Unconsciousness as a threat to the Species

[Ryan Rudolph]

It seems obvious that the dominance of unconsciousness in the world has become a very serious threat to the survival of the species as a whole, and thus the survival of future consciousness in the world.

Whether it be the increasingly abundant access to nuclear and biological weapons or the continual environmental degradation to the oceans, soil, air and fresh water. As well as the unconscious tendency for humans to reproduce without considering the effects of adding more consumers to an already strained global ecosystem.

There is far too much unconsciousness in the world, which in my opinion threatens the survival of consciousness in the future. Basically, it is difficult for the meek to inherit the earth if the stupid have destroyed what viability it has.

So I’m wondering what are some ways in which intellectuals could restrict, limit, and reduce the damage of unconsciousness on the world?

[Carl G]

It seems obvious that the dominance of unconsciousness in the world has become a very serious threat to the survival of the species as a whole, and thus the survival of future consciousness in the world.

Earth is one small planet and the survival of one small and largely unconscious species on it may not be a great issue overall.

Whether it be the increasingly abundant access to nuclear and biological weapons or the continual environmental degradation to the oceans, soil, air and fresh water. As well as the unconscious tendency for humans to reproduce without considering the effects of adding more consumers to an already strained global ecosystem.

True. The species may well go the way of the dinosaur. The world, of course, would go on. Consciousness may take other forms, or not. Is it wise to form an attachment to the outcome, to the flow of cause and effect?

There is far too much unconsciousness in the world, which in my opinion threatens the survival of consciousness in the future. Basically, it is difficult for the meek to inherit the earth if the stupid have destroyed what viability it has.

An argument can be made for the position that consciousness itself cannot be extinguished, therefore its survival is not in question. There is an argument to be made that Consciousness itself is the bedrock of reality. But you are attached to a specific scenario in which rational humans flourish and create a society based on rationalism. You are making an argument that Earth should become a place for that. The problem with such a should is that it places expectations on others, and tends to remove the focus from oneself, where the only real power lies.

So I’m wondering what are some ways in which intellectuals could restrict, limit, and reduce the damage of unconsciousness on the world?

By picketing with placards? By writing their congress representatives? By voting for the lesser of multiple evils? By posting on Internet forums? No, I say it is by becoming more and more conscious themselves. "Be the change you want to see in the world," as Gandhi said.

[Cory Duchesne]

On the one hand, Carl's right in that one need not be attached to outcomes.

And also, one should keep in mind what H.L. Mencken once said: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Now, on the other hand, I see nothing wrong with (non-emotionally) valuing sustainability, per se - just as long as it doesn't mutate into a violent, narrow minded fascist regime (or a flaky, fear mongering and cynical opposition to the prospect of using science to take risks)

The most important things when it comes to sustainability, in my view, are as follows:

a) Awareness that many of the high level policies being pushed by the environmental movement are contradictory, and result in a dysfunctional policy framework at a global level, which obfuscates clarity and leads to negative results.

a) Aquaculture: we need to switch the emphasis to farming the seas, rather than hunting them. This is the new form of agriculture.

b) Biotechnology for improving agriculture and lumber industries: create more robust and less taxing staple foods, use biotech to increase yield per acre, as well as create trees which grow faster and more robustly to meet the demands of the building and paper industries.

c) Urban planning & Legislation: implement laws that dictate where the concrete must stop. This will force people to build in, down and up - rather than out. In other words, limit urban sprawl as much as possible. Parking lots should be multileveled, going down and up. Cities that are very tightly packed will more energy efficient, and could be designed to be comfortable.

d) Realize that if our emissions are the cause of global warming, we can't stop global warming without implementing nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

f) Realize why the five pillars of renewable energy are: wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass, and passive solar - and why solar panels, currently, are not practical in most situations (if we could some how engineer panels to cost about 1/10th of what they are today, then they would be useful, but as it stands, they should be the least of our concerns)

g) Realize why "Act locally, think globally" is too simplistic and that the anti-globalization movement is insane. In some cases, yes, it's apt to act locally (getting a bicycle repaired at the local shop, recycling, etc), in other cases it's often much more efficient to act globally (e.g., purchasing any number of useful technologies from global suppliers).

h) Realize why organic agriculture is an inefficient way of feeding the population, and leads to unnecessary deforestation and extinction.

[Cory Duchesne]

Here's an interesting video that examines the psychology of environmentalists:

Environmental Hysteria

Part 2

Part 3

[Nick]

Everything Carl said is spot on. The biggest change one can make is to change one's self and set an example. If it is in an unconscious person's karma to become conscious because of the example you set, it wont take much effort of your own for them to realize the truth.

Of course if I had the power to change the world the way I see fit, I would, but until then the biggest changes I can make are to myself, which is far more crucial than changing the rest of the world.

[DivineIntercourse]

So I’m wondering what are some ways in which intellectuals could restrict, limit, and reduce the damage of unconsciousness on the world?

Partly through an understanding of the workings of a true genuine emotional connection to the rest of the world. How can you communicate effectively if you cannot speak their language?

An argument can be made for the position that consciousness itself cannot be extinguished, therefore its survival is not in question.

I'm not aware that such an argument exists.

H.L. Mencken once said: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

People have a desire to control others, but I think this desire stems from the desire to control oneself. I mean, people who have a problem controlling themselves, see the solution in controlling others. They think it's a quick fix.

The biggest change one can make is to change one's self and set an example.

Even if that example is for good, bad people may not like it. In a way, this can be very beneficial, because it will test and hopefully improve the good person. In looking at that from the opposite end, it may (and does) have an opposite effect on the bad person unless they somehow manage to learn and grow - This seems unlikely seeing as how such a person is the way they are because of contrary views (from that of the good person). It would be counterintuitive and against their very nature to change. People use their gut instincts as a means for survival.

Of course if I had the power to change the world the way I see fit, I would ...

Thank god for that!


If we identify truth and wisdom as being better or some ultimate goal for all great minds to attain, then it's not hard to imagine that such a person would naturally identify themselves as better then someone who doesn't care about that sort of thing. It's similar to when society judges people: ex. A kind hearted person is better, more valuable, and much more preferred over say a murderer...). The sheer ignorance undermines the importance of such truths, so If we value truth above all, then we're automatically going to undervalue (And this is wrong, I can't stress that enough!) anything which stands in our way. Another example: if you think healthy food is better than junk food, then in that case, the elimination of junk food is the only option, but because that's not possible, we can only avoid it, but then that doesn't really solve anything (it's selfish). Somewhere along the way, bad choices were made. This had negative effects, bad decisions were made, and so on. What's the source of the problem? Ignorance? The only thing that comes to mind is that we shouldn't value anything above anything else... That creates an imbalance in the system, society, our minds, etc... Fat people, those who are addicted to junk food, will feel threated and be more inclined to do bad things... The problem will get worse (unconsciousness will lead to more unconsciousness – that's how these things work). How does one fix this?

Trying to fix the world partly stems from an inability to find a way to fix our selves. Part of that inability is due to external factors: we see another person abusing someone else, and we feel the need to step in and fix this problem. Can we fix it? Would it help? Will an understanding of the situation a little better, change how we respond? Is that change better? Do we step in because we're selfish or because we care about someone other then ourselves? Will it (can it?) override our natural instincts?

[Ryan Rudolph]

DivineI wrote:

People have a desire to control others, but I think this desire stems from the desire to control oneself. I mean, people who have a problem controlling themselves, see the solution in controlling others. They think it's a quick fix.

That is true, but it is also true that the world is facing huge problems that require quite a bit of controlling. Controlling isn’t always a bad thing, it depends on context. Banning the use of DDTs was an act of controlling. Or banning smoking in public places. It is man’s natural urge to control his environment, and control he should.

Carl,

Earth is one small planet and the survival of one small and largely unconscious species on it may not be a great issue overall.

But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be concerned, or be using our intellectual power to find solutions.

Carl,

But you are attached to a specific scenario in which rational humans flourish and create a society based on rationalism. You are making an argument that Earth should become a place for that. The problem with such a should is that it places expectations on others, and tends to remove the focus from oneself, where the only real power lies.

I think this is a reasonable outcome to work towards, even if it doesn’t work. You seem to be trying to justify non-action by the very idea that nothing matters to you.

Nick,

I say it is by becoming more and more conscious themselves

Becoming conscious alone isn’t going to solve this problem. its more complicated than that. The very life systems that keep the species alive are being pushed to their limits. There is basically a consenus among the scientific community that large scale changes are needed or we will witness the continual mass extinctions of species, along with the continual strain on our very own life systems, and no one knows if there is a plateau point where our life systems fail on a macro scale.

Cory wrote:

Here's an interesting video that examines the psychology of environmentalists:

That is true, there is a lot of emotionalism associated with environmentalists, but there are also a lot of educated, sane and logical scientists who are very concerned about the state of the planet, and their research is going into finding better solutions.

[Carl G]

That is true, but it is also true that the world is facing huge problems that require quite a bit of controlling. Controlling isn’t always a bad thing, it depends on context. Banning the use of DDTs was an act of controlling. Or banning smoking in public places. It is man’s natural urge to control his environment, and control he should.

Earth is one small planet and the survival of one small and largely unconscious species on it may not be a great issue overall.

But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be concerned, or be using our intellectual power to find solutions.

Ryan, you are such a 'we should'/ 'we shouldn't' kind of guy. You seem to refuse to see the weakness in such a remote moralizing think-tank approach. You never address the "I," you always frame it in 'we shoulds.' What is your position of power? If any it is with yourself. Change yourself if you can. Then from there maybe the influence of your beliefs can grow. Any attempt to rally messageboard users to a cause, without that, is just masturbation.

But you are attached to a specific scenario in which rational humans flourish and create a society based on rationalism. You are making an argument that Earth should become a place for that. The problem with such a should is that it places expectations on others, and tends to remove the focus from oneself, where the only real power lies.

I think this is a reasonable outcome to work towards, even if it doesn’t work. You seem to be trying to justify non-action by the very idea that nothing matters to you.

No, I specifically advocated the wholesale action of becoming more conscious oneself. And I never advocated or implied an idea that nothing matters to me. This, for example, is where you could work on becoming more conscious yourself, in the practical matter of reading and writing more accurately. It would help the world immediately immensely.

I say it is by becoming more and more conscious themselves

Becoming conscious alone isn’t going to solve this problem. its more complicated than that.

Okay, but there is no way around individual conscious as a first and most important step, and yet you skip over it. What hope is there for the world, if an advocate of world progress, no less, treats the issue in this way?

The very life systems that keep the species alive are being pushed to their limits. There is basically a consenus among the scientific community that large scale changes are needed or we will witness the continual mass extinctions of species, along with the continual strain on our very own life systems, and no one knows if there is a plateau point where our life systems fail on a macro scale ... there is a lot of emotionalism associated with environmentalists, but there are also a lot of educated, sane and logical scientists who are very concerned about the state of the planet, and their research is going into finding better solutions.

This is pablum -- complete gibberish -- unless the fundamental problem, individual consciousness is addressed.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Okay, but there is no way around individual conscious as a first and most important step, and yet you skip over it.

Because it seems like such a cliché for me at this point, and I don’t feel I need to hear it anymore. It is like A=A, a useful tool at the beginning, but eventually… giving an seasoned rationalist the advice to change himself first is a tad arrogant, and almost moronic if you have any understanding of his present awareness…

This is pablum -- complete gibberish -- unless the fundamental problem, individual consciousness is addressed.

Yes, I agree. But if there aren’t young philosophers who are eager to learn wisdom as a new experience, why rehash the old crap to a veteran philosopher? I was looking for something a little more novel and pragmatic…something I haven’t thought about a million times before….

For instance: Lately, I was thinking about how it would be wiser to dedicate oneself to something like alternative energy research rather than cancer research because a cancer cure will only make the problem worse at this point, meaning people will be living longer, thus consuming more, and straining our life systems even more…

[Carl G]

For instance: Lately, I was thinking about how it would be wiser to dedicate oneself to something like alternative energy research rather than cancer research because a cancer cure will only make the problem worse at this point, meaning people will be living longer, thus consuming more, and straining our life systems even more…

Well then how about YOU do it, and fuck the we should.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Well then how about YOU do it, and fuck the we should.

when it comes to pragmatic action, I think the "we" attitude is much more successful. Look at the steps the G8 Countries have taken collectively to move in a more sustainable direction. Such collective cooperation could never be achieved with your "stay out of my business - individualistic stance"

[Carl G]

No, it is you who have the "stay out of my business - individualistic stance" with your theoretical private think tank and inability to actually understand the points of others.

Nevermind the world, I think unconsciousness is a threat to this thread.

[Nick]

Ryan, the fact of the matter is, is that humanity has been through out much of history, and still remains to this day a very reactive species as opposed to a proactive species. This would explain why the only time humanity changes for what seems to be the better is because things get so bad they either change their ways or face immediate annihilation. It's simply not possible to rally a bunch of idiots to face the reality of the situation we are currently in. At worst it could mean the end of the human race, which only proves we weren't worth keeping around in the first place, or it means the loss of a large portion of the population, which I can't say would be an entirely bad thing, and maybe those that remain can learn from our past mistakes to create a more promising future. Or maybe things will just slowly get better as humanity painfully crawls it's way out of ignorance. All three of these possibilities are far more likely to happen than what you are talking about. What you are advocating in my opinion is simply a waste of time and effort, time and effort that could be spent much more wisely on perfecting one's self, because I'm sure you have a long way to go in that department, as do most of us.

[Jason]

I was looking for something a little more novel and pragmatic…something I haven’t thought about a million times before….

How about simulation? Virtual reality and the like. If that tech gets to the point where the worlds it creates are close enough to indistinguishable from the "real" world, it might be that a significant proportion of the population would be happy to spend a large amount of their time and life in it. Simulated worlds could allow essentially unlimited virtual resources for users whilst requiring relatively minimal actual resources and energy to operate.

[1otherS]

"Nothing is more certain. Coming close to God brings catastrophe. Everyone whose life does not bring relative catastrophe has never even once turned as a single individual to God; it is just as impossible as it is to touch the conductors of a generator without getting a shock."

-1otherS-
Go with God=going against Mankind.
Renouncing the aesthetic and being loyal to one woman seriously reduces STD's and global population. Becoming loyal to God only completely ruins this Body we call Planet Earth and re-introduces us all to Spirit.

Copied this possible solution from another thread.
What do you think?

[Cory Duchesne]

"
Renouncing the aesthetic and being loyal to one woman seriously reduces STD's and global population.

If you renounce the aesthetic, then the woman you are so intent on being loyal to, won't be loyal to you.

Becoming loyal to God only completely ruins this Body we call Planet Earth and re-introduces us all to Spirit.

I don't follow. How do you define God, how does being loyal to him ruin earth, how do you define spirit, and why would an encounter with spirit be a re-introduction?

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason,

How about simulation? Virtual reality and the like. If that tech gets to the point where the worlds it creates are close enough to indistinguishable from the "real" world, it might be that a significant proportion of the population would be happy to spend a large amount of their time and life in it. Simulated worlds could allow essentially unlimited virtual resources for users whilst requiring relatively minimal actual resources and energy to operate.

Yes, that is the great benefit of computers, which are becoming increasingly portable and cheap to mass produce. The great thing about computers is that they have the potential to store large amounts of possible stimulation for feeble minds in a very small space, so computers as entertainment are much less destructive than lets say gigantic sporting events, monster truck rallies, or music concerts.

Nick,

All three of these possibilities are far more likely to happen than what you are talking about. What you are advocating in my opinion is simply a waste of time and effort, time and effort that could be spent much more wisely on perfecting one's self, because I'm sure you have a long way to go in that department, as do most of us.

What do you believe I am advocating here? And as far as spending ones whole life perfecting oneself… surely that isn’t going to take all ones mental capacities? you make it sound like its either one or the other...

Personally, I believe logic can clarify your mind to a certain point, and then the individual is left to live with certain flaws and quirks, which are difficult to change. It doesn’t seem like a lifelong exercise in the sense that one must constantly be on guard everyday, but more in the sense that infrequent reflection is still needed to make sure one hasn’t fallen into negative habits in behavior and thought.

Cory,

If you renounce the aesthetic, then the woman you are so intent on being loyal to, won't be loyal to you.

Yes, and also, life isn't about renouncing the aesthetic totally, its about realizing that you are not separate from the sensual experiences that you experience, and so, sensuality can be experienced with respect for the body/mind, and experienced in such a way that the mind isn't attached to constantly experiencing certain things over and over, and so it can let go of their memory, and experience every moment anew.

Sensual experiences can be like ghosts that haunts ones memory resulting in fear. However, they can also be quite harmless as well. The key is realizing which experiences have the potential to be ghosts and which ones do not.

[1otherS]

"
Renouncing the aesthetic and being loyal to one woman seriously reduces STD's and global population.

If you renounce the aesthetic, then the woman you are so intent on being loyal to, won't be loyal to you.

1otherS
At least you should renounce the aesthetic appeal of other women. Do you follow this?

Becoming loyal to God only completely ruins this Body we call Planet Earth and re-introduces us all to Spirit.

CD
I don't follow. How do you define God, how does being loyal to him ruin earth, how do you define spirit, and why would an encounter with spirit be a re-introduction?

1otherS
God is everyone, everyone is God. Christian arguers like Kierkegaard advocated as much abstinence as possible... this leads to a serious depopulation and disease-decrease on this Hellhole.

Spirit is comprised of our inner-thoughts with which we make ourselves and the World around us.

An encounter with this Mind re-introduces us to our Perfect Self,the reflection of Jesus Christ. Do you follow me now? I'll elaborate, if you want me to.

[Cory Duchesne]

1otherS

If you renounce the aesthetic, then the woman you are so intent on being loyal to, won't be loyal to you.

1otherS
At least you should renounce the aesthetic appeal of other women. Do you follow this?

Ok, but that's much different than renouncing the aesthetic altogether, which I think is what K meant.

How do you define God, how does being loyal to him ruin earth, how do you define spirit, and why would an encounter with spirit be a re-introduction?

1otherS
God is everyone, everyone is God. Christian arguers like Kierkegaard advocated as much abstinence as possible... this leads to a serious depopulation and disease-decrease on this Hellhole.

Yes, I understand that much - but please explain why "becoming loyal to God only completely ruins this Body we call Planet Earth"

Spirit is comprised of our inner-thoughts with which we make ourselves and the World around us.

I understand how our thoughts give the self identity, as well as the world identity. But everyone identifies their self, as well as identifies the world - so isn't everyone spirit?

An encounter with this Mind re-introduces us to our Perfect Self,the reflection of Jesus Christ. Do you follow me now? I'll elaborate, if you want me to.

When you said re introduction, it kind of threw me off. It seems that what you're implying is that we've been introduced to spirit before.....but it wasn't the real thing.....and so we've been re-introduced to it, and this time we see it as something different. So really, we're encountering it for the very first time. Right?

Sorry if I seem pedantic - I just want to be clear on what you mean.

[Cory Duchesne]

Yes, and also, life isn't about renouncing the aesthetic totally, its about realizing that you are not separate from the sensual experiences that you experience, and so, sensuality can be experienced with respect for the body/mind, and experienced in such a way that the mind isn't attached to constantly experiencing certain things over and over, and so it can let go of their memory, and experience every moment anew.

Sensual experiences can be like ghosts that haunts ones memory resulting in fear. However, they can also be quite harmless as well. The key is realizing which experiences have the potential to be ghosts and which ones do not.

My life is dictated by motivation, which is intrinsically tied to my likes and dislikes. Aside from that, sensual enjoyment on the most mundane level is not worth the trouble of avoiding - and in some cases is inescapable.

[Nick]

What do you believe I am advocating here?

Some kind of immediate and drastic change in the mass consciousness of humanity, or a way to isolate it, both of which are completely unrealistic at the moment.

And as far as spending ones whole life perfecting oneself… surely that isn’t going to take all ones mental capacities?

Surely you can't be serious. Enlightenment is by far the hardest thing anyone can accomplish. There is no set of instructions, no map, and no companion, just you and reason. The dedication required to achieve something you can't even see or touch or experience is incredible.

you make it sound like its either one or the other...

It depends on what you want to achieve. My advice is if you want to perfect something, make sure you perfect yourself first, otherwise you'll just keep fucking up.

Personally, I believe logic can clarify your mind to a certain point, and then the individual is left to live with certain flaws and quirks, which are difficult to change. It doesn’t seem like a lifelong exercise in the sense that one must constantly be on guard everyday, but more in the sense that infrequent reflection is still needed to make sure one hasn’t fallen into negative habits in behavior and thought.

I disagree completely. Enlightenment is not only a lifelong exercise, it's a life long commitment, and if we aren't on guard not just every day, but every hour and every minute, one could just as quickly lose everything they gained to the unconscious world they are fixated on. I know in my case I'm always fearful I might lose myself to the clutches of unconsciousness.

[brad walker]

For instance: Lately, I was thinking about how it would be wiser to dedicate oneself to something like alternative energy research rather than cancer research because a cancer cure will only make the problem worse at this point, meaning people will be living longer, thus consuming more, and straining our life systems even more…

See Jevons paradox.

How about simulation? Virtual reality and the like. If that tech gets to the point where the worlds it creates are close enough to indistinguishable from the "real" world, it might be that a significant proportion of the population would be happy to spend a large amount of their time and life in it. Simulated worlds could allow essentially unlimited virtual resources for users whilst requiring relatively minimal actual resources and energy to operate.

Yes, that is the great benefit of computers, which are becoming increasingly portable and cheap to mass produce. The great thing about computers is that they have the potential to store large amounts of possible stimulation for feeble minds in a very small space, so computers as entertainment are much less destructive than lets say gigantic sporting events, monster truck rallies, or music concerts.

Computers may be cheaper but they're inefficient and wasteful for entertainment. Typically the computer's interactive nature limits its use to one person at a time, whereas an entire Superbowl party can use one TV. Also the planned obsolescence of computer equipment creates massive amounts of toxic electronic waste. TVs easily last years or in some cases decades without losing usefulness.

[1otherS]

1otherS

If you renounce the aesthetic, then the woman you are so intent on being loyal to, won't be loyal to you.

1otherS
At least you should renounce the aesthetic appeal of other women. Do you follow this?

Ok, but that's much different than renouncing the aesthetic altogether, which I think is what K meant.

-1otherS-
Renouncing the aesthetic completely is a bit overzealous at this point in time.

How do you define God, how does being loyal to him ruin earth, how do you define spirit, and why would an encounter with spirit be a re-introduction?

1otherS
God is everyone, everyone is God. Christian arguers like Kierkegaard advocated as much abstinence as possible... this leads to a serious depopulation and disease-decrease on this Hellhole.

Yes, I understand that much - but please explain why "becoming loyal to God only completely ruins this Body we call Planet Earth"

-1otherS-
It only ruins this Planet Earth as we know it: a completely depopulated Earth because God from the True Scriptures preached complete abstinence.

Spirit is comprised of our inner-thoughts with which we make ourselves and the World around us.

I understand how our thoughts give the self identity, as well as the world identity. But everyone identifies their self, as well as identifies the world - so isn't everyone spirit?

-1otherS-
Everyone has the opportunity to REALISE Spirit. Not everyone has this perfected the day they are born or I'd rather say...A child has the capacity of becoming a Christian but gets corrupted along the way through misguided education. He must somehow relearn these God-essentials through effortful study and living accordingly.

An encounter with this Mind re-introduces us to our Perfect Self,the reflection of Jesus Christ. Do you follow me now? I'll elaborate, if you want me to.

When you said re introduction, it kind of threw me off. It seems that what you're implying is that we've been introduced to spirit before.....but it wasn't the real thing.....and so we've been re-introduced to it, and this time we see it as something different. So really, we're encountering it for the very first time. Right?

Sorry if I seem pedantic - I just want to be clear on what you mean.

-1otherS-
I THINK we are...

[Jason]

How about simulation? Virtual reality and the like. If that tech gets to the point where the worlds it creates are close enough to indistinguishable from the "real" world, it might be that a significant proportion of the population would be happy to spend a large amount of their time and life in it. Simulated worlds could allow essentially unlimited virtual resources for users whilst requiring relatively minimal actual resources and energy to operate.

Yes, that is the great benefit of computers, which are becoming increasingly portable and cheap to mass produce. The great thing about computers is that they have the potential to store large amounts of possible stimulation for feeble minds in a very small space, so computers as entertainment are much less destructive than lets say gigantic sporting events, monster truck rallies, or music concerts.

If it got realistic enough, like a holodeck, many of people's materialistic desires, which today are desires for cars, houses, clothes, holidays etc, might be fulfilled in the virtual world instead of the real world. Check this out!

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm, walking home from the pub on a Friday night.