and false information. At times social pages, are crafted by government agencies, and they have monitored and edited these to suit their agenda, it is just another propaganda outlet. It is ok as a source of western propaganda. There is lots of useful science info though. Wikipedia has the problem of having certain pages banned, if the gov doesn't like what is being shared it blocks access to it. Once again demonstrating that government will set limits on what message can be shared, and what people are given access to. Note I do think wikipedia is useful, and it ain't just wikipedia but tons of wiki products that allow info collaboration. The real issue is that someone is still pulling the strings behind the scenes, its not open communication, it is structured, but open to the greater populas.

Youtube is much the same, but you actually can get the evening news on youtube sometimes. So it isn't removing the need for the news, there wasn't one in the first place, it is providing a different format. Lots of news channels share their stories online these days, youtube just centralizes that info. It is just a different medium. Again there is the issue of "reliability" of information. Journalists are trusted to provide, accurate reporting, but still this is not always the case, there can be bias, but rarely are news stories completely engineered. With youtube there is more of a chance for non journalistic reporting of events, or doctoring of information to social engineer people. You can get really good scientific info, but what is stopping someone from putting malicious content on there that could injure or kill you, or destroy your equipment. Not so likely but the point it it is a less reliable information source. Again the government screen issue, censoring etc.. comes up, we can't expect google which owns youtube to provide total liberty in what is shared, they have lots of legal duties, and you can bet you don't have privacy nor would you per se in every library on what you are viewing not being assessed by "the police state". It is much easier to monitor the internet, than the airwaves and every bookstore. Note this isn't just about illegal or banned info, but just info the gov associates with unwanted activities or capabilities.

I don't see the internet as being free of the manipulators, some of the biggest corps in the world have massive investments in the internet, while they do have mass distribution, they are the ones that control these things. Google for instance hired tons of social scientists for net engineering. What you are provided access to know exists is filtered, and there are people in the business of insuring that info cannot be found easily. The agenda extents to the internet. Even militaries not just intelligence agencies are opening up groups for social engineering. They are all intelligence sources. Everything you post is can/will be screened to profile you, including your likelyness to commit crimes or pose a threat to government interests which include those big corporate giants - that have been part of the military industrial complex - and have been major employers and stakeholders in crafting legislation, and continue to be.

Sure it is better on some fronts, we have more capabilities at our disposal than 10 or 20 years ago. There is however a red line that exists on what is available and what can be shared without getting negative attention or violating the laws, with the access to information one needs to start assessing that info for its legality and how it can be used and shared legally. So along with these responsbilities comes the need to protect oneself from the government, or other interested parties.

Yeah this tech is great it will get better but there are limits and concerns.

I'm a minarchist so I think companies do have the right to net engineer, as do individuals in non malicious ways, and really it is all just political interests, common interests in terms of open source or corporate monopolization.
I don't support IP restrictions in casual use. Even though I am also a musician and may have had some of my content comercially used in violation of my IP. I find it a limiting effect on innovation to limit access and use of information. I've designed and shared ideas to a quite a few technologies from AI to military drone technology. In more casual sense even so said collaborative development such as the google glass project. Even when these ideas are incorporated into techs, for me I am happier to see the advance for humanity than for financial gain for myself, because it means advance and better conditions for everyone, as long as that information stays free. This does not mean I give up those rights but it means that there are even benefits in violations of commercial rights. Most of the time, people have thought about this stuff, tech is all just "progression" rarely do authentically new technologies come into being.

Back to the point of economic collapse though, short of a major global calamity I also think transformation is much more likely than sudden collapse. We have to remember the economy is "artificial" it is all about material supply, and meeting demand of essential products. The USSR had issues with supplying food, housing, and efficiency tools, before it broke up politically and wasn't able to be held together. I can't see this same scenario happening in the US, but it is possible in the EU. The US has a much stronger united identity than the EU, which is more like the US in the 1700' and 1800s. With a now very strong federal government, that controls commerce as its focus, we know it will be there - and the US cannot collapse totally because it would surely mean the end of the planet. Being capable is a good thing, they gov doesn't agree because they are trying to insure that the agenda is not deviated from.

Point is though, total self sufficiency for material design requires a lot of development making bioplastics is more in our reach now but most people are still going to need to buy source material for their 3Dprinting and CNC, and etching. We still need the raw resource at this point.

This changes various industry sectors, and govs prop up those sectors by restricting freedom to insure those industrial interest are maintained so that there continues to be stability in the economy.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,822 Posts
Geeeezzzzzz. Do they make pills for that?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,822 Posts
Old Slip was just trying to help a fellow human being who clearly needs help is all.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,822 Posts
I tried to read it. Really, I did. It was like reading William Faulkner from the future on a bad LSD trip. My head hurts. We should develop a demerit system. Just sayin'.
Your a better man then I Swagger. I don't try anymore. There is no point. I just ignore it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CourtSwagger

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,782 Posts
...I'm a minarchist so I think companies do have the right to net engineer, as do individuals in non malicious ways, and really it is all just political interests, common interests in terms of open source or corporate monopolization.
I don't support IP restrictions in casual use. Even though I am also a musician and may have had some of my content comercially used in violation of my IP. I find it a limiting effect on innovation to limit access and use of information. I've designed and shared ideas to a quite a few technologies from AI to military drone technology. In more casual sense even so said collaborative development such as the google glass project. Even when these ideas are incorporated into techs, for me I am happier to see the advance for humanity than for financial gain for myself, because it means advance and better conditions for everyone, as long as that information stays free. This does not mean I give up those rights but it means that there are even benefits in violations of commercial rights. Most of the time, people have thought about this stuff, tech is all just "progression" rarely do authentically new technologies come into being.

...
So you are saying you are a minarchist, a musician, a college student, designed AI technology, designed military drone technology, and were involved in the Google Glass project? I quoted you above so you don't say I am making things up.

Wow that is a very impressive resume for a college student.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top