Why “Greed is Good” for E-Cat Dissemination (Chapman)

I thought this comment from Chapman from the Rossi selling heat thread was worth putting in its own thread, as it focuses on a theme that has been much debated here on E-Cat World.

I know that most folks were hoping for QX powered personal-mobility-units to be available by Christmas, but one must take a step back and realize his stated market approach is the best possible solution, both for himself, as the inventor and CEO, and for society.

The critical part of it will be for him to find industrial partners with a LARGE demand, that he can slowly scale up to. This will give him the ability to put into use the largest number of units, while maintaining the highest degree of control. This satisfies the acknowledged safety concerns, allows the roll out to reach a critical mass that goes beyond that which could be denied, refuted, debunked, or flat out hidden, and allows him to establish a working relationship with high dollar customers.

Like it or not, Rossi MUST keep profits front and center in his market strategy. As long as he is pursuing maximum profit (short of just selling the rights to an oil giant to be suppressed and forgotten) then the natural consequence will be maximum utility and market penetration.

I hope Rossi NEVER abandons greed!
As wise men have said, “Greed is GOOD!”.
Greed makes the REAL world work.
Greed is THE Great Motivator.
Greed gets mankind off the couch, and drives them to productivity.
Greed creates a better world.

I hope Rossi dreams of putting one QX in every home, one in every vehicle, and 100 in every business – and getting $5 for every unit.
I hope he dreams of being richer than Trump.
Richer than Gates.
Richer than Bezos.
Why?
Because for him to REACH that goal will mean there IS a QX in every home, one in every vehicle, and 100 in every business!

  • Elon Musk would be making a face palm if he saw this comment.

    No doubt the capitalist system has given much value, but it’s an old an outdated system and has to give way for new ways of thinking. Society is capable of evolving and improving, surely you do not drive a one hundred year old car. Why then apply one hundred year old socioeconomics to a revolutionary new disruptive energy technology

    Yes capitalism CAN be a force for good, but this reasoning I do not agree with. Some of the central ideas of capitalism are empowering the individual, trade amongst ourselves and competition. The author is speaking about when you have one actor on the market, that is called a monopoly, it is not the same as capitalism. For the development of the technology itself, competition is good.

    SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME

    • Warthog

      I actually agree with you….but the systems that are being promoted most vociferously here and elsewhere are all various aspects of socialism, which many, many, many societal experiments have shown to be abysmal failures in every case thus far tried. Yet the constant refrain from the socialists is always….well, we will get it right next time.

      A better approach is more properly termed “the free market”. Let different groups try different things and see what actually works, and stop selling failure. ALL monopolies are bad, whether capitalist or socialist. Socialist monopolies have shown themselves to be far FAR worse than capitalist ones.

      • georgehants

        Warthog, Facts are much better than propogander. just one example below of many.
        It is not a matter of a brainwashed opinion of socialism or a brainwashed opinion of capitalism from our corrupt media but simply finding the best combination of any system to improve a proven corrupt, inefficient, unequal and uncaring system with something much better.
        Something any caring and sharing society, or person should be working toward constantly.
        ———-
        Metro
        Privatisation ‘has added £50 billion to the cost of running Britain’s railways’
        The cost of running Britain’s railways has increased by £50 billion due to the ‘ill-judged’ break-up of British Rail.
        Researchers from the University of Essex said that the new system is
        highly fragmented and inefficient – leading to losses, and higher fares
        for customers.
        John Stittle, senior lecturer in accounting at the University of
        Essex said that the costs had been passed on in the form of fares which
        have risen ‘way in excess of inflation’.
        http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/12/privatisation-has-added-50-billion-to-the-cost-of-running-britains-railways-6702713/

  • georgehants

    Chapman seems to promote a system that places his own country CANADA as one of the worst providers for children.
    I think he would do well to Research more the effects of his views.
    ———-
    The Globe and Mail
    Camille Bains
    VANCOUVER
    The Canadian Press
    June 14, 2017 June 14, 2017
    Canada ranks 37th on a list of 41 rich
    countries for children having access to enough nutritious food, and
    higher-than-average rates of child homicide and teen suicide also point
    to a need for action, a UNICEF report says.
    Over 22 per cent of Canadian children live in poverty and most issues
    related to kids showed no improvement or worsened during the last
    decade, said the 14th report from UNICEF on children’s well-being
    amongst wealthy countries.
    The mental health of Canadian teens has been declining, with 22 per cent of
    adolescents reporting symptoms more than once a week, said the report
    release Wednesday. Canada ranked 31st for the teen suicide rate, it
    said.
    The report ranked countries in the European Union and the Organization for
    Economic Co-operation and Development and put Canada in 25th place
    overall on children’s well-being. Norway topped the list from the UN
    Children’s Fund.
    https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-ranked-25th-on-childrens-well-being-amongst-rich-countries-unicef/article35314091/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

  • Ophelia Rump

    Greed is not a virtue, it is a vice, and not at all the same thing as serving your best interest.

    • nietsnie

      Greed is like fire – a basic human force that is neither good nor evil. Capable of damage and destruction when allowed to follow its own whim – but also harnessable as motive force to accomplish great things when confined and controlled.

  • sam

    I admire DR Rossi work ethic.

    work eth·ic
    wərk ˈeTHik/
    noun
    the principle that hard work is intrinsically virtuous or worthy of reward.

  • Frank Acland

    I don’t think it is greed — a vice — that is the motivating force with Andrea Rossi. I think he is trying to find the most efficient way to maximize the implementation of his technology, and has picked a strategy that he think works for him. However, I don’t think he is so inflexible that he is not open to new ideas and plans. In my recent interview, when I asked about others licencing his technology, he stated:

    “Everything is possible, it depends on the agreement. You know we have just exited from an experience with a license, and we have learned the hard way how important it is to make proper agreements. Everything is possible, anybody can license anything – good contracts are necessary. “

    • sam

      Andrea Rossi
      September 4, 2017 at 12:56 PM
      Feank Acland:
      People will buy the E-Cats if they will save money with them.
      We will have to make it known.
      How?
      Many options are there. Our marketing experts will help.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

    • georgehants

      Morning Frank, seven years and counting, I am not sure I would consider that “the most efficient way” but logic seems to have very little place sometimes.

      • Frank Acland

        Yes, George, I guess we are ECW veterans now, and still waiting for it to hit the market. As much as I would like to see an E-Cat powered World in the near future, I think it might still take many years for anything close to LENR ubiquity to occur. Nevertheless, I think it’s something worth working towards with all the influence that we may have — it’s a long campaign for sure.

      • Alan DeAngelis
        • georgehants

          Alan DeAngelis, which just goes to prove exactly as I am saying, the present system is inefficient unequal and crazy.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, as I pointed out in my above rather long response, the simple matter is that countries that
        adopted capitalism don’t have people starving to death. I am all for some “new”
        system to come along, but in the meantime we need to feed people.

        As for minimum income, we it called welfare, and I fail to see the difference.

        And robots are already taxed. If a robot increases productivity of people and a company and increases their income? Well then they are paying income tax on that increased profit. So
        robots are already taxed – just like a photo copier. I don’t have a typing pool
        of 4 people re-typing letters – I just place the sheet on the photocopier and
        press a button. So the company now going to save the cost of those 4 people in
        the typing pool (that is a expense against taxes that they now DO NOT have –
        hence they pay more income tax as a result of purchasing that photocopier – or robots
        in this case). So if they don’t pay some people to type, then you going to pay that money
        in taxes to the government.

        The problem with a minimum income is that such a system ONLY works by using the state, the courts,
        the police and military to point guns at people earning money and taking it
        away by force.

        So such a system can ONLY be enforced by the state and by gunpoint.
        (and I thought most were against slavery).

        Now it possible you think taxes are optional, and the state will not enforce as such? Perhaps you
        are proposing a system that at the end of the year there is a box in one’s tax
        form in which people choose how much they “feel” they want to pay to the
        government.

        Right now, taxation is enforced by the law, courts, and eventually by the power of the state to enforce
        that taking of money by gunpoint (unless you think payment is voluntary).

        The real problem however with robots is the wealth is ONLY created where they are used. So if
        the robots are in china making all our goods, then the wealth and taxes will
        occur in China – not here. They will thus have the hospitals and schools and
        everything else that results from the wealth creating. (the wealth creating occurs
        WHERE the robots are being used).

        The middle class in North America was not decimated and wiped out due to robots and automation, but
        that of moving manufacturing out the country. (Bad trade policies).

        If we adopt some basic income system, then that money has to be taken from working people or
        companies. And if such companies are free to pack up and move to china to not
        pay that basic income redistribution via taxation, then you not have the tax
        base available for such basic income schemes.

        Such a system requires the taking of money from someone by force of gunpoint.

        Solve the trade problems, and manufacturing will return.

        However adopting some income re-distribution system by an act of state run force and gunpoint,
        and ALSO not fixing trade issues just means that even more industry will pack
        up their bags to avoid such ideas of basic income.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • georgehants

          UNICEF
          Canada ranks 37th on a list of 41 rich
          countries for children having access to enough nutritious food, and
          higher-than-average rates of child homicide and teen suicide also point
          to a need for action, a UNICEF report says.
          Over 22 per cent of Canadian children live in poverty and most issues
          related to kids showed no improvement or worsened during the last
          decade, said the 14th report from UNICEF on children’s well-being
          amongst wealthy countries.
          The mental health of Canadian teens has been declining, with 22 per cent of
          adolescents reporting symptoms more than once a week, said the report
          release Wednesday. Canada ranked 31st for the teen suicide rate, it
          said.
          https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-ranked-25th-on-childrens-well-being-amongst-rich-countries-unicef/article35314091/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Your article has ZERO to do with my point.
            When Sweden had a good economy and were adopting socialist
            ideas, their suicide rate among the youth was one of the highest of any
            industrial country. Now that Sweden is feeling the economic effects of socialism, they are moving FASTER than places like the USA to lowering business taxes.
            Right now Sweden has a FAR LOWER tax rate for business then does the USA. Far lower!!!
            So such counties are moving in the direction of market driven economies as they fight to keep their standard of living up. So they are becoming more capitalist – not the other direction.

            And the youth suicide rate for male’s vs female is about 3 or 4 times MORE. This is a horrible and whopping statistic. Of course being “men”, then that number is somehow not a crises or important. I can assure you if the female suicide rate was 4x that of males, it would be front and center news. Like wars, or the lower life expectancy of males – society still considers males disposable to tolerate such high suicide
            rates for male’s vs females.

            And the rate is 10 fold for those over 65.

            Clearly these rates are NOT due to economic reasons.

            Nice try at deflection – but you utterly failed in this regards. Nice try at changing the subject (that what people do when their points are roasted like I done to you).

            Again:

            The simple matter is that economies that adopted capitalist ideas don’t have starving children in their streets and what you quoted changes ZERO as to what I pointed out.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • just a point from very socialist France.
            Sweden nearly colapsed because of too socialized economy, and keeping the goal of a social society, they privatized the public services.

            it works better, even if they use much money to keep their social coherence.

            Don’t mix the implementation with the goal.Swede, seen from France, is social in their goal, and very liberal in the implementation.

            US is very crony in it’s implementation, and not so social in their goal.

            France is socian in the goal, and very socialist in the implementaion, leading to selfish and crony implementation.

            I agree finaly that the word greed is by definition evil.

            but wat peoapl critcize about greed, not greed but simply the desire to improve your situation, the search of progress, what the religion accuse of “behaving like god” , or not “accepting your fate”, have shown that it concretely improved the humanity comfort, even more for the poorests.

            the riched country in the 1900s were poored that the poorer today; mesured in trem of life expactation, food quality and quantity.

            I’m tired with rich people like us spitting in the soup, saying it is not good enough for the poorer while cheering the starving men while keeping them from “evil food”

            world is not perfect, it is just the best we had.

  • georgehants

    Although Axil Axil says little on these pages regarding caring and
    sharing, he has put up a link on Vortex that he seems to find
    interesting and as usual I certainly do, this system is needed now and
    could have been in place for many years.
    ———-
    PhysOrg
    Fear of robots taking jobs spurs a bold idea: guaranteed pay
    As technological
    innovations increasingly edge into the workplace, many people fear that
    robots and machines are destined to take jobs that human beings have
    held for decades. For many affected workers, retraining might be out of
    reach —unavailable, unaffordable or inadequate.
    What then?
    Enter the idea of a universal basic income, the notion that everyone
    should be able to receive a stream of income to live on, regardless of
    their employment or economic status.
    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, it kind of strange that you complain about Rossi trying to “perfect” some system during a
      time in which people go hungry.

      Apple or Boeing does not own some special rights to capitalism. For the last 5000 years it is
      the ONLY system that feeds hungry people.

      There nothing stopping countries with starving people from adopting our system – it free to
      adopt. When we go into a store the food is piled so high we don’t know what to
      do with that food. A UN study says that for the FIRST time in history we have
      more obese people then we do starving people – a remarkable achievement of capitalism.

      So you could wait 500 years for some new system that comes along to feed people (the magical
      unknown system you keep asking for people to come up on this site). So why wait
      50 years for LENR or Rossi?

      It is beyond silly to not hand out leaflets and now tell those starving people NOW to adopt our
      western system of capitalism, and they will have stores with food piled up to
      the rafters.

      So you can’t complain about Rossi delaying things NOW when you ALREADY have a system that
      can feed the starving people – you just have to tell them about the system! And
      that system has no special rights that Apple or some such owns.

      You are free to get a tractor and grow potatoes or whatever.

      So while people are starving, people like you are NOT going around teaching people to reject socialism,
      and adopt capitalism that will feed these starving millions of people.

      Until such time you start blogging, writing and teaching people to reject socialism and adopt capitalism
      then you are just as guilty when complaining about Rossi delaying, yet you not
      going around teaching people a great way to feed themselves.

      I suppose you could solicit ideas here for some new system, but then you would be delaying tings
      while people stave. (Just like you claim Rossi is).

      If you honestly believe Rossi is delaying things, then you are just as guilty by not telling people
      what to do now to feed themselves.

      Even if Rossi invents a new tractor, or brings to the world low cost LENR energy, unless those
      starving people reject socialism and adopt capitalism, then they will continue
      to stave.

      So the knowledge today to eliminate starvation exists – and it free information.

      So there nothing stopping a county from adopting capitalism and having piles of food in their
      stores – we don’t need LENR or Ross to change this simple fact.

      So a system exists now that really eliminates starving people – you are NOW simply responsible for
      telling people to adopt that system. I suppose you could wait for the next 50
      or 500 years something comes along better then capitalism that has eliminated starving
      people in every county it’s been adopted.

      People are 100% free to adopt a system NOW that will feed their people while you ask and wait for
      input on some “new” system that you hope comes along.

      So you just as guilty as Rossi by delaying and not promoting a way for starving people to not go hungry.
      We have that system now – it really silly to wait for Rossi or for YOU to wait
      for some magical system to come along to feed the people – that system and
      knowledge exists already.

      So all you have to do is tell people to reject socialism, adopt capitalism and they not have
      starving people. Until you do, then based on your comments and logic – you are
      the guilty one here, not Rossi.

      The solution we have now will eliminate starving people – they just have to adopt it until your “magic” system comes along that you hoping for that currently does not exist!

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Albert D. Kallal

      In regards to “delays” and starving people, we have a solution now – it called capitalism.

      As for greed is good? Well, I don’t really think so. If the greed is to take something away from people, then I see
      that as evil. So I can’t really say I agree with the title of this article.

      However, if one is talking about people using their hands and ability to create more things for more wealth, then sign me up! So I think we have to LIMIT the concept of greed – it can’t be taken in out of context.

      Every person can contribute something in some way – that is a good thing. We MUST view people as a resource that can help mankind – not people as cattle that consume food!

      Apple or Boeing does not own some special rights to capitalism. For the last 5000 years it is the ONLY system that feeds hungry people.

      There nothing stopping countries with starving people from adopting our system – it free to adopt. When we go into a store we see food is piled so high we don’t know what to do with that much food.
      A UN study says that for the FIRST time in history we have more obese people
      then we do starving people – a remarkable achievement of capitalism.

      So we could wait 500 years for some new system that comes along to feed people (the magical unknown system that people here keep asking to be cooked up).

      However what is the logic in waiting for people to come up with a new economic system? So why wait 50 years for LENR or Rossi?

      I am all open to some new system, but what about now???

      Even if Rossi invents a new tractor, or brings to the world low cost LENR energy, unless those starving people reject socialism and adopt capitalism, then they will continue to starve.

      So the knowledge today to eliminate starvation exists – and it free information – free for the taking!

      Nothing is stopping a county from adopting
      capitalism and having piles of food in their stores – we don’t need LENR or Ross
      to change this simple fact.

      I am not aware of any western capitalistic society
      in which people are starving to death as a result of no food. It is an extremely
      rare occurrence. In fact our problem seems to be more of obesity then hungry
      people!

      So while everyone waits for LENR or some
      other magic system to come along, we have a responsibly to tell and teach people
      to reject socialism and adopt a system that has virtually eliminated starving people
      where that system been adopted.

      I mean, look at the mess in Venezuela –
      it looks like Road Warrior or some sci-fi movie in which some nuclear bombed
      out future apocalypse occurred. You see people walking around in rags with
      shopping carts. A true disaster that could have been avoided by the country rejecting
      socialism.

      Regards,

      Albert D. Kallal

      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • georgehants

        UNICEF
        Canada ranks 37th on a list of 41 rich
        countries for children having access to enough nutritious food, and
        higher-than-average rates of child homicide and teen suicide also point
        to a need for action, a UNICEF report says.
        Over 22 per cent of Canadian children live in poverty and most issues
        related to kids showed no improvement or worsened during the last
        decade, said the 14th report from UNICEF on children’s well-being
        amongst wealthy countries.
        The mental health of Canadian teens has been declining, with 22 per cent of
        adolescents reporting symptoms more than once a week, said the report
        release Wednesday. Canada ranked 31st for the teen suicide rate, it
        said.
        Read more
        https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-ranked-25th-on-childrens-well-being-amongst-rich-countries-unicef/article35314091/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Like I said, we don’t see children starving to death in our streets.
          I suppose we could argue about what the children should eat for
          breakfast or should they have macaroni and cheese for lunch.

          I thought this debate was about how Rossi is delaying things and that children in 3rd
          world poor countries are starving to death.

          However just like Rossi, you holding on to the knowledge that could eliminate poverty and starving children. So all you have to do is tell these poor countries and people about capitalism, and to reject socialism. However you being just like Rossi – holding on to information that could free these people from hunger.

          Now it seems you switching over to the ASTOUNDING and NEVER before seen bounty of food and obesity that is out of control in western societies like Canada. (People are
          eating too much food MORE often than not!!!).

          The rise of standards of living for the poor in western societies is beyond ANYTHING we
          seen in history.

          People on welfare consume more food and meat then most middle class did 100+ years ago. And they have luxury items like phones, TV. And they spend LESS of their income portion on food then what middle class people did back then!!!

          In other words, the poor in Canada now do better then what well to do and by some standards the rich had and did over 100 years ago.

          In 1900 the life expectancy of a Canadian was 50 years old! That was WHEN people died! – We did not have all those cool farm machines that replaced “muscle”. As a result, people simply just “wore out” and fell apart. Once capitalism took over, then
          we did not have to use muscle – the result was massive increasing in standards
          of living, but also life expected rates.

          So even among the poor – their lifespans have VASTLY increased under capitalism. They have benefited the MOST from our capitalistic system.

          Back then if not married by 20, or 22 you were consider “old”! Given that at 25 years HALF your life is over it becomes HARD to imagine how much things have improved. Today people on government assistance eat better and live longer then rich people way
          back then!

          So after 25 a women was considered a spinster and likely not to get married! This makes sense when MOST people die at 50 years old!!! At 35 years old one had an average of ONLY 15 years left before they die! So the poor in Canada has to be taken into account in relative terms.

          Families in that time frame often did not name their babies for the first 6 months (due to such a high death rate for babies).

          As for today? Well, some poverty stats are rather messed up.

          However as LONG as the economy allows economic mobility, then such people have much opportunity to change their lifestyles.

          According to USA tax returns (the most un-biased and fair reporting) more than 80% of the people under the poverty line will NOT be in that group within 15 years. The key
          concept here is economic mobility. If we destroy economic mobility then you
          have 3rd world like countries with mostly poor people and then just
          rich (no middle class). This is why ideas like the $15 min wage hurts the poor
          so much. I thought the abuse of poor inner city people had ended when slavery
          was abolished, but such wage schemes simply destroys economic mobility and
          keeps people poor.

          The #1 factor in economic wellbeing is in fact HOW you live your life and what choices you make. This explains why socialists talk about equality of outcome over that of
          equality of opportunity. Socialist want the same outcome for everyone
          REGARDLESS of their life choices. Socialists attempt to deny bad behaviours and
          do NOT want to suffer the consequences nor be responsible for their bad
          choices. (It called being irresponsible).

          How ironic that the MOST overweight people now are found among the poor and lower income ranks in Canada! It is ironic that today things are reversed! In the old days, if you were fat, then you HAD to be rich and had excess food. Now in Canada the obesity
          rate is HIGH among the lower income people!

          This obesity rate is simply because lower income people do NOT see or think about the
          consequences of their choices NOW in regards to their FUTURE. So they eat too
          much right NOW at this instant because it makes them feel good now (this is how
          MOST socialist behave – they want to take actions without consequences). This
          also explains why few on the left take any responsibility for what they say or
          do. Before such lower income people did not have food – but our miracle of capitalism has provide such people with too much food!!

          However the consequences of that choice to eat too much appears FURTHER down the road. I can pig out today, and tomorrow I am not fat!!! This “dis-connect” between
          actions now and the future consequences is THE KEY concept in regards to most
          poverty. And it explains why they don’t save money for their later years – even
          during years when making rather good money.

          Your VALUES and choices are the #1 defining determination of how well you do in a society – and that includes income and standard of living.

          For example in the USA a Black family with children has a poverty rate of 7%. However a single white mom with child has a poverty rate of 40%. So even regardless of race, the #1 factor here is your life style choices. Those who respect traditional
          marriage, get married and have children have an extremely low poverty rate
          (even among minority groups).

          Even more amazing is close to 80% of children being born to a single parent (or raised by one) is the SAME group we find in prison population! (80% comes from single broken families). So crime rates and jails are the result of children raised by a single parent
          (usually the mother).

          Once again we see that bad life choices is the major indication if the person will escape poverty or not.

          You make good choices in life, then your poverty rate will be VERY low. So go to school, get a job, get married, STAY married and this will MOSTLY determine how well your children will do and also determine if such children will grow up poor.

          However, the left and socialists HATE the concept of a traditional family and do everything to disparage behaviours that supports a traditional family unit. There is a LOT of reasons why the left hates traditional families, but as above shows, the HUGE
          issue is traditional family tend to have higher incomes and far less poverty.

          So as a socialist, if you hate people with MORE money, then you simply you going to hate traditional families. And by discouraging anyone from traditional family then
          you eliminate the chance and ability of such people to become rich. And thus
          you eliminate that “difference” in income.

          So the left hate the family unit. By destroying and denouncing the family unit, then people are all much more poor and closer in income!

          So you achieve income parity, but at some far lower income rate then what traditional married couples achieve.

          So if you support the family unit, then you see far richer and larger differences between rich and poor. So those traditional hard working family often do well, and some of
          them become outright rich – especially some of the larger hard working ones.
          This is all due to the simple concept that your CHOICES in life determines how
          well one can do to rise out of the lower ranks of society.

          However if you get rid of the family unit, then you get rid of income differences! – And that’s why socialists attack and hate traditional family values.

          At the end of the day western societies that have adopted capitalism enjoy HUGE PILES of food in stores, have FAR MORE obese people then starving people (for the FIRST time in history aby the way – a remarkable achievement of capitalism).

          So most poverty we see in the west is the result of individuals making bad decisions, not the system itself.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • georgehants

            Albert, please take up your ridiculous, rambling denials with UNICEF, WHO, etc. as frankly your input is so out of touch with reality that sensible discussion is impossible.
            ———–
            UNICEF
            Canada ranks 37th on a list of 41 rich
            countries for children having access to enough nutritious food, and
            higher-than-average rates of child homicide and teen suicide also point
            to a need for action, a UNICEF report says.
            Over 22 per cent of Canadian children live in poverty and most issues
            related to kids showed no improvement or worsened during the last
            decade, said the 14th report from UNICEF on children’s well-being
            amongst wealthy countries.
            The mental health of Canadian teens has been declining, with 22 per cent of
            adolescents reporting symptoms more than once a week, said the report
            release Wednesday. Canada ranked 31st for the teen suicide rate, it
            said.
            Read more
            https://beta.theglobeandmai

          • georgehants

            UNICEF
            Canada ranks 37th on a list of 41 rich
            countries for children having access to enough nutritious food, and
            higher-than-average rates of child homicide and teen suicide also point
            to a need for action, a UNICEF report says.
            Over 22 per cent of Canadian children live in poverty and most issues
            related to kids showed no improvement or worsened during the last
            decade, said the 14th report from UNICEF on children’s well-being
            amongst wealthy countries.
            The mental health of Canadian teens has been declining, with 22 per cent of
            adolescents reporting symptoms more than once a week, said the report
            release Wednesday. Canada ranked 31st for the teen suicide rate, it
            said.
            Read more
            https://beta.theglobeandmai

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Yes, and that report ignores the destruction of the family unit. As I stated, even in the USA
            – the poverty rate among minorities and black family’s is only 7%.

            This is SO FAR above average, it is astounding!

            Among single white women with child – 40%!!!!

            And we see EXACTLY the same trends in regards to teen suicide rate – low among traditional families.

            That article just proves my point even more!!! Socialists want to DENY that these people’s problems are due to their bad choices – not that lack of opportunity that exists in a modern western economy like Canada.

            Everything points to people making better choices and supporting the family unit – the farther
            away you go from what worked for 1000+ years and the family unit – the more the
            stats you quote go up and get worse!

            It’s the values the people choose that MOSTLY will determine the outcome and how well people will fair in life in case you wondering what my point is here!

            And as I stated, the same goes for your point about Rossi and starving children around the world
            – simply tell them the “free” message about capitalism and they not have
            starving children.

            There is no reason for children to be starving today – such counties simply have to make the right choices. (reject socialism and adopt capitalism).

            While people in Venezuela line up for toilet paper, don’t have medicine and hospitals don’t even have bandages and toilet paper, and they see their GDP dropping 6% or more each year?
            People are starving while we drink coffee and talk about LENR.

            They see inflation of OVER 700% this year (that means peoples wealth is wiped out).

            Now look at Chile. Same kind of people, similar land and geographic location. They rejected socialism, and now have the 3rd highest standard of living – Only beat by USA
            and Canada! It been one of the FASTEST growing economies for 20+ years now.

            The contrasts are SO MASSIVELY obvious.

            It is a “crime” that the people are NOT being told this simple solution to their starvation.

            So if you keep withholding this “free” information from countries that have hungry children, then you just like Rossi – withholding information that can feed the poor.
            The difference is the provided information is free and not owned by Apple or Rossi or anyone else – it free knowledge for the taking.

            Imagine that – a “free” solution for starving children!

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Ophelia Rump

    I think that deal would be quite generous, but I think the early adopters will likely require more benefit, this needs corporate names as testimonial and I doubt that comes with less than a 25% benefit. I would make the first thousand organizations to go public rewarded an additional 15 percent off your stated rate for five years, unlimited purchases. The promise of unlimited purchases is another benefit. You can well consider the power to seize a market, with that kind of profit advantage over you competition. If your organization has the promise of primacy in the adoption space and your competitors do not, you will likely dominate your market. In many cases only the early adopters will survive.

    • LesioQ

      I’m afraid I was not clear enough. To my opinion – the ‘greed path’ will be a low-slope adoption path and individual’s (like me) home heating cost will remain unaffected for many years in spite of actual technological progress. The greed ones will prefer it this way.

      • cashmemorz

        True. the greedy one to first to adopt LENR will use it to make more profit without acknowledging the source of their advantage and keep the end product price as is, or just a little lower, just enough to undercut the competition. This will show who has adopted LENR. The competition will either wake up to the existence of LENR or go broke trying to keep up.

  • Ophelia Rump

    There is time, Dottore Rossi also has the additional burden of proving the technology and proving it safe and reliable. He also needs to establish business channels, partnerships, cash flow, all while maintaining primacy in the deliver of such a product. He also needs a mentor, may I suggest Elon Musk. Sell Elon energy to power his battery factory and charge his batteries, get advice from him.

  • Buck

    There are times when this comes to mind when I hear the phrase “greed is good”:

    Those who espouse “greed is good” use it as a crutch to overcome a difficult challenge . . . it is far more difficult to include others in the determination for a best solution. It is far more difficult to be open to other’s own wants and needs so as to determine what is the win-win for the situation. It is much easier to simply pre-judge others as those who want to take that which is mine and treat them as a sort of enemy.

    By being “greed is good”, one simply skips the step of recognizing the presence of others and their right to pursue happiness. One merely takes what one can rather than finding a balance, a win-win among the players.

    There is a huge difference between how one pursue one’s goal as a vice rather than as a virtue.

    This is some of what comes to mind when I hear the phrase “greed is good”.

    • Warthog

      “There is a huge difference between how one pursue one’s goal as a vice rather than as a virtue.”

      “Good” greed vs. “bad” greed. If one satisfies one’s “needs” by hard work, innovation, etc, you have “good” greed. If one satisfies one’s needs by taking the means from others by dishonesty or force, you have “bad” greed.

      • Buck

        Words have meaning. I believe your description of ‘good greed’ is better met with ‘self-interest’. I think the semantic difference centers on how one includes “others” in the effort to pursue one’s self-interest.

        If the needs of others are included in how one pursues one’s goals, then greed simply is the wrong word and self-interest or enlightened self-interest is a better fit. However, if the needs of others are excluded in how one pursues one’s goals, then greed fits. I think the word ‘greed’ expresses the attitude of how others are treated by one pursuing their goals, their self-interest. It also expresses the inability to recognize the difference between “need” and “want”.

        Merriam-Webster: GREED
        a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed motivated by naked ambition and greed

        Synonyms: acquisitiveness, avarice, avariciousness, avidity, avidness, covetousness, cupidity, graspingness, greediness, mercenariness, rapaciousness, rapacity

        Near Antonyms: contentment, fulfillment (or fulfilment), gratification, satisfaction; bounteousness, bountifulness, bounty, charity, generosity, generousness, largesse (also largess), liberality, magnanimity, openhandedness, openheartedness, unselfishness; altruism, selflessness

  • I think that Karl Marx once said: “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” Andrea Rossi sure sounds like that last capitalist. He’s awfully short-sighted, and more concerned about getting what he thinks is his fair share of money (despite the fact that he has already been paid millions and probably does not need a whole lot more) than he is about doing what’s right. Ironically, however, he is helping to make cheap (and, possibly, someday, free) energy a reality, which will probably be the first step towards a Star-Trek-like future with no money. Also, this “other track” of transmutations could be aided by Rossi’s work, as well, (even if only indirectly) and that could also help speed up the transition to a post-capitalist world by being the first step towards something like a Star Trek replicator. I do have some concerns that Greer may be right, and that Rossi may be going about this all wrong, (and the longer it takes Rossi to just get these damn plants into operation the more concerned I become) but, even if Rossi ends up failing, I still find it satisfying seeing a strong pro-capitalism advocate being so selfish, short sighted, and stupid and/or uncaring that he would work so hard to make something that will help to (in the long run, at least) slit the throat of capitalism.

    By the way, I posted a short, five-or-so minute movie in the Short Film Fiesta channel of Disqus, a little while ago, which seems to deal with these same kinds of issues, so you guys might want to check it out by clicking the link, just below:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-shortfilmfiesta/good_business/

    • Omega Z

      “Star-Trek-like future with no money”

      Yes, they replaced money with a credits system the amount which reflects your job, rank and status in society. The more value you have to society, the higher the standard of living.

      • Warthog

        “they replaced money with a credits system”

        They replaced one form of money with another form.

  • cashmemorz

    Most, 80%, of the gasoline price in Canada. is taxes The oil barons used to be greedy. Now the government is taking over to pay for our high life style in the “developed “world. Therefor a way to overcome tax evasion on the tax returns of the “greedy” people not wanting to pay their taxes at year end. So we end up with a them versus us mentality. Too many think it is the oil barons who are still the greedy ones. Not any more, now that the oil barons know that oil is on the way out, they are redirecting their businesses towards other commodities..

  • cashmemorz

    This attitude is shared by some members on the TV show, “Dragons Den” and Shark Tank”, where Canadian billionaires compete for who ever brings a good business idea to the show. the models that put people first above greed get more sympathy from the competing Dragons and sometimes offer more then is asked by the business presenters. A trend of the future in business.

  • HS61AF91

    What one says for greed (makes the REAL world work. is THE Great Motivator. gets mankind off the couch, and drives them to productivity. creates a better world.) can also apply to fear. Altruistic positive drive, a love for humanity, and a desire to help all ascends above both. Having the Mafia educate him via jail sentence, as to just how devious/cautious one must be to bring about a societal disruption for he good of mankind, the Doctore rides neither the greed nor fear horse. He employs an E-cat flying carpet in between the two, and will bring his baby to fruition in that groove. Don’t worry, be happy.

    • Jarea

      Although i agree with you about your view about the topic of greed. I have to comment about your last sentence about Ecat.
      I don´t see so positive the future of the ECAT. As i said, in previous comments, we live in an evil world ruled by greed where elites controls the masses through energy. They are very well aware of ECAT developments. They have control of all the assets you may think. They will use all this and collaborators to avoid that ECAT is successful, thanks to the human greed.
      They did already with Industrial Heat to delay him and create FUD, and they achieved their objective. They can still kill him, burn all his papers, manipulate people to avoid patents and distrust of investment. I think this endevour cannot be successful by centralizing all the knowledge around Rossi. It makes very easy to control and to be targeted. If you have to work in a system where the evil top has the control then you need to use guerrilla tactics. As i always said, open source projects and collaboration projects are so distributive that they would not be able to stop them. Another option is running other parallel developments in secrecy, but elites are profis in secrecy and therefore it is a big risk to count on secrecy. Rossi concerns is the fear to loose the control or the millions. That is greed motivation. ECAT is here since 2008-2010, and we still have no product evidence, this would not be the case with the open source model, i am convinced.

      • HS61AF91

        Dear Jarea, I feel your sincere concern that whatever one does, the overseers will disallow. I do agree there are groups in control who use any means to maintain their monopolies, however, nature and experience can overcome even this hardship toward humanity’s advancements. Look at the energy demands engendered by the hurricanes, typhoons, earth quakes, and tsunamis suddenly affecting populations survivals. Look at the inadequacy of electric supply, heat, distribution systems, etc. Then contemplate the limited but real dissemination of ECAT working technology. I believe that the necessities made desperate by the natural occurrences will ‘compliment’ the spread of LENR systems, and that is one hope for the betterment of our human future on this great green and emerald orb.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Seven
    years is lightning fast for R&D. One
    Rossi is worth thousands of run-of-the-mill scientists.

  • Chapman

    You are correct! Love is the most powerful, with the LOVE of acquiring MORE WEALTH premier among its manifestations.

    • HS61AF91

      hmm.. correct when the Love of acquiring more wealth is a synonym for greed. Don’t think that’s the kind of LOVE Nick above, refers to.

    • Jarea

      Greed is service to yourself. Love is bigger because it is service to others and as a consequence love for yourself.
      You are asking people to have fear of scarcity to enter in survival mode to collect more wealth to become animals driven by fear and hunger. You want to use the instinct and powerful fear feeling to motivate persons. This only works with unconscious and segregated/separated groups until you see someone driven by love, you will be displaced, everybody would love to be with that person and not with you. You will have to kill the love, as the elites do, to maintain your control. Individual empowering and love this is what we need, be self responsible and don´t delegate responsibilities on state.
      The kind of motivation you talk is based on hierarchy where you are on the top and the rest are down. This is unstable in the long run. The true is that we are all one conscious with different experiences and different levels of wisdom. Use your conscious to let others progress but not to impose your view.

  • NCY

    Physical space will always be in short supply as we go toward an eventiual total world population of 10 billion or more. As a result, scarcity and therefore money, will always have a role even if everything else is made and provided for free by robots and AI

    • Warthog

      Do you “really” think that humanity is going to stay stuck on this tiny piece of universal real estate forever?? I’m not sure which will win out….living on the surfaces of other planetary bodies, or abandoning planets completely for artificial habitats. My suspicion is that it will turn out to be the latter.

      • Chapman

        Ah!!! Another topic dear to my heart!

        I agree with you entirely… our future lies in habitats. It is the natural progression.

        Planets are just resources.
        Nice to VISIT, but who would want to LIVE on one? 🙂

        • Warthog

          “Nice to VISIT, but who would want to LIVE on one?”

          I think this is likely to be meme that wins. And once you have habitats capable of multi-generational habitation, you also automatically have “generation starships”, especially if EMDrive or similar tech proves “real”. Lots of resources out in the Oort cloud, and the distance between the Oort clouds of different stars is much less than between the stars themselves.

  • LilyLover

    “I hope Rossi NEVER abandons greed!”
    >>
    I hope, Rossi never becomes greedy.

    “As wise men have said, “Greed is GOOD!”.”
    >>
    That was said by anti-wise men. Stup i d men speak anti-societal language.

    “Greed makes the REAL world work.”
    >>
    Cowardice against greedy puts the World through drudgery.
    Don’t believe it? Ask the people of Bhutan or Argentina.
    Bombing and banking by greedy people is the root cause of Global misery.
    Your greed makes other people work.
    Your greed steals from the meek and the good.

    “Greed is THE Great Motivator.”
    >>
    Don’t debase human capabilities. People will do stuff for free, if for free they were offered everything in life – education, home, and guaranteed income.

    “Greed gets mankind off the couch, and drives them to productivity.”
    >>
    Insurance industry could evaporate and all those people could train as doctors or nurses and serve more. Earth will still provide food. Is triviality productivity?

    “Greed creates a better world.”
    >>
    At the expense of far Worse World for the “others”. Greed requires to play anti-efficient zero-sum-game. Shortsighted gains from greed breed the contempt towards others’ lives and in the end even the gains become vain. An empty heart and an empty soul is dead already. An empty skull full with fool notions of greed should not breed so the World is freed.

    May your thought cleansing begin.

  • georgehants

    Some people who admit to being GREEDY and SELFISH seem to think that by writing long rambling comments they can somehow justify such a base position.
    In Fact one line is always sufficient saying —-
    I am a GREEDY, SELFISH person who cares only about myself and I do not give a damn about all the children, people suffering and dying in this World.

    • Vinney

      I am afraid Andrea Rossi is the ‘only’ man that is going to realise a series of marketable LENR technologies in the next 12 months.
      And as I have told you dozens of times before, Andrea Rossi is going to be the ‘only’ inventor that will be lifting the living standards of the poorest people on this planet a thousand fold (in the next few years) and this will be due to his singular approach of introducing this technology for everyone and at the least possible price. Initially introducing a QX based heat reactor for industrial applications means he still has to go through several prototypes before reaching a mass production reference model.
      This will also validate his technology in the marketplace and garner investor interest.
      Rossi’s endgame is that the tech will be for everyone.
      Sitback and relax because the next few months are going to be one hell of a ride, as Rossi and Leonardo Corporation will demonstrate how far ahead they are of all field.

      • georgehants

        Vinney, I am afraid I am unable to follow your logic, you have no idea what Research and gains have been made with Cold Fusion around the World, (should it turn out to be a practicle technology) hopefully our good Chinese etc. friends, are well advanced to bring to market a Wonderful cheap device to monopolise the market and supply those most in need while Rossi continues to try and do everything himself.
        Whatever the route, the quicker the better for everybody.

        • Vinney

          What I believe we’ll see from Rossi in the next few months are functional and marketable multiple MW assemblies of ‘in-line’ industrial water heaters, that will be highly secure and tamper-proof, and have a enormous capacity for the utilities market.
          Leonardo Corporation will offer ‘turn-key’ solutions to these utilities.
          It will be a ‘no brainer’ economics decision for them to ‘lease’ the Leonardo model for heating massive volumes of water. This is why reliability has been so key in his recent QX research. And yes, there will be pictures of each the manufactured prototypes, and as they are assembled in working utilities ( and yes, they are going to look magnificent and demonstrating varying configurations).
          And yes, Leonardo Corporation will be making millions per month, and this figure will be incrementing very quickly.
          These funds will be channelled into R & D and the manufacturing line of another E-cat product to have mass-market appeal.
          On the other hand, we are going to get nothing from our Chinese friends on any imminent LENR product.

          • georgehants

            Vinney you say, ——“On the other hand, we are going to get nothing from our Chinese friends on any imminent LENR product.”
            You say it as a Fact which you clearly cannot know so I am afraid I must disregard all of your reply.

        • Omega Z

          First, China will supply their own market. Decades in the making. Second, they make it cheap because they pay poverty wages and then sell it just a tiny bit cheaper then what you have currently.

      • TomR

        Thanks Vinney, George got off his high horse for a few days and I was even able to like some of his posts. Rossi is doing this the right way, no one else could get LENR to where it is today. George please get off his back.

    • Alan DeAngelis
    • Thomas Kaminski

      I am of the opinion that because of the stupidity of mankind, trying to give away a technologically advanced product will result in people ignoring it. The attitude of “if it is free, what is the catch?” shines through. Look at the “open sourced” software world, for example. I feel that Unix/Linux was/is far superior to the alternatives pushed by Microsoft, but it was not a commercial success until the “greed” of “Do No Harm” Google decided that they had to put up an alternative for cell phone OS or be left behind. Now Android (really a Linux alternative) is dominant OS in the world.

      I also believe that Rossi’s “games” are cleverly disguised ways to advance the LENR technology while keeping the competition (mostly oil and gas interests) laughing at what a clown he is.

      Energy is a basic need for modern society. Getting a low-cost source of energy will help. Let’s hope that the LENR pathway leads to that soon. If it requires greed to push it along, so be it.

      • georgehants

        Thomas, thank you, the water filters that we donate to those in Ghana unable to afford the technology themselves certainly do not act like —–
        “because of the stupidity of mankind, trying to give away a technologically advanced product will result in people ignoring it.”——
        They show overwhelming gratitude and thanks for the caring and sharing.
        Perhaps you are referring to those that already have more than they need.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          George, I do mean to those who have more than they need at least as far as my observations go here in the United States. Still, there must be a desire to want the technology in the first place. That might take some education. Perhaps rather than “what’s the catch?”, I should have said “why do I want it?”. In my opinion, many people will adopt a technology if it clearly is an alternative to, and costs less than the way they are doing things now, but they have to be educated about the differences.

  • Chapman

    Well… This has been a most INTERESTING debate!

    I would only wish to make one simple clarification…

    TOO many of you seem to confuse “Greed” with envy, covetousness, and a sense of entitlement to that which is not yours.

    How curious! The vary arguments that are put forth against greed, and using that confusion to attack this basic human reality, are the very arguments which seek to JUSTIFY those very same despicable attitudes and social concepts.

    Greed is simply wanting MORE.
    More than what you have.
    More than what is currently available.
    More than that for which OTHERS seem willing to settle.

    Greed does NOT mean taking from others. Greed does not look at others, only oneself, and one’s own circumstance, and makes a decision to take action to improve one’s personal position and wealth.

    On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with those of you who would condemn those who see the prosperity of others, and rather than deciding to take personal action to improve their own lot by means of productive endeavor decide they have a right to take what is not theirs, from those of whom they are envious.

    But twisted minds make twisted arguments, and they attempt to distort reality with red hearing arguments, obfuscations, and denial of the realities that contradict their worldview.

    Greed is simply an aspirational motivation. It is a foundation of healthy Human Psychology. It is an evolutionary tool to drive the species forward through the natural selection of those with a combination of a sense of direction, yearning, and desire – being coupled with the discipline, self motivation, and perseverance to take action to SEE those dreams fulfilled.

    On the other hand, we are plagued by the persistence of evolutions failures, who see the success of others and have no deeper thoughts than to cry out in anger at their own unfulfilled lives and empty coffers, and make up some demented social justice thesis to justify outright theft.

    And of course, when their arguments are hollow and unsupportable, they always fall back on histrionics and exaggerations.

    • georgehants

      Chapman would you like to remove all the hand waving and state if you believe that the system we all live under creates unfair inequality and a new system to right those faults would be desirable?
      A simple yes or no will suffice.
      ———-
      Poverty Research
      American Poverty

      The official poverty rate is 13.5 percent, based on the U.S. Census
      Bureau’s 2015 estimates. That year, an estimated 43.1 million Americans
      lived in poverty according to the official measure. According
      to supplemental poverty measure, the poverty rate was 14.3 percent.
      https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
      ———–
      What is “deep poverty”?
      Data on those with incomes below 50 percent of poverty thresholds
      The U.S. Census Bureau defines “deep poverty” as living in a
      household with a total cash income below 50 percent of its poverty
      threshold. According to the Census Bureau, in 2015 19.4 million people
      lived in deep poverty. Those in deep poverty represented 6.1 percent of
      the total population and 45 percent of those in poverty.
      https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

      • Chapman

        no

        • georgehants

          Thank you, I will reply that I have no wish to communicate with a person who thinks in that way, goodbye

          • Chapman

            and THAT is the magical power of the word “NO”!!! 🙂

      • Omega Z

        “estimated 43.1 million Americans lived in poverty”

        No they don’t. Their income falls below the poverty threshold income level based on the number of people in a household. This is used to determine how much government assistance they qualify for. These government benefits raise them above that threshold and then some.

        I know a couple who have 2 kids and the Wife’s income is $19K a year. They receive housing subsidies(A portion of rent is paid by tax payers), $6K a year is food stamps, free medical care free school lunches and should they need it assistance with utility costs. Last February like every year, they also received between $6K and $7K in earned income payment from the Government. They get paid just for having a job.

        They live in a 3 bedroom house(With AC), 1-desktop computer, 3 laptops, 2 televisions as well as 2 cars for transportation. The husband does not work(At least not officially) and to my knowledge has never worked a job for more then about 3 months. HE did have 1 job that paid $40K plus benefits for a short while, but apparently employers don’t like it when you proceed tell them how to run their business (they’ve had for 25 years).

        The 6.1 percent of deep poverty. These people don’t work at all, however, they also get government help. Interestingly, they say it will take 10-20 years to rebuild from the damage done along the Texas coast caused by Hurricane Harvey. Because-They can’t find enough people to do the work.

        I have an Idea. Oh wait. Those 6.1 percent don’t want to work. They’d rather live off of those who do. This whole story narrative changes when you add context. Most news articles aren’t into truth. Only clicks on. There’s an awful lot of click bait these days in the news. They get paid by the click

        • georgehants

          Omega Z, always some who try to use such arguments to hide their complete non-caring for those in need.
          There will always be some shirkers, it is part of life but to use such a weak distorted argument to cover one’s lack of empathy for the millions of genuine suffers is, well you pick a word.

          • TVulgaris

            His justification, summarily- Since at least one person, considered officially below the poverty limit in the US, is easily identified as shirkers, obviously most or all the rest are also.

            Also, obviously there are enough fully competent AND EQUIPPED workers among the 6.1 percent to render the disaster recovery issues in Texas and now Florida a purely short-term proposition. As well, clearly there’d be no difficulty for them to go to those places to get all those jobs being offered in those recovery efforts, if they’re not there already…

    • Nick Sunchild

      Inspirations
      Scavenging and hoarding of materials or objects, theft and robbery, especially by means of violence, trickery, or manipulation of authority are all actions that may be inspired by greed. Such misdeeds can include simony, where one profits from soliciting goods within the actual confines of a church. A well-known example of greed is the pirate Hendrick Lucifer, who fought for hours to acquire Cuban gold, becoming mortally wounded in the process. He died of his wounds hours after having transferred the booty to his ship

      Erich Fromm described greed as “a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.” It is typically used to criticize those who seek excessive material wealth, although it may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else.
      The purpose for greed, and any actions associated with it, is possibly to deprive others of potential means (perhaps, of basic survival and comfort) or future opportunities accordingly, or to obstruct them therefrom, thus insidious and tyrannical or otherwise having negative connotation. Alternately, the purpose could be defense or counteraction from such dangerous, potential negotiation in matters of questionable agreeability. A consequence of greedy activity may be inability to sustain any of the costs or burdens associated with that which has been or is being accumulated, leading to a backfire or destruction, whether of self or more generally. So, the level of “inordinance” of greed pertains to the amount of vanity, malice or burden associated with it.

      Thomas Aquinas says that greed “is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things.”[1]:A1 In Dante’s Purgatory, the avaricious penitents were bound and laid face down on the ground for having concentrated too much on earthly thoughts.
      From Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, greed means “greedy for base gains.” Gain itself is not a sin, but the gain of base things. Also, “given to greed” means literally, “given to filth.” Thus, a moral concern, not a subjective economic one for which there is no equal. A very wealthy man, for example, may be erroneously considered “greedy” if such wealth was planned for some great achievement or building project.

      Meher Baba dictated that “Greed is a state of restlessness of the heart, and it consists mainly of craving for power and possessions. Possessions and power are sought for the fulfillment of desires. Man is only partially satisfied in his attempt to have the fulfillment of his desires, and this partial satisfaction fans and increases the flame of craving instead of extinguishing it. Thus greed always finds an endless field of conquest and leaves the man endlessly dissatisfied. The chief expressions of greed are related to the emotional part of man.

      I disagree with Ivan Boesky it is a circular Explanation
      You can be greedy as long you feel good about your self is circular.
      I’m Selfish
      I’m greedy and that outcome feeds my Selfishness that is a feedback loop
      And leads only to:
      I am a GREEDY, SELFISH person who cares only about myself and I do not give a damn about all the children, people suffering and dying in this unequal World.

      Thanks to georgehants for this words

      Ivan Boesky famously defended greed in an 18 May 1986 commencement address at the UC Berkeley’s School of Business Administration, in which he said, “Greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself”.[3] This speech inspired the 1987 film Wall Street, which features the famous line spoken by Gordon Gekko: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

      You Try Again To Lecture Us As Uneducated As We Don’t Know What Greed Is.
      Maybe you should prove and adapt your perception about Greed

      But maybe we find a cure for it.
      Some research suggests that there is a genetic basis for greed. People that have a shorter version of the ruthlessness gene (AVPR1a) are likely to behave more selfish.

    • Nick Sunchild

      I disagree with Ivan Boesky, it is a circular Explanation
      You can be greedy as long you feel good about your self is circular.

      I’m Selfish
      I’m greedy and that outcome feeds my Selfishness that is a feedback loop
      And leads only to:
      ” I’m a GREEDY, SELFISH person who cares only about myself and I do not
      give a damn about all the children, people suffering and dying in this
      unequal World. ”
      Thanks to george for this words

      Ivan Boesky famously defended greed in an 18 May 1986 commencement address at
      the UC Berkeley’s School of Business Administration, in which he said,
      “Greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed
      is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself”.[3]
      This speech inspired the 1987 film Wall Street, which features the
      famous line spoken by Gordon Gekko: “Greed, for lack of a better word,
      is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and
      captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its
      forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the
      upward surge of mankind

      That explanation is not worth the paper that it is written on.
      Every One should Know who Ivan F. Boesky was before using his Arguments

      Ivan Frederick Boesky (born March 6, 1937) is a former American stock trader who is notable for his prominent role in an insider trading scandal that occurred in the United States during the mid-1980s.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Boesky

    • Nick Sunchild

      Thomas Aquinas says that greed “is a sin against God, just as all
      mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of
      temporal things.”[1]:A1 In Dante’s Purgatory, the avaricious penitents
      were bound and laid face down on the ground for having concentrated too
      much on earthly thoughts.
      From Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary,
      greed means “greedy for base gains.” Gain itself is not a sin, but the
      gain of base things. Also, “given to greed” means literally, “given to
      filth.” Thus, a moral concern, not a subjective economic one for which
      there is no equal. A very wealthy man, for example, may be erroneously
      considered “greedy” if such wealth was planned for some great
      achievement or building project.

      Meher Baba dictated that “Greed
      is a state of restlessness of the heart, and it consists mainly of
      craving for power and possessions. Possessions and power are sought for
      the fulfillment of desires. Man is only partially satisfied in his
      attempt to have the fulfillment of his desires, and this partial
      satisfaction fans and increases the flame of craving instead of
      extinguishing it. Thus greed always finds an endless field of conquest
      and leaves the man endlessly dissatisfied. The chief expressions of
      greed are related to the emotional part of man.

      • the catholic philosophy is too much full of pity and inverted values.

        at his time people were working hard and dying young, kids seldom survived and church did only help people to accept the fate..
        This is what i hate in some baba cool and religious philosophy, what I hate in Mother Teresa love of poverty more than in poor people.

        the philosophy of those times led to scarcity of resources, conservatism, people accepting what should never be accepted, dictatorship in the name of superior morality.

        the philosophy of ambition, of hope, of technology progress, of constructive greed (=ambition), led to huge investment in rails, in coal mines, in derrick, in car factories, in powerplants, in power lines, in silicon foundries, in software, in research, in AIDS medications, and that today we have a life expectation double than Thomas Aquino time.

      • To complete that position about the role of non-greed motivation :
        https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/09/research_on_wha.html

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0193-3

        “Frontline investigations with fighters against the Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS), combined with multiple online studies, address willingness to fight and die in intergroup conflict. The general focus is on non-utilitarian aspects of human conflict, which combatants themselves deem ‘sacred’ or ‘spiritual’, whether secular or religious. Here we investigate two key components of a theoretical framework we call ‘the devoted actor’—sacred values and identity fusion with a group—to better understand people’s willingness to make costly sacrifices. We reveal three crucial factors: commitment to non-negotiable sacred values and the groups that the actors are wholly fused with; readiness to forsake kin for those values; and perceived spiritual strength of ingroup versus foes as more important than relative material strength. We directly relate expressed willingness for action to behaviour as a check on claims that decisions in extreme conflicts are driven by cost–benefit calculations, which may help to inform policy decisions for the common defense.”

        Not sure devoted actors are less dangerous than selfish actors…

        I even suspect that the abusers, the one why greed have bad reputation, exploit the devoted actors and the good willing philosophers to manipulated the good boys.

        But this is not the only problem. non selfish accros can fall into a groupthink easily and cause huge negative-sum game damages

    • Nick Sunchild

      A Try Again To Lecture Us As Uneducated As We Don’t Know What Greed Is!
      Maybe some Individuals should prove and adapt there perception about Greed.

    • Nick Sunchild

      Scavenging and hoarding of materials or objects, theft and robbery,
      especially by means of violence, trickery, or manipulation of authority
      are all actions that may be inspired by greed.

      • Chapman

        And MURDER is a crime often motivated by love! Whether as a crime of passion, or as in the case of war as an extension of love for one’s family, local community, and society as a whole.

        It is disingenuous to attribute to GREED all the various immoral acts you describe. Greed is simply an imperative, while the choice one makes as to how to SATISFY that need is a different story.

        There may be a utopian island populated with primates that never developed any form of independent identity or desire, and they all live in the tree-tops, eating only their fair share of fruit, and never THINKING to occupy a branch other than the one on which they were born. MORE POWER TO THEM! They will live long, peaceful, loving lives. But in ten million years they will still be sitting in those trees! We are talking about the fact that GREED and DESIRE and even a proclivity to RUTHLESSNESS are key evolutionary mechanisms. They are WHY we are here, as developed and semi-advanced entities HAVING this discussion in the first place.

        If you want a NEW SOCIETY, based on love and sharing and can’t-we-all-just-get-along, then you better start work on gene-splicing and fire up the DNA kilns, because you will have to eliminate HUMANS and populate the world with some new passive “frankenstein creation” to fill it. You will not have “HUMANITY” without HUMANS, and you can’t have HUMANS without their basic evolutionary baggage.

        Managing a world that ignores basic HUMAN tendencies and characteristics and allows you to just impose what you think people should do upon the population at large is already possible. It is called Sim-Earth. You can play at it on XBox, Playstation, or on your PC, but that is as close as you will ever come.

        • LilyLover

          “And MURDER is a crime often motivated by love! Whether as a crime of passion, or as in the case of war as an extension of love for one’s family, local community, and society as a whole.”
          >>
          Murder is a crime of cowardice. Too coward too work hard? Too coward to study hard? Too coward to engage in creative service or innovations? Too coward to earn? So, you steal. It’s not a crime of passion. For passion, people give life, dedicate life; not steal life. And in the typical sense of ‘crimes of passion’, even if your partner cheated the utmost, if you ever loved them, you’d never wish ill upon them, let alone infringe upon their will. Just because the crimes are committed for ‘family’, doesn’t mean the crimes are glorified; rather, the family is vilified as a ‘crime family’. The family has a duty to prevent evil elements from within from following evil path. War is not an extension of love for society. Voluntary soldier-ism to protect your people is ‘glorifiable’. Looting out of vengeanceful cowardice against people engaged in real work (thereby not having time to develop looting skills) is not crime of passion; it simply is lazy and cruel man’s or society’s way of life. Laziness and cruelty practiced at societal level is still equally loath-able when practiced at an individual level.

        • LilyLover

          “It is disingenuous to attribute to GREED all the various immoral acts you describe. Greed is simply an imperative, while the choice one makes as to how to SATISFY that need is a different story.”
          >>
          Low quality humans possess various vices, greed simply one amongst those. Greed is NOT imperative. Fake philosophies are delusions of parasites to make themselves look normal, especially in front of their children.
          We have not reached the abundance-paradigm in our present day society. Therefore, greed, today and so far, has only meant stealing from ‘someone who loves their family enough to show up for hard work everyday’ and glorifying the theft by the ‘thief who occasionally loves their family to an insufficient extent that precludes them from everyday hard work’.
          This is the reality, no matter how much sugarcoating you apply.

          “Our family has served in the military for nine generations.”
          Translation –>
          ‘We have been social parasites and lived a comfortable life without working for nine generations, because the advertising apparatus makes you hate ‘them’ more than engaging in truthful introspection.’

        • LilyLover

          “…GREED and DESIRE and even a proclivity to RUTHLESSNESS are key evolutionary mechanisms. They are WHY we are here, as developed and semi-advanced entities HAVING this discussion in the first place.”
          >>
          Desire to improve life led to most inventions. Cruel people did not invent writing instruments nor internet. Loving, caring, sharing people invented those. Greedy people invented copyright; not “killing-is-right”. Magnanimous people go with copyleft, produce Linux code and shared the farming methods across the globe.
          Greed brings us down to this level to ‘have to have’ this discussion; without greedy people, we’d be discussing caring and sharing and fetch the future 100 times faster. Basics of emotions would be too clear to be muddled with ‘parasitic agenda’.
          Without greedy people, the quality and level of discussion would have been much higher. Greedy employ willful ignorance and ignorance is the tool of darkness. The greedy simply accelerate the gains of a few generations at the perpetual peril of the future generation. Again the theme is simple — people too selfish are too incompetent to love.

        • LilyLover

          “You will not have “HUMANITY” without HUMANS, and you can’t have HUMANS without their basic evolutionary baggage.”
          >>
          “Basic evolutionary baggage” is a myth. No such thing exists other than to justify immorality of the parasites. Humanity must not transcend towards purity or ‘angelism’ or ‘beyond present condition’ is a myopic view. Gene-splicing doesn’t do much about emotions. Preserving of impurities of the so called humanity is not a must; evolution of humanity into higher thoughtful humanity is the imperative – to put in your words. Just as you believe about your evolution from ocean to land, you should also think about — why stop here? What’s so special about present condition? Why not progress beyond? Even if it becomes “Superhumanity”, what’s wrong with that? Where does the impulse to halt at present “Humanity” come from? Is it because your parasitism is accidentally and temporarily well rewarded by the today’s “Humanity”? Ask yourself, is this too deep for your thoughts? If not, why not improve? If yes, won’t you want to improve to higher plane where you might become competent for deeper thoughts?

        • LilyLover

          “… but that is as close as you will ever come.”
          >>
          Perhaps that’s true for you.
          Some play the Sim-Earth; some code the Sim-Earth.
          & Then, some improvise the real Earth.
          It’s too hard. Don’t be chicken. Contribute. Be good. Evolve.
          In the near future, parasitic intimidation by your progeny will be met with ruthless efficiency of our robots. But the path you speak of ‘preserving “Human” tendencies will lead your progeny to ignorant, cruel and hannibalistic clan, discarded by the average better-humans of the future.
          You don’t have to control all human tendencies. You nurture the good ones and starve the bad ones. What is good vs bad? Ask a child.
          How to diffuse the good and the bad? Ask a lazy, cruel and coward old man, or an average king or an average-parasite.

  • Nick Sunchild

    Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention to keep it for one’s self
    Greed is a extreme expression of Selfishness.

    You can not, view the one without the other.

  • Omega Z

    Once we can grow all our meat in a laboratory, we will cull the herds keeping only a token number of them whether by serialization or some other natural means. That’s what we do when something is no longer needed. We dispose of it.

  • greggoble

    The semantics of greed… clearly greed is not the greatest motivating force. The strongest common motivating force in the human race is the desire to see one’s family, children and friends experience less pain and suffering. Success is more often experienced as satisfaction in nurturing and helping to solve problems facing us.

    I see that humans strong survival instinct is evolving to include each of each other and all life on the planet as a whole. Rossi is part of this and works to see that his investors will not prevent nor slow his commercialization (as in IH) while also working towards commercialization that will turn a profit and create a long standing successful company. a company that also has enough strengths to continue advanced research and development. I see nothing wrong with that.

    The semantics of greed… I agree with those who define greediness as being the opposite of sharing, yet if what is considered “profit” becomes that which brings the greatest amount of wellbeing to the greatest arena of the world, than the semantics of greed may transform to something less stingy and selfish.

    “The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?”- Charles Darwin

    “We have to do the best we can. This is our sacred human responsibility.” – Albert Einstein

    “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.” – Charles Darwin

    “Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.” – Albert Einstein

    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science” – Charles Darwin

    “Those instrumental goods which should serve to maintain the life and health of all human beings should be produced by the least possible labor of all.” – Albert Einstein

    “The very essence of instinct is that it’s followed independently of reason.”- Charles Darwin

    “Where there is love there is no question.” – Albert Einstein

    • right.

      I will make the comparison with the “laziness”.
      An engineer joke is that Laziness is a quality of engineers.

      But on day I understood what is engineers laziness.

      In a kitchen, there was a chair blocking the way.
      The technician was jumping over the chair to reach the meals… Lazy to move the chair.

      The engineer was more lazy, he took the chair, put it out, and comfortably enjoying the investment done in that move.

      Greed have many ways.
      The good one is simply saving on your today’s pleasures and investing to enjoy more for those who count for you, yourself, your family, your community, humanity, living beings, universe, depending on your ambition (and the perceived reward to doing good to those entities ).
      the bad one is simply stealing the value to others

      Altruism and investment is wired in human brain as a pleasure, because it is a survival feature balanced with shortterm pleasures and selfishness. Human decisions is the result of fierceful fight between emotional and shortterm pulsions (noradrenaline) versus
      rational longterme computation (cortex)… in fact some longterm social rationality that few people are able to conceive intellectual are hardwired as shortterm emotion (love, parentalit, honor, prode, obedience, respect).

      about greed and laziness , there are very respected idologies and values that I judge as toxic and tragic.
      Some people value the effort by itself, and not as an investment or a training… there is no humanity in working for nothing, not even getting stronger or preparing something to save your future work… as there is no humanity in promoting poverty or suffering.
      You can respect the poor, the worker, the sick, but this mean working hard to solve that.

      In a way the great victory of real capitalism have been to replace much labor with much capital. replacing kids working in the fields to seldom nourish their family, with tractors factories and GPS driven bots.
      People today cannot imagine how evil and inhuman was the old time. Dr Zaruk a blogger defending modern farmin in EU explained he was removing weed in the fields as a kid.
      Dad escaped from TB death, unlike many of his friends.
      There is no honor in dying from measles, or from a horse accident.

      However many things that opponents to capitalims call capitalism, ins in fact cronyism allowed by state.
      one big example of pseudocapitalism state slaves are the bankers and the finance guys, whose benefits is based on having license and monopolies on public resources (money, trade), and serving their master , the state, after they took their commission.

      In fact capitalism as Marx explained is an unstable situation, as the winner immediately demand to have a monopoly and be protected by a crony state, demanding a mercantilist economy, no more free market.

      I see that in france with uber-like companies, who have disrupted the taxi monopoly to provide a better service… todays those companies, and their drivers, are damanding french government to regulate their activity like the taxi is, to blocke new companies and new drivers, establishing a cartel of installed players.

      Mercantilisme, crony capitalism, have an awful consequence, that the rich get richer without any creativity, and with no poor being allowed to endanger his economic rent.
      this is what create revolutions, when a crowd of desperate people destroy huge mass of crony capital, or crony state regulation and their servants, because after all they don’t benefit from any freedom, and not of the technological progress…

      Real, and unstable , capitalism , is when every company, every tycoon , can be washed by a new idea proposed by an outsider exploiting neglected ideas or neglected talents and courages.

      the way money is redistributed in real capitalism is not through taxes, but through revolutions, not the bloody one, but the technological ones.

      LENR could be such a revolution, if it was not blocked by stupid greed, and huge crony conservatism.

  • georgehants

    Just thank Chapman for putting up such a Topic page claiming that GREED and SELFISHNESS are a good thing, it has given many on page the opportunity to witness the thinking of the few in our society that go through life always blaming somebody else and completely denying reality to suit there sad views.
    ———
    PsychCentral
    Primitive Defense Mechanisms. Denial is
    the refusal to accept reality or fact, acting as if a painful event,
    thought or feeling did not exist. It is considered one of the most
    primitive of the defense mechanisms because it is characteristic of early childhood development.

  • Nick Sunchild

    But maybe we find a cure for it.
    Some research suggests that there is
    a genetic basis for greed. People that have a shorter version of the
    ruthlessness gene (AVPR1a) are likely to behave more selfish.

    We have just to cure 1% of the Population. 😉

    • Warthog

      Oh, the socialists already have found a cure….they either kill them or put them in prison camps to die. And they use the same “thinking” you do……it’s only 1% of the population, after all.

  • Warthog

    “Greed is not simply wanting more. It is wanting more than is needed (Merriam-Webster).”

    Who decides “what is needed”?? You cannot morally decide that for me or anyone other than yourself.

  • Jarea

    wtf . Greed is the cancer of every society. Love, (service to others) and compassion is the motor of any stable society. Greed is passion for control and fear to loose it. Greed is fixed on the objective without caring the means because the objective is materialistic and only the objective produces the pleasure. Love enjoys the process of doing. This is because love is about doing the right thing to others and not how good or important the contribution was. Love transforms the material world to be at our service each time we needed through more loves from others. Through our love decisions we transform the world and we receive what we want.
    Collaborating with a greed system means you are lacking of wisdom and enough love to have a long term happiness. The system will hit you back and destroy your options because it will use your dependency to it and treat you as a disposal machine. Therefore, you will be forced to be always greedy and live forever with fear to loose.
    The motivation to work does should not come from greed or the need to survive, the motivation to work should come from love to change the world, to make things better, for every member of the human specie, for our family, our childs, a better world. The higher the impact, the better feeling.
    If you fall in the dark side of the greed you will be betrayed. You will be forced to continue to be greedy even when the material objectives were met. This is because greediness has not finite material limit, the same as love. Greediness is not only about material world is about control of others, limit their options and limit their free will so that you have what you want. Who start that path then will find loneliness and distrust.
    Love will synergically push you further. Others will give you the love you gave them. The trust and collaboration is tie using love. The motivation is great because there is always somebody who needs you and appreciate your work.

    • Buck

      a nice powerful description, really a story of the difference between a life led by greed versus compassionate connection and love.

  • Jarea

    You are an example of a real free human. Thanks for showing your example on this thread!

  • Billy Jackson

    I think that the term greed brings with it a negative context that does not quite fit the discussion without tainting how people view it. A desire to improve yourself, or you and your families situation is not greedy. Self Motivation to achieve or excel is not greedy. We all have the right to sell, use personally, or waste our own time for what ever purpose or project we delve in to, that’s not greedy.

    Greed is an unwillingness to share, or actively attempting to block others from achieving goals similar so that you can retain your personal sense of power or wealth at the expense of others.

    All of us can read between the lines. the idea of chapmans article is correct, even if we find fault with the term greed.Self Motivation has driven the brilliant minds of entrepreneurs, engineers, mechanics, or even just a kid bagging groceries to seek improvement in their way of life. We as a society more often than not have benefited from that drive and then built upon it for even greater success to ourselves as a whole.

    the paperclip and staple has had just as big an impact on our way of life as the microwave and the refrigerator. It frees us from time spent at a task, while empowering us as individuals so that we have the opportunity to advance ourselves yet again.

    Chapman thank you for the article. while i understand the term greed in its full meaning. i also fully understand the intent and implication of what you ment when you wrote this article. I whole heartedly agree with you sir.

    • you correctly describe what make people criticize greed.
      this greed is a form of stupidity, like I described here the stupid form of lasiness.

      maybe one could describe the good greed as “ambition materialized as visible wealth”, “search for efficiency to save resources and efforts you pay”, “search to please to be paid”.

      naturally this mean more trade, more cooperation, more risk taking, investment in moral reputation and network wealth.

      most of real morality is simply good policy for business on the longterm.

      evil greed is just destroying your assets, like burning your boat to fuel the steam engine.

      • Jarea

        Then don´t mix the terms, the term greed you are talking about, is not greed, is love for doing the things good. Greed only looks for service to self, what you are talking is fair service to others which will, in the end, be service to you, which is the definition of love.

    • Buck

      In some sense, you whitewash over an important point: self motivation is not equivalent to greed, never has been, and never will be.

      A most difficult point is that ALL words derive from and are informed by experience, by the nature of ‘being’ . . . arguably one of the more strange truths of all human existence. The meaning of words are built up in layers as one incorporates more elements of the experiential context. With this in mind, the word phrase ‘self motivation’ relative to ‘greed’ is arguably at a deeper level and thus devoid of at least two elements: our ability to distinguish the difference between one’s basic ‘needs’ and the ‘want’ in excess of what is needed, and our ability to empathize and consider how to incorporate the presence of others as co-equals in the pursuit one’s needs.

      Life is complex. There is little reason to make it more complicated by equating two fundamentally different ways of being such as greedy and considerate. One is judged to be constructive in how it supports the relationships within and health of a community, the other not so much.

  • Nick Sunchild

    Greed is well defined, and its negative. Because some subject little it or try to redefining it, try to mix it up, it still is what it is and stay what it is. A negative expression of Selfishness. But I understand that Selfishness Greedy People don’t like to hear it. Dismiss it and go in denial.

    It doesn’t help to deny it, before healing can occur you have to accept your Selfishness your greediness.

  • Warthog

    Sorry, no help here. Not familiar with that particular flick.

    • Chapman

      (pssssst…. it was a joke…)

  • Mike Rion

    “Elysium” was the name of the movie. But I lean more toward the idea that our intellects and personalities will be uploaded digitally to data bases in miniaturized servers that will enable us to live our entire lives in a device the size of an empty beer can.

  • georgehants

    All one logically has do do if one cares is to ask what are the countries with the lowest poverty rates doing right and change to that system.
    Anybody who does not ask that question and support action, does not care.
    ————–
    UNICEF: 20 percent of children in developed countries living in poverty
    A report by the UN children’s agency UNICEF has
    revealed the high level of child poverty in the first world. Germany was
    ranked among the best scoring countries while child poverty in the US
    was above the global average.
    The UN children’s agency UNICEF has warned that its report should
    serve as a “wake-up call” to the high rate of children in rich countries
    living in relative poverty.
    The report makes clear that “higher
    incomes do not automatically lead to improved outcomes for all
    children,” said Sarah Cook, director of the UNICEF research center
    Innocenti. Cook called on all governments to take action in eliminating
    inequality in child welfare.
    Read more: Save the Children charity: 700 million kids ‘robbed of childhood’
    The report, commissioned as part of the UN’s sustainable development goals, examined the well-being of children across 41 countries that generally enjoy high average incomes.
    http://www.dw.com/en/unicef-20-percent-of-children-in-developed-countries-living-in-poverty/a-39259716

  • georgehants

    Not something that GREEDY SELFISH people would ever want to read.
    ————-
    Politics
    10 Shocking Ways The West Abuses Developing Countries
    The developing world has been
    abused for centuries, used as a resource to be exploited for profit and
    gain. But now we’re in the 21st century, and everyone cares about being
    good. That’s why we have Fair Trade coffee with breakfast, right? Well,
    it’s a nice idea, but there are a lot of people on a lot of continents
    who could offer a strong argument that rich Westerners are still really
    bad news.
    http://listverse.com/2014/02/14/10-shocking-ways-the-west-abuses-developing-countries/

  • georgehants

    The Guardian
    Economics
    The end of capitalism has begun
    Without us noticing, we are entering the postcapitalist era. At the
    heart of further change to come is information technology, new ways of
    working and the sharing economy. The old ways will take a long while to
    disappear, but it’s time to be utopian
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun

  • georgehants

    Pentagon study declares American empire is ‘collapsing’
    Report demands massive expansion of military-industrial complex to maintain global ‘access to resources’
    An extraordinary new Pentagon study
    has concluded that the U.S.-backed international order established
    after World War 2 is “fraying” and may even be “collapsing”, leading the
    United States to lose its position of “primacy” in world affairs.
    The solution proposed to protect U.S. power in this new “post-primacy”
    environment is, however, more of the same: more surveillance, more
    propaganda (“strategic manipulation of perceptions”) and more military
    expansionism.
    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/pentagon-study-declares-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf

  • Best common sense article I’ve seen for a while. Rossi needs a Trump. Let Rossi do the science and let a crack businessman do the deals. No nonsense. Capitalism in full effect will solve the problem.

  • Steve Savage

    Chapman (and others) are exactly right …. Greed is good, it is the dominant human characteristic that has led our species to become so successful within this evolutionary sphere.

    George (and others) are also exactly right …. We would be much better off if we could just ignore the fact that Chapman is right, put aside the dominant modality of being human and work altruistically together on shared goals at local, regional and global levels.

    How can both these seemingly opposite views of human being be right and wrong at the same time? In my view, it is the result of the lack of precision in our language and our inability to be able to fully describe and, as a result understand, complex social/political/economic systems.

    What is “Community” – A system of rules and norms that allow individuals to live in some degree of harmony and common purpose. You should note that this includes common “prosperity” only to the extent that the nature of the common supports and promotes the ability of the individual to prosper.

    The truth is, we are in the process of balancing “self” versus “community”, and have always been involved in this process, since the beginning of our time. All the systems we have devised, of all types, scales and levels of formality can be seen as efforts to balance the needs (and hence motivations) of the individual against those of the community, writ large and small.

    Devising and proposing systems that ignore the central fact of being human,- that we are individuals and need to do the best we can for ourselves and also for, through ever tenuous bonds; family, village, region, city, country, etc. is not useful. System designed as such have never and, will never, work.

    If true altruism does exist, the evidence for it is just a wisp of a shadow of the evidence we see for greed (self interest) being the driver of all progress… Yet, we see many great things done in the name of building that benefits the community. How is this possible? It is very much an illusion… Individuals agree to and support systems only to the extent that they create economic conditions and circumstances (such as stability) that they can understand and that they can leverage for their own gain.

    It is the beauty of Adam Smith’s guiding hand that will always be true. It is magic, and is our salvation that each of us, acting in our own self interest, create a system that creates prosperity for everyone (eventually) … It is by far the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources, nothing else even comes close.

    There are some major problems with all this, free markets are also largely an illusion; Monopoly, Duopoly, difficulty of risk assessment, negative economies (such as, but not limited to, pollution), as well as Political, Social, Temporal, and Spatial distortions of free markets are all common and serious problems that cause people to doubt the benefits of free market systems. These reality based anomalies in the fabric of ideal free market based systems can be so detrimental (both temporally and spatially) that at times it may seem that the system is completely broken and is only working for the privileged few.

    Capitalism is a free market system, it is just not a particularly well optimized one. However, in effectiveness, it dwarfs any other system ever devised. We would be very smart indeed if we acknowledge the primacy of greed, and the effectiveness of free markets when we very carefully tinker with this system, always along the edges, and always to ensure that community benefits most strongly. We must work together to negate the problems that can arise with free market implementations such as our capitalism, and there is every import and urgency to do this. We need to create better systems to support free markets… But what we absolutely must never do is throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    • Buck

      There are many issues with your argument, but there is a fundamental flaw introduced in your third paragraph. It is the false premise that there is only the truth arrived at through the rational process of conceptualization and rendering into precise words.

      Our existence is made up of two truths, two perceptual realms fundamental to our evolutionary success: first, what we call the objective conceptualized truth, and second, the subjective experiential or existential truth. The first is the home of Reason and Science; the second the home of Faith. Both are necessary for a balanced life and mental/spiritual well being.

      Kant described this in his “Critique of Pure Reason”. Rabbi Soloveitchik described it as Adam 1 and Adam 2. Siddhartha Gautama Buddha described it as the Two Truths. And, Iain McGilchrist brought modern science of brain anatomy/physiology into this millennia old conversation in “The Master and his Emissary” when he described the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere of the human neo-cortex as functioning as the respective Two Truths.

      The central point of my differing opinion is that where you dismiss the issue of Balancing as a fundamentally fruitless path, I say that one must always endeavor to master this Balancing, of bringing together a Faith grounded in Reason. This is the fundamental premise of “The Golden Rule” or Kant’s “Categorical Imperatives” or Buddhism’s “The Middle Way”.

      It is not an either-or proposition as you argue. In the extreme, following the path of either-or is inherently self-destructive and will lead to either sociopathy or psychosis. There is no such thing as Good Greed.

      • Nick Sunchild

        I linke your Arguments, they Show exactly a fundamental flow.

        Imagine a Selfish Greedy Mother, its my Milk feed your self, Baby.

        Carrying a Children is a deep sharing and loving relationship. They who propagating greed as good, forget about how we come to life and forget that they survived only because someone cared, feed and cleaned them. There is no space for Selfishness and greed from the beginning on. That’s the true natural state.

        Maybe they are Selfish and greedy to there children, should we have a look?

      • Steve Savage

        A couple of thoughts on your interesting and well reasoned critique, for which I sincerely thank you. Many have lived their lives based on the “The Golden Rule” and “The Middle Way” many know them well, they seek, but do not always find, the balance. They do however, through the search, find meaning and purpose. I am one of the many and can safely say I agree with your observations in a general sense but not as it relates to what I have written. If you look again, perhaps from a slightly different angle (perspective is everything), you may discern a certain logical balance is very much central to my thesis. It is in what we are trying to balance that matters most, and in that I believe our individual and self serving nature deserves a central place.

        A rational outside observer of the human species must conclude that humans do not operate with a hive mind, but rather are individual actors motivated individually and pursuing individual goals. Any astute student of history must conclude that individual self interest has driven almost all of the important events in human history. This fact may be obscured as it usually occurs through a dictator or historically justified ruler, we often act through proxy either by choice or through force. In almost equal measure we can clearly see that working with others (and the self interest inherent within them) can be more beneficial to us than is working alone. When we put “community” ahead of our own self interest we do so only in terms of it’s short term effects, in the longer term, we certainly expect ourselves to be better off. Another thing that is true is that we are not necessarily purely (perhaps even mostly) rational actors, when it comes to self interest what may be interesting to you may not be interesting to me. When we analyse as scientist or philosophers we often assume the opposite.

        So what I am saying is that it is not either / or, but rather that it “greed” is at the heart of the human condition and that the only way to enhance outcomes for community is to acknowledge that reality and work to design systems based on that reality, I do believe that free market systems will accomplish this balance brilliantly, but they need to be tuned so as to mostly avoid, eliminate or severely limit the negative byproducts that happen when free markets operate in social and political systems that are not designed to optimize the free market characteristics strongly enough and let negative externalizations creep in.

        • Buck

          First, thank you for the positive words. In turn, I appreciate your effort to bring clarity to your position. I will work towards clarity in my response.

          Your position is well expressed in your second paragraph. However, I believe there is at least one important clarification to your discussion on our being individuals having the capacity of self-determination. This clarification highlights my point of difference with your position.

          We mature as individuals. The brain matures with physical development peaking at about 25, and consequently the Self goes through its own process of maturation. I appreciate Jung’s description of the phases or archetypes of individuation as his scope is infant/child to full adult. I also value Maslow’s hierarchy of self-actualization. And, of course there is the more metaphorical poetic expressions of Enlightenment and Awakening in Buddhism for example.

          My point here is that to attain the true self-determination you describe above, one must engender/nurture the Self through a self-discipline to make the shift from the dependent mind of the immature, an immature Self dependent upon the parental and social training in our childhood behaviors as the guide to behavior, to the mature mind . . . . the Self having Balance. I have a preference for using Jung’s term, the Archetypal Self, for the perspective of there being a natural basic structure of mind.

          And to bring focus to my point; I understand the core elements of this Archetypal Self to be composed of two key elements. The first: the evolved wisdom arising from the interplay/collaboration of the Two Truths, the Faith grounded in Reason. The second: the perceptual capability of empathy evolved into compassion encompassing Self and Other.

          With the above in mind, yes I agree that Greed is a possible negative expression of how Self may pursue Self-Interest. Further, Self-Interest is central to the definition of being an individual. But, Self-Interest and Greed are not equivalent states of being. Further, my position described above still holds: in the extreme Greed is inherently self-destructive. There is no such thing as Good Greed.

          And to your other point about constructing social systems supporting Greed. Our democracy has already done so: look at the laws covering fraud or theft for example. Further, look at how those individuals and corporations at the center of the 2008 world wide financial collapse were not prosecuted.

          For me, this last point highlights the danger of not confronting the arguments and expressions rooted in the philosophy of “Greed is Good”.

          • Steve Savage

            Thanks for the reply Buck….. Where do we draw the line between self interest and greed? Do we all draw the line the same way? Probably not! Are we going to set up a government agency to decide who gets what?

            I agree, greed is not the best way to structure a community/society, if everyone were “fully enlightened”. However, there are not, I am not, You are probably not, unless you have forsaken all wordily things and are currently working hard to feed the hungry children, every hour of every day, Most people are not, nor do they need to be… Without greed, we all would be hungry children, because without greed there is no reason to strive to do better and there is no surplus generated.

            We need to harness Individual motivations, take a little bit (or a lot in some cases) of the surplus that is thus created, for the benefit of the community. These community investments often have the added benefit of helping others to also create surpluses. We have followed this path imperfectly, but look at the results. Can you imagine what it would be like if we were to perfect it? We also must work to ensure that inequity is addressed, but must be careful to preserve motivation.

          • Buck

            We continue with the democracy that has brought great good; a democracy that epitomizes the idea of the melting pot. A nation of unique individuals expressing many different ways of being; a nation which supports the inevitable delicate, and the sometimes not so delicate balance of compromise.

      • Nick Sunchild

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c922a35e0a264e24a79789dfc3d6b385aff5d7d755c2aeca9383f585b6993fa.jpg

        @ Steve

        Greed is a choice. To say it is the core of humanity makes no sense at all.

        Greed exits only as a program in your mind, as a developed pattern.
        If you have a conciseness the size of a golf ball, you have a awareness the size off a golf ball.
        If you can expand your conciseness so you can see your greed, your awareness expands that you understand the impact on the society of your doing.

        Everyone who can’t change a pattern, don’t use the mind at all.

        To imply man acts greedy in general don’t count society’s that even don’t have a word for greed.

        I strongly disagree with individual conclusions, that starts with we have to come to that conclusion. No, we don’t have to agree with each other at all. Greed is not an Option in my Worldview.

        Greed is it the true root of all evil in this world and it has caused so much pain and suffering to humanity. It irritates me so bad it gets under my skin and gets me going. It has caused many world conflicts that I don’t see the point in someone being greedy. From everything that happens in the world, being greedy is that last thing that this world needs. Yes done by individuals what a shame.

        It’s sad that humanity as whole community didn’t stopped the individuals, we have to stand up and speak out loud, that is the red line, to here and no way more.

  • Warthog

    Ah, but why should the left be allowed all the fun of re-defining what words mean?? (And yes, I have a paper copy of the OED).

    A term not used yet in this discussion “enlightened self interest”. Like it or not, greed is part of the human condition. Harnessed it can be a force for good. Allowed to run rampant it can cause great evil. The Founding Fathers of the US understood that. Socialists do not (which is why, eventually, all attempts at socialist governance end up being controlled by the greedy).

    • Nick Sunchild

      It is never left against right and who have fun with it, it is always about your worldview your perception and how you act because of it. its about separation and controlling the separation. it has nothing to do what I like, it only shows what you like and express. look at your words, human condition as example. if you have a condition for greed excessive desires to have power and money, we can help you to heal it. ask and we help with joy. Greed exits in you and has nothing to do with a Political System. To precise it more, greed exits in all political systems special where power is centralized, because of the climate it creates. But again its your condition not the Political System that have Selfishness and the extreme expression greed.

      And the only thing what everyone can do, is changing your self, changing Your Conditions.

  • akupaku

    I thought first that this was a joke but it seems to be seriously meant. I would substitute the pretty negative and disgusting word “greed” with something more positive like “ambition”, “enthusiasm”, “zeal”, “commitment”, “devotion”, “earnestness”, “spirit”, “get-up-and-go”, “strive to achieve and accomplish”, etc.

    I don’t think that greed leads to anything good, on the contrary. There are many other much better and positive human characteristics that strive us to develop and become better and achieve whatever we desire. Greed does not cut it, it’s disgusting. And I am sure greed is not the main motive that drives humanity forward. Just the thought of a society where every individual is driven by greed makes me sick. What a horrible idea. I am glad is not true!

  • Steve Savage

    Am I being greedy when I go to harvest the grain I planted and I am left with more than I need, then I buy a window for my house while others in the village have less food than they need? Some will say yes, some will say no. Some see these as moral judgement some see them as practical considerations. Yet all will bow to the king in his castle. No matter how we answer, what we must recognize is that the only way we can act is in our self interest. We may judge that the window is our best interest or that helping our hungry neighbor is in our best interest, but in all cases it is in ourselves we must first think… By definition, this must be an absolute truth, to the extent that we are truly individual actors with self directed thoughts. We live with other people and cannot live alone for long, we MUST live with other people. So we constantly make delicate judgement calls throughout our lives in an attempt to balance our immediate individual needs in the current time to the longer term needs of fun, friends and family. We judge sometimes that these are more important than our immediate gratification. Purely defined Altruism does not and cannot exist. However, we can certainly act in a way that appears to be altruistic, it must be recognized those action must always be done in self interest.

    • georgehants

      Steve, your comment only makes sense up to the point where oneself and family have sufficient for their needs, beyond that it makes no sense at all.
      How do you explain, to take just one of many examples those doctors and nurses who put themselves in terrible danger to travel to war-zones to treat the injured no matter which side they are on.
      Where does the self-interest that you say must always come first fit with them, accepting that in this World there are many Wonderful people who gain self-respect and joy from helping others.
      Unfortunately there are many more, educated from birth to be nothing but greedy manipulates with no care for the suffering even in their own society’s.
      There is no excuse for GREED and SELFISHNESS, we all have our own minds and use them as our morals dictate.
      https://www.msf.org.uk/about-us

      • Steve Savage

        George…. Please do not misunderstand me, I believe I am describing reality, what is and why, my prescriptions abide no wishful or fanciful thinking. I fully agree with you that this is a horrible, unfair, stupid, dangerous and disastrous state of affairs. I believe the world should be much more like what you describe and what you and I both desire, that it should be less greedy and less selfish. It just does not work like that. The sad fact is that we have global problems and barely can work out national and regional solutions in some small cases. In many cases we can’t even provide solutions at a local level let alone state levels… If we ignore the central fact of our existence, that individual self interest drives everything, we will attempt systems and prescription that can never work!

        “The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.” – Adam Smith

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments Part VI

        To best understand how this (Greed) works out at a planetary level, take a few moments and listen to this Noam Chomsky interview from 2003.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqznqIpkZz0

        Adam Smith also warned about the concentration and abuses of power… see this interesting discussion here… http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.pe/2012/10/chomsky-on-smiths-vile-rulers-of-mankind.html

        Robert Reich and I are in agreement… If we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we shouldn’t be deterred by the myth of the “free market.” We can make the economy work for us, rather than the other way around. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/free-market_b_3935173.html

        • georgehants

          Steve, many thanks, Wonderful writing and views, I wish I could express myself so well.
          Best

  • Chapman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=ripQ9jJnw1c

    The important thing here is that from the Grasshoppers perspective, the ant was being GREEDY, and spending his time pursuing an excess beyond his immediate needs, while the Ant was looking forward, and making plans for the future.

    The Ant focused on what it saw as a need against future contingencies, but the Grasshopper only saw the Ant as being driven to manic levels of exertion by a sense of greed and paranoia. The Grasshopper did not share the Ants immediate worldview, and so he labeled the Ants labors as foolishness, but the Ants actions were wholly justified by the ANTS worldview.

    It was the narrow mindedness of the GRASSHOPPER that led him to label the efforts of others as unworthy, or to attempt to impose HIS idea of what was reasonable or necessary upon others.

    And of course, what Aesop DIDN’T tell you is that later, when the lazy, freeloading, couldn’t-spare-the-time-to-look-out-for-himself-when-he-had-the-chance Grasshopper was starving, he tried to get his congressman to sponsor a bill that would legalize letting the grasshopper masses (aka locust) STORM the anthill in order to “redistribute” the ill gotten wealth of the Ants, because they had more than their fair share, and that just doesn’t seem RIGHT or FAIR to silly grasshoppers in general.

  • Warthog

    History says otherwise.

    Here is your comment…..”People that have a shorter version of the
    ruthlessness gene (AVPR1a) are likely to behave more selfish.”

    “If” that meme becomes accepted, the left will immediately begin to push for elimination of those with the gene. Any intellectually honest person knows from the demonstrated facts of history that that WILL happen. It isn’t “socialist vs nationalist”….it is “socialist vs capitalist”.

    The simple fact is that a system of free enterprise HARNESSES greed, and turns it to benefit. Socialist philosophy at its very core says it will eliminate those persons who they define as “greedy”. Even a greedy individual has a right to life.

  • cashmemorz

    The problem I see with greed is that the ones who are medically unfit to use greed as a way to drive themselves to gain. I’m talking about those who would be diagnosed as psychopaths, no empathy. When business organisations interview prospective managers and find that it is just those kinds who will be able to lead their firm forward, come hell or high water, then that is where the problem starts. All of the others working in said firm may be all not greedy and kind people. But the leaders at the top keep the problem going. How do you stop such firm owners of from first hiring, keeping employed such psychopaths.Its about COMPETITION. If firm “A” owner doesn’t hire those kinds, the other firm “B” will and win in so doing.

    I just had a close view of exactly that happening when a relative of mine decided to hand in their resignation at her place of work for just that reason.
    When that relative could not, in good conscience, work full time & be able to take care of her children instead of farming away her kids while she worked, and then give up half her salary to have others take care of them, her employer gave her the option of working part time. Then the employer required more and more hours per part time worker until the difference between part timer workers time and full, began to disappear. The employer is considered the top best managed place to work. Best for who, the investors?

    The game is rigged in favor of psychopaths leading the system.
    But will said psychopaths admit to analysis by a psychiatrist? The employer won’t agree to that because that psychopath would rather go to a firm that doesn’t analyse psychopaths. Again competition. Competition uses whatever tools are available to stay ahead of the others in the same market place.

    When this kind of thing happens everyone wonders why is that guy greedy. It only looks like greed. If you don’t know exactly why that guy looks like he is acting like he is greedy. Its not the guy who is greedy, it is the system where competition is allowed to decide how wealth is accumulated. There is a saying in business, if you are not moving forward, you are or may as well be moving out.

  • Omega Z

    I have to agree with Chapman as some of what he says is “TRUE”… Greed does makes the world go round. BUT, That said, A “little greed” goes a long way.

    Motivation: How many people do you think wake up and say-
    I’M going to create something great for society,
    and how many wake up and say-
    I’m going to create something great for society that will make me filthy rich.

    This guy, I’m going to create something great for society that will make me filthy rich. Is he greedy or just trying to improve his lot that may be in a bad way. We don’t know.

    Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak. Wozniak just wanted to design and build computers and make a living. He walked away from the money. Steve Jobs on the other hand wanted to get filthy RICH.

    If you’ve paid attention, Steve Wozniak has since had a change of heart wishing to have stayed in the money. NO, I don’t think he became greedy. He’s just realized latter in life that had he went with the money, he could afford to create new things or do things to help and benefit the less fortunate. Caring and sharing requires money.

    Bill Gates became filthy rich. Today, the Bill and Melinda gates foundation donates about $2 Billion a year or more to help the needy and other causes. The foundation is a none profit, thus it’s profits must be used for charity. The foundation’s increase in value is only by it’s assets becoming more valuable or infusion of new donations to it. Gates recently transferred another $5 billion or so of his own personal assets which will increase charity spending by a couple $100 million a year..

    Some(Maybe most) may disagree on what charities Gates funds to which I have 2 thoughts. 1) It’s his foundation of mostly his money made possible. He can fund the charities he chooses. 2) He likely funds the less obvious as they need it more. The Obvious can be funded by others.

    Question. Why do people who become filthy rich just keep on keeping on. You may think it’s greed. More likely is they prefer to keep busy and they continue with what they are good at. Ultimately all that really matters is where the money ends up when they are gone. Bill Gates just adds more to the B&M foundation or even investing his own assets into other high risk endeavors like new forms of energy. So while Bill Gates may have been motivated by greed when he was younger, as he gets older, his priorities have changed. He is now paying it forward.

    It’s is my opinion that there is less greed in the world then most people believe. The big numbers thrown about by the media lead you to believe otherwise. The media doesn’t disassociate the difference between wealth/assets and cash money. Elon Musk will have an additional $5 billion in wealth/assets when the mega battery plant is done. You can’t spend a factory. Only the net income. Most of that will go to repay the money borrowed to build and furbish it for years to come. It the mean time, it will provide Billions of dollars in wages every year that provide people a living instead of a government welfare check. Also taxes that provide for those who haven’t a job.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • BillH

    Unfortunately this whole argument is based on a false premise, there is no evidence that a wise man said “greed is good”, it’s a throw away line said by an actor in a movie. I could just as easily say it was spoken by an extremely stupid man.

  • Chapman

    So… We started this conversation simply by observing that Rossi should focus on pursuing the E-Cat developement with a mindset of concentrating on his personal gain, because THAT is the path that will lead to the most rapid and widespread deployment of the tech, and will thus result in the maximum benefit to society as a whole – but ONLY as a byproduct of his single minded drive to personal success.

    A simple observation. And it has sparked some WONDERFUL and THOUGHTFUL debate. BRAVO! I congratulate, and personally THANK all the deep-thinking and logical persons who participated, and put in their thoughts, on both sides of the debate.

    But you can scan this whole thread, and quickly see a micro sample of what is wrong with our society as a whole, and why problems do not get resolved.

    Our society is riddled with issues that NEED to be openly addressed, and the only way to address those issues is for adults to DISCUSS them. One needs to be able to be frank about their worldview, and express their position on a topic, and take part in productive debates that serve to bring folks together, as minor differences of opinion are resolved, and perceptions are changed by the exchange of unique perspectives,and a new collective mindset is developed BY that debate process.

    But some folks are unable to have discussions. These are the ones who go from talking about a subject to suddenly throwing punches! Society breaks down when communication is rejected. When all one can do is throw temper tantrums, and turn ugly, and throw a wrench into a civilized discussion, you have to question the maturity, and validity, of the worldview THEY espouse. Yet they are PART of society, and should be part of the debate – but how can they be included into the solution process when their only response is to disrupt the process and PREVENT that communication from taking place? It is the biggest “catch-22” of all. You either include them, and get to no solutions or productive resolution at all, or you exclude them, and REACH consensus without their input, dealing ONLY with the adults in the room, and then deal with the complaints that THEY, the berserkers,were not fairly represented!

    All we were talking about, here, was the nature of greed, and it’s contribution to human social development, a fairly simple postulate, and LOOK at what we get!

    Meanwhile, society STILL needs to deal with issues regarding RACE, Abortion, Civil rights vs Personal rights in regards to matters such as LGBT issues and religious freedoms, and the list goes on and on…. But HERE we can clearly see why those issues can not be addressed and resolved. Because the moment the discussion STARTS, some people just abandon all self restraint, abandon all pretense to maturity or civility, and start throwing punches or even maltoff cocktails! This is what causes people to self-segregate. To “hang” only with people who are of like minds. And that leads to the kind of social divisions we see all around us. It is not that people are racist, or against other cultures, or that they think others are evil based upon their sexual preference, but rather that is is just not SAFE to expose themselves to the RADICAL portion of that other group. And EVERY GROUP has it’s radicalized factions – the spastics – but if there is not a mutual agreement amongst groups to self police their community, and restrain the worst elements within, then interaction and communication BETWEEN the groups is impossible, and problems never get resolved, and that just gives the wackadoos more to scream about.

    It is a self-perpetuating cycle of anger and social shattering.

    • georgehants

      Chapman, your comment seems nothing but a pathetic attempt at self-justification for your views, shared by all the racist, prejudiced, non-caring members of society.
      Don’t try and blame others for getting upset by yours and people like you preaching that GREED is good or that Blacks are bad, or any such tripe.
      If you wish to put your untenable situation right, then comment here and now that yes all the problems you mention and many more are all around us and need resolution, GREED and SELFISHNESS will not resolve those problems but a societal change to caring and sharing as the norm.
      When and if you then bring up valid points in any direction, people will discuss fairly with you as I have throughout until you clearly answered my question ——-
      ——–
      I asked —–
      “Chapman would you like to remove all the hand waving and state clearly
      if you believe that the system we all live under creates unfair
      inequality and suffering and a new system to right those faults would be
      desirable?
      Or does your admitted Greed override all care.
      A simple yes or no will suffice.
      You replied “NO”
      ———
      So don’t sit now trying to make out you where having a constructive discussion or testing the water and showing people can not discuss fairly.
      Try reading the comments and reply’s on this page, covered with condemnation for your views and Evidence showing you the effects of GREED.
      You made your views clear, that you do not give a damn about anybody but yourself.
      Live with it and don’t blame others.

      • Chapman
        • Buck

          Cute form of an insult . . . an image of a metabolite of asenopine, an anti-psychotic drug.

          • Chapman

            Buck…

            Your posts are thoughtful, insightful, and well presented. I disagree with many of your conclusions, but it is exactly YOUR style of conversing that actually has a chance of changing other peoples minds. For this I give you my deepest respect…

            BUT! (yes, there is ALWAYS a BUT..) Just as you miss the distinction between a person actually BEING greedy, and that person merely being LABELED as greedy by others who are seeking to pass judgment upon their peers based upon their own personal interpretation of what “enough” is, AND while you were quick enough to understand the relevance of my post, you utterly failed to properly interpret my intent!

            What you refer to as an “Obscure form of a visual insult” I consider to be a heartfelt, and clearly appropriate, helpful suggestion couched in a form that would not be understandable unless there was, in fact, enough functioning or salvageable gray matter remaining so as to justify the effort. In this way, I would not be offending if the case is to far gone for intervention. I would expect a thoughtful man such as yourself would commend me for the delicacy with which I conveyed my advice!

          • Chapman

            Where, oh WHERE, would we be without Dr. Demento???

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGnYoq3C1OY

  • Omega Z

    Regardless of what system, there will always be those who have more. Those who save a little every week and put it away and those who spend every cent partying every weekend. 20 years from now, those who partied will complain that others have more and should be forced to share it with them. Otherwise, they are just greedy SOB’s.

    What’s important is that we try to give people an opportunity to provide for themselves. Then if they should choose to party and have nothing, it is only their fault.

  • Zephir

    I can only disagree with the above article. The greediness is actually the largest enemy and dark matter of progress. The greediness of inventors is in par with greediness of government / fossil fuel / military / big pharma lobby and main reason of censorship of information. Just at the case of private greediness the information is censored from inside before public, whereas at the case of fossil fuel lobby it’s censored from outside. Thousands of findings and inventions were hidden before public, just because their inventors didn’t want to release all details. As the result, they never become rich and they died with their achievements forgotten. Andrea Rossi isn’t young already and he is at best track to follow their destiny.

    123

  • Warthog

    “…aggrandize the few tremendously, with minor benefit trickling down
    through the organizational infrastructure, eventually manifesting as
    tiny relative net benefit to customers and clients….

    See “nomenklatura”. Communism/socialism has exactly the same practical result…only worse. At least under capitalism mass starvation isn’t a problem.

    I draw most of my “exegesis of socialist philosophy” from observation and study of the history that has happened during the 20th century (and continues into the 21st).