If it doesn't make sense(cents) it doesn't make dollars......

If people made sense, there'd be no need for dollars

Unfortunately its true.

If people made sense, there'd be no need for dollars

Why?

I took it as, if the world worked together to just make it a better place. there wouldn't be any need for money.

???????

I took it as, if the world worked together to just make it a better place. there wouldn't be any need for money.

???????

Well I do agree with making the world a better place, I don't agree with no money. A utopian society like I think is being suggested sounds absolutely horrible. We need a "game" to play" like getting money. It's gives us a reason to get up every day. Without that we would be in apathy.
You ever hear the story about the people who retire and then are dead in a few years? It a common theme.

Kinda like the pet rock...
It made sense

Other quotes
"A sucker is born every minute."
or
“A fool and his money are soon parted.”

I would love to get up every day to play a game of competitive sports. :)

I would love to get up every day to play a game of competitive sports. :)

IMO

Yeah, but if every single person on the planet was getting up everyday to play the same competitive sports game, soon enough there would be a huge gap between the good people and the bad, and then people would start to hate the game.
It's the same concept as money. It's the importance people put on money where the problem is found.
When people can't seem to get money, after awhile they get bitter. The same principal applies to sports. If you grow up thinking your going to be a hall of fammer and you end up being average.. then that's a real let down. You start to hate the sport you once loved and you sit on the sidelines for the rest of your life. That's the money game as a whole.

I have a friend that used to love sports. But after several years of life experiences and his inability to "get money", he can't even watch sports anymore. His view-point now is that those guys are just rich cry babies. He says that he works harder then those "sports" guys and doesn't get paid like them. That's his argument now. He also doesn't allow sports to be watched in his house anymore either. The guy is just bitter in his own way because he never learned how to play the game. He see's the the rich as these evil people. It's a shame.

Every one of us grew up thinking we were going to do special things and be rich. So what happened? Why aren't people still like that? Because they found out how hard it is or they tried and failed and are now bitter.

The fact is.... money isn't anything else but a game. A game every person is trying to play at the same time. It's the largest game we have going on right now. Some people are better players then others. Just like any other game. It's not a bad thing though. People call it a bad game because they attach all their emotions to it and let the game affect them.

Regardless if you agree with me or not on this entire post, you have to admit that the money game IS the largest game being played right now and every single one of us are players. The only question is..... What piece are you on the chess board. The King? or the Pawn?

In general, I am not attracted to competitive sports...except NHL hockey. I loooove NHL hockey.

In general, I am not attracted to competitive sports...except NHL hockey. I loooove NHL hockey.

Not into Rugby???? love it

Not into Rugby???? love it

Rugby isn't popular in the part of the US where I live. I think our university may have had an intramural team...I played tonsil hockey with a rugby player once though. St. Patrick's Day 1984. We all drank gin that someone had colored w/ green food coloring, straight out of the flask. Good times. :lildevil:

I took it as, if the world worked together to just make it a better place. there wouldn't be any need for money.

??????? :thumb: Thats pretty close.

Well I do agree with making the world a better place, I don't agree with no money. A utopian society like I think is being suggested sounds absolutely horrible. We need a "game" to play" like getting money. It's gives us a reason to get up every day. Without that we would be in apathy. I would suggest that maybe YOU might "need" that kind of game, but to say "we" as in everyone is false, even absurd. There are MANY people, even top-of-field Musicians, Artists, Teachers, Captains of Industry, Healers, stay-at-home-Moms, Communty Leaders, etc etc etc who could care less about the money. Their "care" is to those they serve, and from that, they derive a living, perhaps not even tallied in dollars os lira or yen or francs or pounds. I would hardly call those folks apathetic.
You ever hear the story about the people who retire and then are dead in a few years? It a common theme. Sure. But it isn't money they lack - it's a desire or passion or vision or purpose missing from their lives. I hear even more stories about people who are "reborn" once they retire and are no longer in pursuit of folding pieces of fiat paper. We don't hear more of those stories because theres a looooong-held belief there is no money to be made in reporting Good News. (which tells me there IS money to be made in the repeating of bad news. :hmm: kinda interesting how that works)

(side note ..... I don't think it has EVER been reported that, on their death bed, ANYONE ever said "I wish I'd made more money")

Like you said, "Money is a game." the problem with the game is there are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many players that insist THEY need to be the ONLY winner, and they stack the "rules" to screw their "opponent." Most (if not all) money-oriented or money-focused "games", those who's only goal is to get (more) money, are "Win-Loose" or even worse, "Win-at-ALL-Costs" games, and are played as such, damnming any damage (unintentional or intended) wrought. We are seeing the compounded and compounding results of that money-game today.

Utopian Society? Most of those models are doomed because they still attempt to emulate the money equation, because they haven't found a way to operate totally independent of the money-system, while still staying true to their original intentions. It's VERY hard to operate like that when there is an ever-increasingly repressive government insisting on taxation to feed THEIR goals and ambitions, even those goals and ambitions in 180 degree opposition to ones beliefs and thoughts and ideals. (there seems to be LOTS of those governments today, and , maybe coincidentally maybe not, they are money-focused)

I think in the not-too-distant future, VALUE will be the name of the game, and Value won't be backed by a gold-based hoarding. Value, REAL Value, will be person-based or service-based (most likely by a person), as it is today.

I am 297% certain that, given the choices of more money or more (life)time to pursue his passion, Steve Jobs would have chosen Passion. I'm 497% certain if he was given that same choice and taking ALL his accumulated money away, he would have chosen Passion.

I would suggest that maybe YOU might "need" that kind of game, but to say "we" as in everyone is false, even absurd. There are MANY people, even top-of-field Musicians, Artists, Teachers, Captains of Industry, Healers, stay-at-home-Moms, Communty Leaders, etc etc etc who could care less about the money. Their "care" is to those they serve, and from that, they derive a living, perhaps not even tallied in dollars os lira or yen or francs or pounds. I would hardly call those folks apathetic.
Sure. But it isn't money they lack - it's a desire or passion or vision or purpose missing from their lives. I hear even more stories about people who are "reborn" once they retire and are no longer in pursuit of folding pieces of fiat paper. We don't hear more of those stories because theres a looooong-held belief there is no money to be made in reporting Good News. (which tells me there IS money to be made in the repeating of bad news. :hmm: kinda interesting how that works)

(side note ..... I don't think it has EVER been reported that, on their death bed, ANYONE ever said "I wish I'd made more money")

Like you said, "Money is a game." the problem with the game is there are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many players that insist THEY need to be the ONLY winner, and they stack the "rules" to screw their "opponent." Most (if not all) money-oriented or money-focused "games", those who's only goal is to get (more) money, are "Win-Loose" or even worse, "Win-at-ALL-Costs" games, and are played as such, damnming any damage (unintentional or intended) wrought. We are seeing the compounded and compounding results of that money-game today.

Utopian Society? Most of those models are doomed because they still attempt to emulate the money equation, because they haven't found a way to operate totally independent of the money-system, while still staying true to their original intentions. It's VERY hard to operate like that when there is an ever-increasingly repressive government insisting on taxation to feed THEIR goals and ambitions, even those goals and ambitions in 180 degree opposition to ones beliefs and thoughts and ideals. (there seems to be LOTS of those governments today, and , maybe coincidentally maybe not, they are money-focused)

I think in the not-too-distant future, VALUE will be the name of the game, and Value won't be backed by a gold-based hoarding. Value, REAL Value, will be person-based or service-based (most likely by a person), as it is today.

I am 297% certain that, given the choices of more money or more (life)time to pursue his passion, Steve Jobs would have chosen Passion. I'm 497% certain if he was given that same choice and taking ALL his accumulated money away, he would have chosen Passion.

You're missing the point. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, plays the money game. I didn't say that was the only game they play. But it is definitely a game they are playing. Even if they are artist or teachers or whatever.
Everyone plays the game to some extent. Even you Manta.

Money = Survival.
You can point out how some people are artist or top of their field engineers, and you will find they are ALSO playing the money game.

The basic human nature is to survive. To survive takes money. Therefore money is the ultimate game. Everything else comes second.

With that said, some people are at a point in the game where they are comfortable and can focus on other games. And that's fine.

But you can't say that money isn't a game everyone plays. It's just a game that people don't know they are playing.

You're missing the point. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, plays the money game. I didn't say that was the only game they play. But it is definitely a game they are playing. Even if they are artist or teachers or whatever.
Everyone plays the game to some extent. Even you Manta.

Money = Survival.
You can point out how some people are artist or top of their field engineers, and you will find they are ALSO playing the money game.

The basic human nature is to survive. To survive takes money. Therefore money is the ultimate game. Everything else comes second. TOTALLY disagree with this assertion. That, IMHO, is a chauvinistic imperialistic bullsh!t opinion.

the basic human nature is to Love. the basic human fear is the loss of love, or lack of connection. It's from that seeding the money-game comes into play. With that said, some people are at a point in the game where they are comfortable and can focus on other games. And that's fine.

But you can't say that money isn't a game everyone plays. It's just a game that people don't know they are playing. I think you may be missing the point I am making. Survival does not = money, and as such, money does not = survival, but that is how the current game is set up for faaar too many people and groups, and that is the ONLY reason many people HAVE to participate in that game.

Survival DOES however = Resources. But interestingly, while Resources do not necessarily = money, Resources DO = Value.

Up until about 400 years ago, more than 1/2 of the worlds population needed NO money, because they had mediums of exchange based around Value. That left about 1/2 of the worlds population who based their medium of exchange around Power, which was/is based around accumulation and control. It's the power part that feeds the need for money, because that lust for "more" often turns into an orgiastic exercise in excess, and even if it isn't 'more', it's fear of loosing what is currently controlled. (based on that statement, is anyone thinking about oil? or big pharma? or agri-business? or financial institutions? or big government? or or or .....?)

Of course one can argue they NEED all that cool stuff, but does one REALLY need 7 luxury mansions around the world they never even visit, and a fleet of 8 private jets in case they need to go visit the places they never visit? THAT is most definitely NOT survival. But, in the "hey dog, check my tally score" world of the money players, that is how winning is measured, so that is the goal of MANY of the players in the money game. Even if those players are not interested in the hyper- massive accumulation of ostentatious excessive "wealth" mentioned above, money players ALWAYS want "more," because their idea of need (not survival) keeps growing.

Survival is not dependent on money. Survival is dependent on what resources and sources one can effectively use in their life. Once basic 'survival needs' are met (which can actually be done very easily and modestly) , one can go waaaaaay past 'survive' and actually thrive without the need of money. or power. As I said before, it's when OTHERS (we'll call them MP for MoneyPower) place their need to extract from others (whom we'll "Thrivers") what the MP determines THEY NEED, then the Thrivers are forced, almost always, into the money game because the MP will exert their power over them. that dynamic is old-school, and more and more people are waking up to that fact, and electing to no longer be associated with that old-school thinking.

The next several years and decades ahead will be, as the Chinese might call them, VERY interesting times.
.

of course medium of exchange is the very definition of money.

And without power, one does not have the means to ensure ones survival against those who would take it.

of course medium of exchange is the very definition of money. and that has what to do with this conversation?
That may be the definition of money, but all mediums of exchange are not defined by money. Medium of Exchange is defined by agreed Value. And without power, one does not have the means to ensure ones survival against those who would take it. Not true, unless you are talking about "those who would take it" coming with insurmountable odds. THAT would be another form of the abuse of power to which i referred earlier.

Any knowledgeable and skilled person or group can utilize resources to disrupt and displace any advantage those in/with power may think they wield. This was one of the ways the "rag-tag armies" of farmers and businessmen could defeat the British in the 1770s and 1780s, who in many cases, vastly outnumbered these new Americans.

Just curious here ..... are you in favor of the recent Congressional vote, giving power to the military to detain and hold, indefinitely, without defined or probable cause or trial, ANYONE arrested or caught on American soil, including, American citizen who might exhibit signs of "terrorism" or sympathy to terrorist activities? Those signs of "terrorist sympathy" include, but are not limited to:
Owning or buying gold.
Purchasing a travel ticket with cash.
Growing food in your own back yard.
Attending an event put on by ANY foreign entity - government, company or organization.

Like I said ..... just curious.

Anything that is traded freely as a medium of exchange can be called money. Money can have intrinsic value. For example a gold coin can have intrinsic value. So to can aluminum disks, or in the days of the native american - sea shells and beads. In russia Kent cigarettes were used as money because they had a relatively stable value and lasted longer that the paper the ruble was printed on.

As for power, on an individual basis, those without any power simply do not have the means to protect their rights or their property. the Rag tag forces you speak of joined together to create power. They took their limited individual means and compounded them. Additionally the concept of total war employed by the early "americans" gave the an edge against classical war fighters. By changing the nature of combat, they were able to diminish the power of the oncoming force. Had they tried to battle on the terms of those opposing armies they would have been slaughtered.

And no, I would not be in favor of government action that limits the freedoms of the individual to live their lives as they wish so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do likewise. For example I was and still am opposed to the patriot act.

WOW!!!! this is a long post. Sorry about the novel. I just started typing with a single thought and kept going from there.
Good luck trying to get through all of this

Mantra, your comments to me are in BLUE

the basic human nature is to Love. the basic human fear is the loss of love, or lack of connection. It's from that seeding the money-game comes into play.

No, It's not Love. First and foremost is the basic need of survival. It's this "neo, love everyone, pseudo science" that has people believing love is the answer to life. It's not. Survival is the motivating factor for all living things.
Take into consideration the built in mechanism of "Fight or Flight". It's a survival tool. If love were the answer to life, the we would have a built in mechanism for that.
Only in a select few people is the need for love more powerful then the need to survive.
Take away your survival potential and you aren't loving anyone. Give someone a strong survival potential and they can then love.

I think you may be missing the point I am making. Survival does not = money, and as such, money does not = survival, but that is how the current game is set up for faaar too many people and groups, and that is the ONLY reason many people HAVE to participate in that game.

The above statement is contradictory.
First you said "Survival does not = money, and as such, money does not = survival"
But then you said "but that is how the current game is set up"
So by that reasoning you agree with me. Money does in fact = survival.
I'm not talking about survival at it's lowest form. I'm talking about survival at its higher points.
Sure some guy living at his moms house can take a view-point like "love is survival" because To HIM.. his mothers love IS survival. But that's not normal for the masses. That goes for anyone else living off someone else.

I don't know how much money you make in life but for experiment purposes lets say it's 50,000 p/year.
So you make 50,000 per year in your job in whatever you do. You have a somewhat comfortable life where you can explore other activities and spiritual enlightenment like the idea of loving, the idea that we are all connected up, and any other idea you should feel the compulsion to investigate. Life is good for you.

Now, let's say that you lost your job and there are no real prospects for work coming up. What's that feeling you're feeling now? Is it love? Is it compassion for all those around you? Nope, not even a little. You go into survival mode. You start calling jobs, you start hitting the pavement looking for work, you put a plan together to bring more money in. You become an entrepreneur, you do something because you're survival potential has been cut down (The only people who don't go into survival mode are people who have big ol safety nets, Like parents who they can depend on.)

So...What are you going to do at THAT POINT?
You have 2 options.
1) Go around with this higher power feeling of love to survive. OR
2) Get busy and start producing something in life to make money.

Now with that said, YES there are other resources out there to aid in survival. But money FAR out weighs anything else that's available. It's the mostly widely accepted resource and the resource that is most commonly EXCHANGED for goods. And because it is accepted by the masses as the most common form of resource.. it = Survival.

As much as you want to believe that money is the root of all evil and that it's this bad thing. It's not. Money is just paper that you use as a resource for survival.

With that said, can someone survive at a high level WITHOUT money. NOPE. They sure can't. Even the farmer who on the surface harvest his own crops and eats well has to have money to survive. Which is why he sells his crops.. and guess what he sells them for... You guessed it.. Money.

It's Chauvinistic View-point. It's an honest, factual way of life. If all money was taken away, there would be a different commodity to replace it.

Survival DOES however = Resources. But interestingly, while Resources do not necessarily = money, Resources DO = Value.

I challenge you to show me a Resource that will aid in survival for the masses that can not be traced back to money.

Up until about 400 years ago, more than 1/2 of the worlds population needed NO money, because they had mediums of exchange based around Value. That left about 1/2 of the worlds population who based their medium of exchange around Power, which was/is based around accumulation and control. It's the power part that feeds the need for money, because that lust for "more" often turns into an orgiastic exercise in excess, and even if it isn't 'more', it's fear of loosing what is currently controlled. (based on that statement, is anyone thinking about oil? or big pharma? or agri-business? or financial institutions? or big government? or or or .....?)

400 years ago? We aren't talking about 400 years ago. We're talking about today. Right now. And we aren't talking about Big Pharm, Oil or the Ag business. We are talking about survival right now. The present time.
400 years ago people traded and bartered. That's not the most common and accepted form of survival any more.

And it seems you have a problem with big companies, them making money and their psychological breakdown and their NEED for money. I have nothing to say on that because it's an entirely different subject. In this post, we are discussing the average persons survival needs. Not the opinions on big companies.

Of course one can argue they NEED all that cool stuff, but does one REALLY need 7 luxury mansions around the world they never even visit, and a fleet of 8 private jets in case they need to go visit the places they never visit? THAT is most definitely NOT survival. But, in the "hey dog, check my tally score" world of the money players, that is how winning is measured, so that is the goal of MANY of the players in the money game. Even if those players are not interested in the hyper- massive accumulation of ostentatious excessive "wealth" mentioned above, money players ALWAYS want "more," because their idea of need (not survival) keeps growing.

Again, we are not talking about the ultra rich. We are talking about the average person's survival.
Although I have to say, that as a coach, you have a very big opposition to wealth. What kind of coach are you?
It seems like you have a very solid view point on the mega rich and what they choose to purchase. Why? Why do you care what they purchase. It's their money.

Survival is not dependent on money. Survival is dependent on what resources and sources one can effectively use in their life. Once basic 'survival needs' are met (which can actually be done very easily and modestly) , one can go waaaaaay past 'survive' and actually thrive without the need of money. or power.

Again, I challenge you to give me a viable example where the MASSES can sustain their survival potential without money.

As I said before, it's when OTHERS (we'll call them MP for MoneyPower) place their need to extract from others (whom we'll "Thrivers") what the MP determines THEY NEED, then the Thrivers are forced, almost always, into the money game because the MP will exert their power over them. that dynamic is old-school, and more and more people are waking up to that fact, and electing to no longer be associated with that old-school thinking.

"Others place their need to extract from other"? You mean business in general? That's what you are talking about here. It's business. No one is breaking people's arms to get their money. They spend it willingly.
I think you have a twisted viewpoint where you mesh big pharm, oil and whatever other mega large corp in the category of "all business". You should separate the two. "Apples don't = Apples" in business. Although it has become increasingly more widely accepted now adays that all business is bad.
People have this huge hate towards the rich. Why exactly, no one can say. they just "know" something is fishy.

I don't buy into this big conspiracy that everyone buys into. It's like a frenzy out there with theories and ideas. I'm know some of it is real, but the real only make up a small percentage of what people are actually buying into.

With all that said (I always NOT to write long winded post, sorry for that), a persons survival IS = to money. The less money he makes, the less survival potential he has.
Of course there are exceptions.. however for the masses as a general, money = survival.

Try not to mix your feelings of the rich, the wealthy or even your personal thoughts on money into the subject of money. That's where you are going wrong. You must keep an objective viewpoint on the subject and an open mind to the possibility.

I once thought love and appreciation was the key as well. According to "The Secret" that is what the real stuff is all about. And I actually agree with that and employ it. But what is one one thing that most people want to have come into their lives? It's always money. They need more money for this or that.
That's the common denominator.
I think people look for answers other then the easy ones and make things more complicated or try to give it a higher meaning, but in regards to survival, 9 out of 10 people will say the one thing they want more of is money. Not because they are being selfish or whatever else you say, it's because they want to strengthen their survival potential.

Money is the vessel upon which our society transfers wealth and value for everything from survival to wealth. In agrarian society this value was transferred in the form of arable land, animals, tools, and procreation (children, marriage, and dowries). There was no need for money since many societies had no actionable way to transfer currency into survival. When an agrarian society reaches the point where it begins to support a class structure because it needs experts (Experts being manufacturers, scribes, priests, noble class, army, artists, and many more people who are no longer able to support themselves on the land but contribute to society) then a society begins to create money or currency in order to transfer the means of survival to those who no longer work the land.

But I also find it funny that American society and the west at large as we continue to pursue this idea that we "value" all people we make them do less and less, or require less and less. In previous societies and still many today where people need to work in order to survive; malcontents, free loaders, criminals, and various others who take from the system are removed. These people were removed from society whether by expulsion or killing, or they were forced to contribute to society by working in mines, fields, or the army or pressed into service in many forms. All this work added up to the survival of the society. Now because we "value" that person we no longer force them to better themselves or force them to hand over their lives for the betterment of survival or perpetuation of our system/society the world over.

We are actually reaching the converse thought that those who have the ability/will/want to create and provide are obligated to support those that do not. Which leads into the "Game of Money." We are creating a society that in order to hold on to what is yours you have to attain massive amounts of wealth in order to sustain the massive amounts of wealth that you obtain. Why is this considered superior? What this is is decadence! Which lulls the population into a sense of complacency since most of our focus is on moving wealth around. The world at large does not operate on the United States model, while we are currently the big dog on the block and our currency is the vessel upon which the world moves it's wealth in order to gain the resources that it needs/wants/covets for power and survival this system cannot sustain itself forever. An outside nation will attempt or succeed at forcing the balance to change or shift. Since the population of the United States is no longer of one mind that our system is superior and has been the most successful model in history while it has its flaws. What happens to the world at large if this economy fractures or goes under? What will nations and world leaders do when those who want to take advantage of the United States going through a chaotic period try to do? Well let's see.

Before the United States had exerted it's power and dominance after World War 2. Millions of people were killed fighting for resources and money in places like Europe and Asia in the 1800s. Then the last of most royal families in Europe decided that they wanted to have a family feud. Since most of them were related it was a family feud where millions of people died or were displaced. After World War I was over along came the era of the "worker" or common man. In places like Germany and Russia, and socialist/communist revolutions around the world. When these dictatorships decided that they would play in "The Worst Dictator World Series(I mean literally WORLD)?" Millions more died.

My point is that as we move away from agrarian society and more towards a society we need to decide as a whole on what values we want in a society. Because it reaches a point where eventually resources/money no longer move and makes it very hard for people to survive. Then the game of money turns into a game of take what I want since there are no authorities around because every is scraping to survive. The game being played in the United States is between take from those who have, while those who have find ways to spend their money in order to keep what they have. We are losing our focus on maintaining a system that has done a lot of good for the world.

(Disclaimer: The United States has its flaws and since people are people and not perfect there are hundreds of examples where you can say that the United States didn't live up to it's own image. But show me a system/country/civilization that has done more for the world in it's entire history than the United States.)

Tell ya what ..... I'm going to let you claim victory here, because of 2 reasons .....
1 - continuing to dissect sentences and even single words gets nowhere. Believe me, I know that to be true, from "discussions" both here and other forums around the www.
2 - nothing you say will influence me into thinking that survival is ultimately dependent only on money, and nothing I say will encourage you to even consider the possibility that Love is a more compelling and stronger drive than survival.
It just isn't that important to me to convince you of something you don't want to acknowledge.

But the biggest reason I'm not going forward with this one-dimensional internet 'discussion' is that you are ascribing traits and qualities and beliefs to and about me that are over-the-top simplistic and utterly false. My guess is that You are (in large part) basing those assertions or psuedo-discriptions from past interactions or associations or something(s) you've read or heard from others, saying similar things to what I've written, but, you are basing all those on the assemblage of less than a couple thousand words, at best. I could give MANY "fer instances" to counter what you've written, but the point is, there is little (if anything) to be served by explaining or expounding in order to have a discussion about love vs survival.


If people made sense, there'd be no need for dollars

~ Only Love Prevails ~

1 - continuing to dissect sentences and even single words gets nowhere. Believe me, I know that to be true, from "discussions" both here and other forums around the www.
okay

2 - nothing you say will influence me into thinking that survival is ultimately dependent only on money, and nothing I say will encourage you to even consider the possibility that Love is a more compelling and stronger drive than survival.
Well, that's not true at all. I asked for a compelling argument to combat my viewpoint. I didn't receive anything that has any scientific validity. I am very open to viewpoints and would love to hear what you have to say so I can assimilate it and work with it for my own benefit.

But the biggest reason I'm not going forward with this one-dimensional internet 'discussion' is that you are ascribing traits and qualities and beliefs to and about me that are over-the-top simplistic and utterly false.
hahahaha.. Yeah, my statements are false because YOU say they are false. Even though you have provided NO support materials for your claim whereas I outlined my thoughts in a way to make sure you could understand them.
I have presented evidence and you have presented nothing in return. I challenged you to give me examples supporting your viewpoint, Not as to argue the validity of your opinions, but in a hope to better understand where you are coming from. But I didn't get anything.. All I got was.... YOU'RE WRONG.

My guess is that You are (in large part) basing those assertions or psuedo-discriptions from past interactions or associations or something(s) you've read or heard from others, saying similar things to what I've written, but, you are basing all those on the assemblage of less than a couple thousand words, at best.

If that is your absolute best guess, then you are Incorrect sir.
In order for a an answer to be TRUE (Like .. what is SURVIVAL), it has to be Workable. Not some philosophic rumblings from your favorite author or whatever else you are reading. It has to be tested and "tried and true". Poetry and Philosophy can be beautiful but seldom does it answer any question better then me asking my computer what's gonna happen tomorrow.

I could give MANY "fer instances" to counter what you've written, but the point is, there is little (if anything) to be served by explaining or expounding in order to have a discussion about love vs survival.
Then what the heck have we been discussing this whole time? That's exactly the activity you have been in engaged in.
And I would enjoy to hearing your FER-INSTANCES. Not to make you wrong in any way... But to understand your viewpoint.

Honestly, I have not looked at LOVE=SURVIVAL before. It's never fit and on the surface isn't workable. The only thing that I have found that is actually workable is what I have stated. And remember, for something to be workable it has to apply to THE MASSES and actually be able to produce REAL results consistently.

You said my viewpoint was to simplistic like that's a bad thing. You can try to mush everything up and collect as many "things" on the subject as you want. But when it boils down to it. It's one simple, workable truth.

OH... AND BY THE WAY...... I don't really believe money is the answer to survival. I just wanted to make a compelling argument on the subject.
But yes, I do have my own thoughts on what = survival. Maybe I will get into it later.

Do you still think I am just regurgitating information I read or some crap I heard? lol.

That's the thing about this subject. You take what you learn, test it, come up with a different finding, test that finding, come up with another one and keep going until you get to a place where you may be able to find some truth.
That's something few people do. They are just to damn lazy and fall for whatever someone says or tells them.

I would still like to hear your thoughts on love, if you truly believe that's what survival is about anyways.

Hope I didn't get you to pissed off. It's been fun for me. ;)

I was actually going to send you a PM to answer a couple valid questions you raised, but I'll do it here so maybe you’ll see a little more of where I'm coming from. (I know I said I wouldn't explain or expound, but it appears I need to, because that was said in reference to traits you were defining me by, even telling me my beliefs, without even knowing me or my history. It appears you want to still further define who I am based on your conception only. THAT is the false belief of my BEing, so here is a little explaination. )

What "kind" of Coach am I?
most people want to niche, then narrow-niche, and even hyper-niche themselves - RE Coach becomes Foreclosure Coach, who niches into either Short Sales or County-Steps or REO or Pre-Foreclosure,who then decides to niche into Abandoned Houses Pre's. Or a Book Coach niches into a Best Seller Coach or maybe "Book-in-a-Weekend" coach or even a non-fiction Coach, who then niches non-fiction into Sales and THEN niches into MLM Sales who THEN hyper-niches into an Internet leads/face-to-face Conversion Coach. Maybe someone starts out as a Sports Coach, but will soon find the need to niches into specialties, then sub-sets and even sub-sets of sub-sets. While they absolutely have value, they are task-specific, focusing on the mechanics and methodologies.
Me? I'm a Transformationalist, much more interested in Mindset than minutia or mechanics, but even with that, I have a VERY broad background in just about anything you care to mention. (That's why I knew you needed 14 transaction packets, or that someone else needs to Daily eat 10% less and exercise 10% more and improve self 1%)

As much as you want to believe that money is the root of all evil and that it's this bad thing. It's not. Money is just paper that you use as a resource for survival.
I don't think that, but somehow, you think I think that, even though I didn't say or imply that.
In general, I'm not excited about people telling me what it is I think. To form that opinion you wrote above, you had to read what you wanted to read, not what was actually typed. Nowhere did I say money is a bad thing, or that money is the root of all evil (which btw, is a mis-quote of "the LOVE of money is the first steps of all manner of evil," which are words in the bible, attributed to Jesus or Yesua.)
I DID say that POWER was a main driver of about 1/2 of the worlds population 400 years ago, which (coincidentally?) was about the time the several REAL big MoneyPower families decided to step up their play, so they could maintain and exploit their growing power-bases. Today (coincidentally?) those bigboys continue to stretch and reach ever-farther and deeper with their tentacles, affecting more and more of the masses, as well as governments and nations small and large, which I referred to as a "lust for "more" (which) often turns into an orgiastic exercise in excess, and even if it isn't 'more', it's fear of losing what is currently controlled ."

"Others place their need to extract from other"? You mean business in general? That's what you are talking about here. It's business. No one is breaking people's arms to get their money. They spend it willingly.
actually, by "extracting from others" I meant taxes, so you are wrong in telling my I'm talking about business. when you look at it, the entire sentence talked about Money/Power, which perfectly describes Big Government, as opposed to a modest government-of-and-by-the-people as imagineered and laid out by those fine folks in the 1700s.
This is where the "snip-a-clip" style of argument looses my attention and interest, because it's almost impossible to defend a position one hasn't actually stated. (worth mentioning here too - I'm not real interested in "combating" others statements or "defending" what or how I write. Those ideals are not a part of Growth or Love, but they absolutely ARE a main element of 'survival')
But since you thought I was talking about business, allow me to ask ..... do you really think a mega-business like Monsanto & subsidiaries, who together control over 85% of ALL seed packaging and distribution in the world today, (and by that default, over 50% of the worlds food supplies and meat-production feed) who is demonstrability and deliberately attacking small farms and farming communities in the US and world-wide (in the fields, but mainly in the courtrooms and patent offices), do you really think they have human welfare in mind as they race to control ALL of the seed distribution and partnership of ALL food distribution? (BTW, you DO know that Monsanto and Agents are the ones who actually write over 85% of ALL FDA rules and regulations today, don'cha?)



Survival DOES however = Resources. But interestingly, while Resources do not necessarily = money, Resources DO = Value.
I challenge you to show me a Resource that will aid in survival for the masses that can not be traced back to money.
Food. Home-Grown Food. 20,000,000 "Victory Gardens" filled the yards and porches of America in the early 40's war-years, supplying more than half of ALL the food for 60,000,00 Americans.
Forest. Whether old-growth or re-forested, money does not make a tree grow.
Water. Water falls from the Heavens, free-flowing & unimpeded, absorbed into and used by the Earth until stopped by money in the forms of government and company controlled Dams and other "river control" mechanisms.
Solar Rays. Warmth. Vitamin D. Light. Invisible food for plants.
Wind. Plenty of MoneyPower people create a big blow, but none can cause the wind.
Ocean and Waterways.
Air. plain simple O2.

If you are compelled to attempt tracing any of these elements back to money, that would be looking at it backwards; money can be traced back to exploitation of resource, but resource was here looooooooong before the glimmer of an idea of money or exchange.
Humans are Stewards of resources, but in recent history (remember, earth is about 13,000,000,000 years in the making) a few humans developed the belief that "we" are more important than the flora and fauna, and that it's our right and even our duty to exploit it (even if to extinction), then "supply" it to those masses they've convinced of the same.

2 - nothing you say will influence me into thinking that survival is ultimately dependent only on money, and nothing I say will encourage you to even consider the possibility that Love is a more compelling and stronger drive than survival.
Well, that's not true at all. I asked for a compelling argument to combat my viewpoint. I didn't receive anything that has any scientific validity.
Interestingly enough, you've supplied no scientifically validate information, only your observation or belief, but yet, you demand proof from me? I am very open to viewpoints and would love to hear what you have to say so I can assimilate it and work with it for my own benefit.

But the biggest reason I'm not going forward with this one-dimensional internet 'discussion' is that you are ascribing traits and qualities and beliefs to and about me that are over-the-top simplistic and utterly false.
hahahaha.. Yeah, my statements are false because YOU say they are false. Even though you have provided NO support materials for your claim whereas I outlined my thoughts in a way to make sure you could understand them. if you read what I wrote, you'll see I am objecting to you ascribing traits about me or my beliefs (like the "money is evil I detailed above), not about your statements on anything else.
I have presented evidence and you have presented nothing in return. I challenged you to give me examples supporting your viewpoint, Not as to argue the validity of your opinions, but in a hope to better understand where you are coming from. But I didn't get anything.. All I got was.... YOU'RE WRONG. I see no evidence, but do see a LOT of opinion you present as 'fact'. Present your validated evidence.

My guess is that You are (in large part) basing those assertions or psuedo-discriptions from past interactions or associations or something(s) you've read or heard from others, saying similar things to what I've written, but, you are basing all those on the assemblage of less than a couple thousand words, at best.

If that is your absolute best guess, then you are Incorrect sir.
In order for a an answer to be TRUE (Like .. what is SURVIVAL), it has to be Workable. Not some philosophic rumblings from your favorite author or whatever else you are reading. It has to be tested and "tried and true". Poetry and Philosophy can be beautiful but seldom does it answer any question better then me asking my computer what's gonna happen tomorrow.

I could give MANY "fer instances" to counter what you've written, but the point is, there is little (if anything) to be served by explaining or expounding in order to have a discussion about love vs survival.
Then what the heck have we been discussing this whole time? That's exactly the activity you have been in engaged in.
And I would enjoy to hearing your FER-INSTANCES. Not to make you wrong in any way... But to understand your viewpoint. As I said in the post above, you took this section out of context. It was written in reference to how you falsely describe me as having problem with business or wealth. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion when one is misquoted out-of-context with partial content.

Honestly, I have not looked at LOVE=SURVIVAL before. It's never fit and on the surface isn't workable. The only thing that I have found that is actually workable is what I have stated. And remember, for something to be workable it has to apply to THE MASSES and actually be able to produce REAL results consistently. Again, I have NEVER said "love = survival." I would not say that, but you seem to want to make it appear that way. You said my viewpoint was to simplistic like that's a bad thing. You can try to mush everything up and collect as many "things" on the subject as you want. But when it boils down to it. It's one simple, workable truth. I guess I'll say it again, just to be crystal-clear about this point ..... when I said simplistic, I wasn't referring to your viewpoint of money, survival, business or even pint-tipping Brits who enjoy a go at boxing. I did say, and I quote "..... that you are ascribing traits and qualities and beliefs to and about me that are over-the-top simplistic and utterly false."
I don't see how you made that be about you, but somehow, you did.

OH... AND BY THE WAY...... I don't really believe money is the answer to survival. I just wanted to make a compelling argument on the subject.
But yes, I do have my own thoughts on what = survival. Maybe I will get into it later.

Do you still think I am just regurgitating information I read or some crap I heard? lol. actually, I think you didn't read a lot of what I wrote how I wrote, so when you are taking statements out-of-context and concocting statements or "arguments" based on those, I don't see any relevance to compelling argument on the subject, because the subject you seem to be arguing is certainly not one I'm posing.

That's the thing about this subject. You take what you learn, test it, come up with a different finding, test that finding, come up with another one and keep going until you get to a place where you may be able to find some truth.
That's something few people do. They are just to damn lazy and fall for whatever someone says or tells them.

I would still like to hear your thoughts on love, if you truly believe that's what survival is about anyways. hopefully by now, you know that is not what I said. Hope I didn't get you to pissed off. It's been fun for me. survival is fear-based

There is no growth from fear. There may be movement because of fear, and most-likely, there is action in reaction to fear, but from fear, there is little actual sustainable or demonstrable growth.

thriving is growth-based

Love .....
Love is a much stronger and more dynamic motivator than survival, because Love flows from and allows creativity and expansive inSpiration, where survival-focus results in contraction, fear, absence, loss.
Pseudo-science? naw, it's studied in MANY mainstream institutions and organizations.
New-Age? nope, been around for millions of years.


You want "proof" that Love is a stronger element than survival? OK, see if these work for you.

How many times has it been reported that a mother will allow a child to die, in order to complete her (self)survival instinct? Sure, you may argue her "generational survival instinct" causes her to sacrifice herself to save her child, but modern research is showing that is not true. It isn't a fear about the child not living, it's a realization of the child Growing. (btw, it isn't just bout "her" child, it's pretty much ANY child!)
~ or ~
8 Soldiers are in combat. a hand grenade is tossed into their bunker. without thinking about himself, one man dives on it to cover the explosion. most of the time, he dies and the others live. Most of those feel a stronger alignment to loss than to life, and many are crippled for years and even decades over a guilt that they survived and their friend did not. Those who choose to see this action as a gift have a totally different outlook, one of Gratitude, and they will almost always be tremendous "givers" throughout their lives because they are not saddled by survival.
~ or ~
Planes are purposely flown into supposedly heavily-populated buildings. The buildings later fall in a tangled mess of twisted steel, glass shards and toxic debris. Many people die, but many are still missing, so hundreds of people volunteer for several weeks to dig through the rubble and search for those missing few. Most don't ecven know why they are doing so, but almost none are motivated by "survive"; rather, they are compelled to give back. maybe even giving forward.
~ or ~
mid-1800s USA. Tens and Tens and Tens of thousands of people are secreted away from the south, from entitled people intent on enslaving and even killing them. Their individual and collective escape is orchestrated and facilitated by a loose but cohesive number of people who put their safe travel on par with and even ahead of their own personal and family safety.
~ or ~
1941. France. Belgium. Poland. Italy. Thousands of individuals form resistance groups to counter military takeovers of their homes and towns and countries. (Hitler didn't ask here either) It is estimated that more than 1/2 of the resistance Fighters died to help re-establish their freedoms, not survivals.
~ or ~
1920s-1940s
a small brown man challenges an entrenched and established remote Governance, and helps change the destiny and direction of an entire nation by teaching ad extolling the virtues of gratitude and non-violence. Over the course of many years, the man's survival was threatened many times, but eventually, England left, returning the Indian sub-continent again to self rule.
~ or ~
well, maybe you get the point.


I heard a definition of "survival" the other day -
living in the fear of loosing the known.



now, before you tell me to prove to you what I've written via science or study, it's up to you to prove to me, via science or study, that your postulation of money = survival is actually true.


It's been said by several people in several different ways ......
You cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.

Me? I'm a Transformationalist, much more interested in Mindset than minutia or mechanics, but even with that, I have a VERY broad background in just about anything you care to mention. (That's why I knew you needed 14 transaction packets, or that someone else needs to Daily eat 10% less and exercise 10% more and improve self 1%
That's awesome man. Being a coach takes a special kind of person with a great understanding of people. The best "coach" I ever dealt with was a gentleman named Dr. Claude Matar (I built a distribution company for him when I first started out in business when I was 21 in 2001). He amazed me. He was the most sincere and understanding person I've ever met. He coached people on health and weight lose. (http://www.pasadena-weight-loss-center.com)
He got people to totally change their diets. And that is no easy task. It's easier to change someone's religion then it is diet. I will forever be grateful to him for teaching me how to deal with people and giving me my first real CRACK at business.
It's admirable that you're a coach. I respect that.

I don't think that, but somehow, you think I think that, even though I didn't say or imply that.
In general, I'm not excited about people telling me what it is I think. To form that opinion you wrote above, you had to read what you wanted to read, not what was actually typed.
I don't like people telling me what I think or guessing on me either. So I understand.

Nowhere did I say money is a bad thing, or that money is the root of all evil (which btw, is a mis-quote of "the LOVE of money is the first steps of all manner of evil," which are words in the bible, attributed to Jesus or Yesua.)
I DID say that POWER was a main driver of about 1/2 of the worlds population 400 years ago, which (coincidentally?) was about the time the several REAL big MoneyPower families decided to step up their play, so they could maintain and exploit their growing power-bases. Today (coincidentally?) those bigboys continue to stretch and reach ever-farther and deeper with their tentacles, affecting more and more of the masses, as well as governments and nations small and large, which I referred to as a "lust for "more" (which) often turns into an orgiastic exercise in excess, and even if it isn't 'more', it's fear of losing what is currently controlled .[/COLOR]

Yeah, I watched a 'History of money" show on discovery or whatever station a few years ago that said the exact same thing.
Everyone seems to believe a big conspiracy is going on in regards to money and these powers. Some I believe to be true while others are cooked up by people. It's funny what society will believe nowadays. I hear it from all angles.
You have to remember that I deal with millionaires all day long in my business. People with money from investing tend to have a lot more time to read and study on the internet and they tend to jump onto the newest theory that is "out there" because it was said "by someone who knows what they are talking about". lol. It's ridiculous. The first rule of thumb is to always break down the information to the simplest form and as direct to THE SOURCE as possible. Which NOBODY does anymore. They just listen to whatever crackpot is talking and take it for truth.

actually, by "extracting from others" I meant taxes, so you are wrong in telling my I'm talking about business. when you look at it, the entire sentence talked about Money/Power, which perfectly describes Big Government, as opposed to a modest government-of-and-by-the-people as imagineered and laid out by those fine folks in the 1700s.
This is where the "snip-a-clip" style of argument looses my attention and interest, because it's almost impossible to defend a position one hasn't actually stated. (worth mentioning here too - I'm not real interested in "combating" others statements or "defending" what or how I write. Those ideals are not a part of Growth or Love, but they absolutely ARE a main
Well I do understand where you are coming from, but I must say, challenging viewpoints is a GROWTH. Having open discussions are very much how you grow. The only alternative is to not engage in any conversation at all. Because it is with this social exchange of ideas where people grow (As long as they don't take what other people are saying as truth, but instead view them as ideas for further study "if they want to investigate it further".
The topic of survival is definitely interesting.

But since you thought I was talking about business, allow me to ask ..... do you really think a mega-business like Monsanto & subsidiaries, who together control over 85% of ALL seed packaging and distribution in the world today, (and by that default, over 50% of the worlds food supplies and meat-production feed) who is demonstrability and deliberately attacking small farms and farming communities in the US and world-wide (in the fields, but mainly in the courtrooms and patent offices), do you really think they have human welfare in mind as they race to control ALL of the seed distribution and partnership of ALL food distribution? (BTW, you DO know that Monsanto and Agents are the ones who actually write over 85% of ALL FDA rules and regulations today, don'cha?)
Yeah, I saw "FOOD INC" to. Actually I have it on CD. I am assuming that you only eat Organic foods. Do you eat raw as well?
My household eats organic and 90% raw. My wife owns a company all about educating people on that. She holds seminars and things like that.

But I think we are getting off topic. The original idea presented was, "What equals Survival".

Home-Grown Food. 20,000,000 "Victory Gardens" filled the yards and porches of America in the early 40's war-years, supplying more than half of ALL the food for 60,000,00 Americans.
Forest. Whether old-growth or re-forested, money does not make a tree grow.
Water. Water falls from the Heavens, free-flowing & unimpeded, absorbed into and used by the Earth until stopped by money in the forms of government and company controlled Dams and other "river control" mechanisms.
Solar Rays. Warmth. Vitamin D. Light. Invisible food for plants.
Wind. Plenty of MoneyPower people create a big blow, but none can cause the wind.
Ocean and Waterways.
Air. plain simple O2. [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]

I see the problem and actually the root our disagreement. I'm glad you answered my challenge.
The separation in our viewpoint comes from the definition of the word survival.

I'm guessing You see Survival as a state of being where the body remains to be alive. That is the most basic form of survival and can be done with all the things you stated above.

I am talking about not only keeping the body alive but surviving in your current state existence. A roof over your head, availability of food to feed yourself, running water, a car to get to work, internet to get on this site, Electricity, Gas, etc, etc.
Human kind has evolved from the days of just growing your own food and living without essentials like running water, gas and electricity.

So, obviously I think you are correct in your explanation of survival, however it is out-dated and unfortunately does not apply to the masses in the world's current condition.

Survival itself can be broken down to a point below money

Sounds like this thread doesn't make any sense, so it ain't gonna make me any dollars. :)

Survival = competition. those who fail to successfully compete do not survive.

Competition for resources is the name of the game. There are finite resources available and those who managed to gain control of those resources are the ones who come out on top.

It may seem simple but the application of this are profoundly broad.

Survival is definitely not based on fear simply because it is not based on emotion. At it's root, emotions are meaningless when in a situation where basic survival is on the line. People will eat something that disgusts them or even terrifies them if they are starving. People will often throw away beliefs and often even their principles when it comes down to survival.

Maslow pointed this out in his needs hierarchy. esteem needs are severely diminished in importance when the base needs are threatened.

As for money, Money is important as a way to obtain resources. Force can also be used to obtain resources. both are tools in the tool box.

But at the end of the day, every living thing is competing.

Sounds like this thread doesn't make any sense, so it ain't gonna make me any dollars. :)

HaHa!! What did you expect to happen with a Thread called "if".. lol

But at the end of the day, every living thing is competing. except those that choose to complement or align. There IS a new world coming.

and it wont be the New World Order.

Survival = competition. those who fail to successfully compete do not survive.

Competition for resources is the name of the game. There are finite resources available and those who managed to gain control of those resources are the ones who come out on top.

It may seem simple but the application of this are profoundly broad.

Survival is definitely not based on fear simply because it is not based on emotion. At it's root, emotions are meaningless when in a situation where basic survival is on the line. People will eat something that disgusts them or even terrifies them if they are starving. People will often throw away beliefs and often even their principles when it comes down to survival.

Maslow pointed this out in his needs hierarchy. esteem needs are severely diminished in importance when the base needs are threatened.

As for money, Money is important as a way to obtain resources. Force can also be used to obtain resources. both are tools in the tool box.

But at the end of the day, every living thing is competing.

That's a valid idea. Everything is competing. It's also got some workability to it.
I think finding the one thing that = survival is a pretty complex undertaking.

except those that choose to complement or align. There IS a new world coming.


To what end? Plants compete, animals compete, people compete, companies compete, governments compete. It is a fact of life. It is axiomatic. Science has shown us the validity of it.

Whether it is for oxygen, water, habitat, food, a mate, a job , a customer, a percent of market share, or anything else it comes down to competition.

Choosing to compliment or align are just tactics one can choose to increase their ability to compete. Life/nature functions on competition. To have a world that does not would need to be a world devoid of life.

The reality of our existence is competition is necessary to survive. To choose not to compete is to choose death. I doubt the very nature of life is going to change any time soon.

Yeah, I watched a 'History of money" a few years ago that said the exact same thing. Good thing it's again being made aware. I learned al that in 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade History.
Everyone seems to believe a big conspiracy is going on in regards to money and these powers. Some I believe to be true while others are cooked up by people. It's funny what society will believe nowadays. I hear it from all angles. ALL conspiracies have a basis in truth. theres nothing new under the sun, just new ways of delivering the old. This makes it uber-easy to start a conspiracy theory - plausible assertions from appropriate directions, made to the people who want to hear - BINGO!
You have to remember that I deal with millionaires all day long. People with money from investing tend to have more time to read and study on the internet and they tend to jump onto the newest theory "out there" because it was said "by someone who knows what they are talking about". lol. It's ridiculous. The first rule of thumb is to always break down the information to the simplest form and as direct to THE SOURCE as possible. Which NOBODY does anymore. They just listen to whatever crackpot is talking and take it for truth. so I just wanna get this right ..... what you're saying is your investors, in fact, MOST (if not all) investors are crackpots who cannot think for themselves because everything is too-overly-complicated and contrived and mushed-up, but mostly because they eat at Hooters and mcDonalds and take GMO-laced whey-protein in the effort to pump themselves up, and that they have far to much time idle time on their hands (the devils playground ya know!), so they jump on whatever bandwagon is rollin' past their door on a hourly basis? did I accurately sum up what you said? :hmm: I wanna make sure I'm not putting words in your viewpoints.

Did'ja know that as many as 114% of all TVs sold in Orange County are programed to play "Glen Beck" and "Spongepants Bob" and "Mr Magoo" and "The Unit" and Dan Patrick and "Dancing with the Kardashians" and the KOCE fund-drive weekends and "CBN" and Jerry Springer reruns on a rotational, subliminal basis, 24 hours a day? and that 74% of DVD players (99 of bluRay) cannot play "the Matrix" so skateboarders and gamers can't learn how to make Keys? It's true! I read it on www.WeThePeephole.con (http://www.WeThePeephole.con)!

just curious ..... actually ..... I meant taxes. when you look at the entire sentence about Money/Power, it perfectly describes Big Government, as opposed to a modest government-of-and-by-the-people as laid out in the 1700s.

Well I do understand where you are coming from, but I must say, challenging viewpoints is a GROWTH. Having open discussions are very much how you grow. The only alternative is to not engage in any conversation at all.
The topic of survival is definitely interesting. I'd say the topic of Solution is FAR more interesting, as well as relevant.
challenging viewpoints is one thing, but challenging them from an accurate point usually makes for much-mo'bedda discussion. Monsanto & subsidiaries blablabla and seeds beobeobeo to control ALL distribution and partnership of ALL food distribution? (BTW, you DO know that Monsanto and Agents are inbreed cockroaches, don'cha?)
Yeah, I saw "FOOD INC" to. Actually I have it on CD. I am assuming that you only eat Organic foods. Do you eat raw as well? Taught Raw and Food Combining in 1980/81 in Texas.
Mid-80s Willamette Valley Oregon, a bunch of us were talking about what "organic" should and should not be. It took a couple years but eventually, definitions and standards were agreed to for Organic "best Practices." Fast-forward ..... today, most "organic" sold in the US of A could not pass a real Organic test. Europe so far is pretty OK, but even there, too many things are being ramrodded through legislation and regulations.

This year, 2012, one of the things I'm focusing on is Permaculture and how to get that and similarly aligned ideals into the awareness of more people. Those 20,000,000 Victory Gardens seem like the first milestone number towards which to aim to allow "the masses" more choice and more opportunity in their lives.

Geoff Lawton, one of the leading Permaculture teachers and mentors in the world today, says it in a video called "Greening the Desert" .....
"All of the World problems can be solved in a Garden." overly-simplistic? nope, we don't need complexity to provide solution. KISS
My household eats organic and 90% raw. My wife owns a company all about educating people on that. She holds seminars and things like that. thats awesome! the World absolutely needs more like that! But I think we are getting off topic. The original idea presented was, "What equals Survival". Not off-topic at all, because the original idea presented was
"If it doesn't make sense(cents) it doesn't make dollars......"
and
"If people made sense, there'd be no need for dollars."

When more people focus on what THEY can do for themselves and others, instead of what's to be done for them, the world will step forward and grow exponentially.
Home-Grown Food. 20,000,000 "Victory Gardens .....
Forest. money does not make a tree grow.
Water. Water falls from the Heavens, free-flowing & unimpeded, absorbed into and used by the Earth
Solar Rays. Warmth. Vitamin D. Light. Invisible food for plants.
Wind. Plenty of MoneyPower people create a big blow, but none can cause the wind.
Ocean and Waterways.
Air. plain simple O2. ahhhhhhhhhhh ...........

I see the problem and actually the root our disagreement. I'm glad you answered my challenge.
The separation in our viewpoint comes from the definition of the word survival. humans have lost respect for natural, and have replaced that with "expect." We've grown to expect the world to yield it's abundance and resources to serve mankind, because we are obviously superior to everything else on earth, even when we insist on continually living life out-of-balance. We seek to control everything, even though control is just a mask for fear of the unknown. (here comes a conspiracy part ..... ) it's FAR easier to control a population of survival-thinking sheeple than it is to control people who live with a gratitude-focused love-based mindset, in harmony and appreciation with themselves and others on this little blue ball hurtling through the undiscovered abundance in the "blackness" of space. survival ..... I'm talking about a roof over your head, food to feed yourself, running water, a car to get to work, internet, Electricity, Gas, etc, etc.
Human kind has evolved from the days of just growing your own food and living without essentials like running water, gas and electricity. That isn't survival, that's living a westernized life. It might be what people have been led to believe is survival in Laguna Beach or Laguna Nigel, but Laguna Larado just south of the Texas border has a different understandings of survival and need and comfort.

the Amish have all the comforts they require, including running water, gas, electric, but THEY built the systems to suit their lifestyle, because they didn't need to accept what others told them "survival" meant. They live in harmony with one another as well as the land, and as a result, they Thrive. So, obviously I think you are correct in your explanation of survival, however it is out-dated and unfortunately does not apply to the masses in the world's current condition. Thanks once again for using your hallucinations and terms to define what and how I think, but defined, "survival" is -
"The state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances."
using that definition, tell me how many people really want to be toiling most of their life away doing something they don't like doing (usually driving 45-90 minutes 1 way every day to get to that job), paying thousands and thousands of dollars each month, for the "privilege" of surviving in Azusa or Rancho Cucamonga with 500 TV channels and 5000 cell phone minutes? How many of those people would elect to "survive' their life away, as here in Azusa .....
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b122/MantaRayz/AzusaBackYard.jpg

or thrive their life every day, like this? .....
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b122/MantaRayz/IMG_1428.jpg

just takes a little education and a desire to not be one of the "masses " to live in home 2 instead of home 1, but that education is real hard today, because people are taught from a VERY young age to, as you define it, survive, instead of think and discern and expand and thrive.

This veritable backyard Eden can be grown pretty much anywhere in the USA, if the desire is present. This home is on 1/10 acre on the outskirts of downtown Pasadena, about 10 miles from photo 1. What you see here is the result of 30 years, starting in the mid-80s, before home prices spiraled out-of-control. 3 different times.
Even in Buffalo, people can grow much of or most of their foods on a regular city-sized lot (although i'm not sure who would actually want to stay in Buffalo when they have other options starting them smack dab in the face)

Survival itself can be broken down to a point below money Yeah, it can, good that you see that now, but the truth is ..... it's just as easy (if not easier) to teach "thrive" as it is to rationalize and teach "survive."

To what end? Plants compete, animals compete, people compete, companies compete, governments compete. It is a fact of life. It is axiomatic. Science has shown us the validity of it.

Whether it is for oxygen, water, habitat, food, a mate, a job , a customer, a percent of market share, or anything else it comes down to competition.

Choosing to compliment or align are just tactics one can choose to increase their ability to compete. Life/nature functions on competition. To have a world that does not would need to be a world devoid of life.

The reality of our existence is competition is necessary to survive. To choose not to compete is to choose death. I doubt the very nature of life is going to change any time soon.Observation and research today is showing that plants don't compete, except in non-native habitat. In micro-climates and cultures, they complement the rest of the species and feed from one another, not off of another, and they thrive, with ot without human involvement.

Animals indeed compete, but that is most typically during mating seasons. The rest of the time, they align and live with, not against one another.
When faced with too many creatures in an area (which has been pretty common throughout humans taking over natural habitats) Nature will seek balance, and some might "compete" for resources, but as soon as balance returns, that level of competition ceases. This is part of what science validates to us as well.

but people ..... ahhh yes! You are 110% correct! People do compete, but compete they do, when they are forced. and because people compete, so too do corporations and other human based entities.

Todays research is showing that, if all things are equal, people will align with and help rather than compete. Even "competing" companies do this. This has been a shift in observation in the past 100 or so years We now know there is faaaaaaaaaaaar more alike than different in each human being, but still, because of generational training, people look for the differences and magnify those differences, to the point of wanting to harm and kill others not like them.

So too the corporation, who seeks to "crush the competition" for what they perceive is a scarcity of clients/customer. Willing to slash all they can to bolster their bottom line, they will even resort to selling their prized customer poor materials because they think they can get away with it, and they can, when they use the proper techniques. The most extreme cases have been on public display for the past several years, as financial institutions created what they knew were worthless 'commodities' to sell to their customers and clients. Thy see nothing "wrong" with lying, because "everybody does it."

Governments also are not immune to screwing their "clients", becuse they are human-based, and in the past 40 years, have become increasingly influenced by industry. . Recently, it has been revealed the massive "bailout" we in the US needed to give the banks to keep them "solvent" actually cost 7 TRILLION Dollars, instead of the 300 then 500 then 700 Billion $$$ "package" reported to the public they "serve". We are seeing similar things in Europe, as in slightly different ways, China too.
Lying to those one serves is NOT "nature", it is "nurture."


when Roheeb and Ronald are babies, they don't seek to harm the other, because that is not a part of their nature. Observation and research documents that time and time again.
It's only through the continual teaching and indoctrination and attitudes from both sets of parents and community and society that "teaches" both Roheeb and Ronald, after years and years of growth, to hate each other. It's not DNA, it's taught.

THIS unnatural nurture is NOT a part of the very nature of life, and will end soon, because if Humans cannot evolve past this highly destructive form of and "need" for competition, the "need" for separation, the need for domination and superiority, we will continue to suppress and kill ourselves at alarming rates, then wonder how yet another mass extinction of Humanity happened on this 13,000,000,000 Earth.


It's far past time to teach your children well.
.

Good thing it's again being made aware. I learned al that in 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade
uh hu

ALL conspiracies have a basis in truth. theres nothing new under the sun, just new ways of delivering the old. This makes it uber-easy to start a conspiracy theory - plausible assertions from appropriate directions, made to the people who want to hear - BINGO!

All conspiracy have a basis in truth? That is a highly inaccurate a broad statement.

so I just wanna get this right ..... what you're saying is your investors, in fact, MOST (if not all) investors are crackpots who cannot think for themselves because everything is too-overly-complicated and contrived and mushed-up, but mostly because they eat at Hooters and mcDonalds and take GMO-laced whey-protein in the effort to pump themselves up, and that they have far to much time idle time on their hands (the devils playground ya know!), so they jump on whatever bandwagon is rollin' past their door on a hourly basis? did I accurately sum up what you said? I wanna make sure I'm not putting words in your viewpoints.

Yeah, you got it. Word For Word. If you go back to my posting that is EXACTLY what I said :cookoo: Ohhhhhh, wait.... sorry.. you're trying to be funny there while at the same time sending me a cute little slap.. ahhh, got it.

Did'ja know that as many as 114% of all TVs sold in Orange County are programed to play "Glen Beck" and "Spongepants Bob" and "Mr Magoo" and "The Unit" and Dan Patrick and "Dancing with the Kardashians" and the KOCE fund-drive weekends and "CBN" and Jerry Springer reruns on a rotational, subliminal basis, 24 hours a day? and that 74% of DVD players (99 of bluRay) cannot play "the Matrix" so skateboarders and gamers can't learn how to make Keys? It's true!

See, there you go again with the humor. Always joking. Your a funny guy.

I'd say the topic of Solution is FAR more interesting, as well as relevant.
challenging viewpoints is one thing, but challenging them from an accurate point usually makes for much-mo'bedda discussion.

Thank you for trying to be funny again.. "Mo'bedda". Your a funny funny man.
And I see that you shot over a nice little backhand again.

If you want accurate, then say something that makes sense... see I got jokes to. I believe it was "Love" that you said = Survival. You're wrongness is infinite. See, I made another little joke there to demonstrate how wrong you were.

This year, 2012, one of the things I'm focusing on is Permaculture and how to get that and similarly aligned ideals into the awareness of more people. Those 20,000,000 Victory Gardens seem like the first milestone number towards which to aim to allow "the masses" more choice and more opportunity in their lives.
Awesomeness I wish you the best.

Geoff Lawton, one of the leading Permaculture teachers and mentors in the world today, says it in a video called "Greening the Desert" .....
"All of the World problems can be solved in a Garden." overly-simplistic? nope, we don't need complexity to provide solution. KISS
Amen to that. Now that's something we can agree on. Might be the only thing. I could rattle off stats on cancers and sickness related to processed, hormon infested foods for ya, but I won't bother. I'm sure you already know everything anyways. <---- See what i did there?

Regarding me eating mostly raw: thats awesome! the World absolutely needs more like that!
It's hard man, real hard. I had to break a lot of bad habits. As people get sicker and sicker they will learn. It's a freaking epidemic.

Not off-topic at all, because the original idea presented was
"If it doesn't make sense(cents) it doesn't make dollars......"
and
"If people made sense, there'd be no need for dollars."

When more people focus on what THEY can do for themselves and others, instead of what's to be done for them, the world will step forward and grow exponentially.

Hey, I agree completely on this one. That makes two things we agree on. (Don't worry I will keep count)
I would expound on this, but then it will lead to a whole other discussion and I'm starting to get carpel tunnel from our long winded discussions as is.

humans have lost respect for natural, and have replaced that with "expect." We've grown to expect the world to yield it's abundance and resources to serve mankind, because we are obviously superior to everything else on earth, even when we insist on continually living life out-of-balance. We seek to control everything, even though control is just a mask for fear of the unknown. (here comes a conspiracy part ..... ) it's FAR easier to control a population of survival-thinking sheeple than it is to control people who live with a gratitude-focused love-based mindset, in harmony and appreciation with themselves and others on this little blue ball hurtling through the undiscovered abundance in the "blackness" of space.

I was with you until you got to the gratitude and love part. Makes me think of a hippie standing out in the wilderness.
I am with you on the Control of population though. But I think they are doing it with Pharmaceutical drugs. I would get into it, but then again, don't want to get carpel tunnel.

tell me how many people really want to be toiling most of their life away doing something they don't like doing (usually driving 45-90 minutes 1 way every day to get to that job), paying thousands and thousands of dollars each month, for the "privilege" of surviving in Azusa or Rancho Cucamonga with 500 TV channels and 5000 cell phone minutes? How many of those people would elect to "survive' their life away, as here in Azusa .....

What do you suggest the alternative to be? And way to show me a picture of a beat up old abandoned building. My guess is that you passed right by 99% of the good property while you were doing your google search for images.

And way to show me the very best picture you can find with a home garden. It's either ultimate poverty or garden splendor. No middle ground at all (Where the MAJORITY seem to be).

just takes a little education and a desire to not be one of the "masses " to live in home 2 instead of home 1, but that education is real hard today, because people are taught from a VERY young age to, as you define it, survive, instead of think and discern and expand and thrive.
I agree with you on this one though. More people should be educated in regards to this.
But guess what? How are you going to pay for that nice home? How are you going to pay for that garden? Hmmmm... Maybe my striking good looks will convince someone to give me their house. Im an attractive guy, maybe it will work. OR.. what's that other thing I can use to get that house. Oh right, it's called MONEY. So before I can buy my house, or for that matter plant my wonderful garden (Maybe ad some solar panels to) so I can GET OUT FROM UNDER THE MAN... I guess I gotta go work for the man so. Damn. Im going to work for the man so I can get out from underneath the man? Weird.

This veritable backyard Eden can be grown pretty much anywhere in the USA, if the desire is present. This home is on 1/10 acre on the outskirts of downtown Pasadena, about 10 miles from photo 1. What you see here is the result of 30 years, starting in the mid-80s, before home prices spiraled out-of-control. 3 different times.
Even in Buffalo, people can grow much of or most of their foods on a regular city-sized lot (although i'm not sure who would actually want to stay in Buffalo when they have other options starting them smack dab in the face)
Uh hu, and someone paid for all that with HARD EARNED CASH.

Yeah, it can, good that you see that now, but the truth is ..... it's just as easy (if not easier) to teach "thrive" as it is to rationalize and teach "survive."
I saw it before I started on this post. Really, I found what I believe the key to survival to be a few years ago. RealestateGuy <------ Not a dumb guy.

Really, If survival is broken down (Which is important to do if you are to thrive), hold on now cause Im going to open up a whole new can of worms....
it ultimately becomes...... Produce.

Money was easier for me to write about because when I say "produce" I have to get into a whole big thing and I dind't want to get into long winded discussions about it, but you blew that idea away.

So IMO Production = Survival.
I will let you chew on that one a little. But before I go, I will say that it is extremely workable. Even for your little garden there.

In order to survive, one has to produce. Produce something, produce ANYTHING. Produce money, produce a job, in your case, produce a garden, a home, a safe environment, etc. It's very very very workable. More so then anything else I have heard here from you or anyone else. Think about it for a second.

True, money doesn't necessarily mean that that's the key for everyone. But it is the key here in the west and every other major country. So I just stuck with money because it applies to most people here. I could be wrong but I havent seen a 20 year old starving African boy to concerned with successvibe recently.

If you want accurate, then say something that makes sense... see I got jokes to. I believe it was "Love" that you said = Survival. You're wrongness is infinite. See, I made another little joke there to demonstrate how wrong you were. Thats OK, because I'm Omniscient, OmniPotent and OmniPresent.

unfortunately ..... "What we have here is ..... failure to communicate." ~ Cool Hand Luke ~

Jokes are cool, but you keep insisting I said that, when I in fact, did not. This leads me to believe everything you read (at least in this thread) is through lenses of a colour that does not allow the true intent of what i write to come through. If it doesnt make sense to you, that's OK, because one day it might.

I know you are joking about keeping count, but that keeping count also highlights what I wrote about marking and even celebrating division and separation, which is not a natural function of the human condition. That is a learned condition.

Observation and research today is showing that plants don't compete, except in non-native habitat. In micro-climates and cultures, they complement the rest of the species and feed from one another, not off of another, and they thrive, with ot without human involvement.

Animals indeed compete, but that is most typically during mating seasons. The rest of the time, they align and live with, not against one another.
When faced with too many creatures in an area (which has been pretty common throughout humans taking over natural habitats) Nature will seek balance, and some might "compete" for resources, but as soon as balance returns, that level of competition ceases. This is part of what science validates to us as well.

but people ..... ahhh yes! You are 110% correct! People do compete, but compete they do, when they are forced. and because people compete, so too do corporations and other human based entities.

Todays research is showing that, if all things are equal, people will align with and help rather than compete. Even "competing" companies do this. This has been a shift in observation in the past 100 or so years We now know there is faaaaaaaaaaaar more alike than different in each human being, but still, because of generational training, people look for the differences and magnify those differences, to the point of wanting to harm and kill others not like them.

So too the corporation, who seeks to "crush the competition" for what they perceive is a scarcity of clients/customer. Willing to slash all they can to bolster their bottom line, they will even resort to selling their prized customer poor materials because they think they can get away with it, and they can, when they use the proper techniques. The most extreme cases have been on public display for the past several years, as financial institutions created what they knew were worthless 'commodities' to sell to their customers and clients. Thy see nothing "wrong" with lying, because "everybody does it."

Governments also are not immune to screwing their "clients", becuse they are human-based, and in the past 40 years, have become increasingly influenced by industry. . Recently, it has been revealed the massive "bailout" we in the US needed to give the banks to keep them "solvent" actually cost 7 TRILLION Dollars, instead of the 300 then 500 then 700 Billion $$$ "package" reported to the public they "serve". We are seeing similar things in Europe, as in slightly different ways, China too.
Lying to those one serves is NOT "nature", it is "nurture."


when Roheeb and Ronald are babies, they don't seek to harm the other, because that is not a part of their nature. Observation and research documents that time and time again.
It's only through the continual teaching and indoctrination and attitudes from both sets of parents and community and society that "teaches" both Roheeb and Ronald, after years and years of growth, to hate each other. It's not DNA, it's taught.

THIS unnatural nurture is NOT a part of the very nature of life, and will end soon, because if Humans cannot evolve past this highly destructive form of and "need" for competition, the "need" for separation, the need for domination and superiority, we will continue to suppress and kill ourselves at alarming rates, then wonder how yet another mass extinction of Humanity happened on this 13,000,000,000 Earth.

It's far past time to teach your children well.
.



I am not sure where you get some of this. Plants compete for sunlight. They compete for water. Weeds cut off grass from sunlight and water to survive. I am not aware of a single shred of research that removes this fundamental principle of nature. The very theory of evolution is based on competition, through natural selection and adaptation. Competition strengthens populations.

For an animal to survive it must take the life of another living thing. Even in their own populations they compete for all manner of things, for example territory. Many animals are territorial and defend their territory, thus their resources. That they only compete in overcrowding situations is simply not true. For you to be correct we would need to through out most of biology

You are portraying competition in a very limited light. All companies compete for market share. It has nothing to do with a scarcity mindset butinstead finite resources. The reality is all resources are finite. There are only so many customers available at a given time. For you to be correct, the entire field of economics would need to be thrown out.

Hate also has nothing to do with competition. A cat does not hate a mouse it eats. People do not hate cows, or lettuce. The entire food web is based on competition.

Babies will do things to compete, they will cry louder than there peers, they will try to emulate behaviors that are advantageous. It has nothing to do with indoctrination, and everything to do with nature.

Your use of emotional appeal clouds your objectivity. Those who don't compete do not survive, it has nothing to do with emotion, it is reality. Nature teaches us this through observation every day. For you to be correct the fundamental principles of nature would have to change.

Rather than throw out science, empirical reasoning, economics, etc I think I will go with those well established principles.

A cat does not hate a mouse it eats. Let me know where this was even alluded.

Based just on this one sentence, it leads me to think the rest of what you wrote is mis-quote, misinformed hallucination too.

Dog, Cat and Rat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D85yrIgA4Nk&feature=fvsr)

More cats and rats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikm3o5hDks)

Quite a great deal of energy being spent while not getting anywhere.

Quite a great deal of energy being spent while not getting anywhere.

:D

My energy spent finding cat and mice videos was quite enjoyable although I know you're not talking to me ;)

when Roheeb and Ronald are babies, they don't seek to harm the other, because that is not a part of their nature. Observation and research documents that time and time again.
It's only through the continual teaching and indoctrination and attitudes from both sets of parents and community and society that "teaches" both Roheeb and Ronald, after years and years of growth, to hate each other. It's not DNA, it's taught.

From this part of your post. Since you posted it in response to me, I figured you were some how trying to relate it to anything I said.

I'm not sure what it has to do with competition, money, or survival, but since you brought up teaching hate, I felt it was best to point out that hate doesn't have anything to do with competition.

Rather than hallucinate, why not speak plainly and stand behind your words and your beliefs? Reality exists where you want it to or not.

It also seems that you are having difficulty being understood, In several conversations you have said people don't understand what you are saying. Perhaps it might be best to ponder on why different people in different conversations all seem to have trouble understanding what you mean. You are after all responsible for the communication.

Quite a great deal of energy being spent while not getting anywhere.


Actually I get a great deal out of what I write, so for my part the energy isn't wasted. I can't attest to others though.