TaN: Because the predominant global belief and attitude is that money is the solution to every problem, when money becomes the problem what will now be used to solve problem?
First of all, money is the cause of many problems that can be easily solved but are not due to its lack or absence. A case in point is a bridge I saw in an investigative report by 60 Minutes (of CBS) which is a vital link for commerce but is more than a century old and is badly in need of repairs and retrofitting. However, because there are no funds for the project, the bridge is seen as a disaster waiting to happen.
Another case in point are the urgent need of medicines and medical equipment for millions of poor people in poor countries but due to the prohibitive cost of most patented drugs and equipment, the poor are left to suffer in misery and wanting. Further is the case of products — especially food — sourced from poor countries and bound for the rich nations, where the domestic is deprived of vital goods simply because they fetch a better and higher price abroad.
And as we return to the original or initial statement, what happens now should money, the usual solution to problems, become the problem. In addition, the common argument is to borrow money, but this presents a problem because the loan will have to be paid back and should the debtor (individual or nation) be unable to generate enough money to pay back the loan, then the problem merely adds up and the debtor goes deeper and deeper into debt.
The truth is that money is usually the worst or last solution. Whenever a non-monetary solution can be used, do it. The best solution is always collaboration and cooperation where people join hands and share in the solution of the problem. As the saying goes, Many hands make light work.
Money has gained too much of an importance and people forget that there used to be times when there was no money to throw at problems. People shared ideas and experiences and talents and skills and time and resources for the common good.
It is (high) time we go back to basics — to set aside, but totally abandon, money as the solution to all problems. Let our collective genius and efforts be our primary and frequent means to solve problems.
Money has its place. It should not be accorded importance more than what should be, otherwise we will be at the mercy of those with the larger share of the money. We all become slaves to Mammon.
TaN: Patents and intellectual property rights (IPRs) are anti-social; they are monopolistic and capitalistic — so do not give me your bovine ordure about how they benefit society. The only “saving grace” (probably and hopefully) is the “prescriptive period” which limits the length of time the monopoly over the patented item or the IPRs are in effect.
Moreover, during the whole duration of the monopoly, because there is no such “animal” as a perfect invention or innovation, there are bound to be flaws uncovered or discovered along the way (by people other than the inventor/innovator or any authorized party). But since the patent or IPR effectively obstructs or blocks any attempt to correct the flaw (without violating the patent/IPR), users will be prevented and deprived of better utilization, for it cannot be expected that the inventor/innovator will be the one to find the flaw and institute corrections. In addition, most selfish and greedy inventor/innovator, upon discovering the flaw, would tend to defer rectification until the patent/IPR is lapsed to make the changes in order to extend and renew the monopoly period.
Furthermore, even if assuming that there are no flaws, there will always be instances where there will be improvements that can be made during the monopoly period but since the patent or IPR effectively prevents and prohibits others — not the inventor/innovator or any authorized party — from making or initiating improvements. Again, this is characteristic of selfish,, greedy people who would have the propensity to defer improvements in order to introduce it at the expiration of the patent/IPR in order to extend the monopoly period.
This being said, it is only moral for things that are needs be exempt from, if not a short and non-extendable nor renewable (or whatever-able), monopoly period to the benefit of all. It is terribly wrong that profit should be gained from needs. [NOTA BENE: It is vital that the distinction between need and want be clearly defined, comprehended, and appreciated.]
TaN: Where does the stuff to make planets come from — because it certainly cannot be from the surrounding cosmic space nor from debris from super novas. Much of star stuff are hydrogen and helium and not much (in terms of physical spatial or volume occupancy proportion) of the heavier elements. So?
It is generally accepted (in astrophysics) that when a star uses up a significant and sufficient amount of its hydrogen into helium and the helium into carbon (then later iron and so on), the core collapses and ejects much of the outer layer into the surroundings — so it is the lighter elements that are ejected and much, if not all, of the heavy elements remain in the core.
If this is the case, it is a mystery how or where did the planets and other non-stellar bodies get the heavy elements that make up much of their material since it cannot be from the materials ejected from a collapsing star. Moreover, perhaps it could even be possible that heavy elements are broken up into lighter elements during the violent process of nova or supernova so, again, how and where did such heavy elements as uranium come from?
Still further, the formation of heavy elements from ejected star materials cannot be from gravitational force because the mass of the celestial body is not massive enough (as that of a star) to overcome the nuclear force that holds the atomic structure.
Finally, if massive gravitational forces at the star core can compress and squash the atoms to form heavier elements, could it be possible that there are even heavier elements that are not found or yet known to man — because the gravitational force at the star core is far greater than any man-made process to create “synthetic” heavy elements (beyond the current heaviest Ununoctium or element 118). What is the limit where the heaviest atom that can exist or made by man?