/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4255106]

the world is going about creating wealth and furthering human civilization the entirely wrong way. We are single mindedly focusing on generating monetary wealth by ''giving wealth'' to countries that need it e.c.t

This is an entirely wrong way of going about improving lifestyles, wealth and prosperity.

>skip to the next =========================== to TL;DR fundamentals of this evaluation.

====================================

Monetary wealth is a human made concept, while it may give people immediate satisfaction through ability to purchase products and improve their consumer lifestyle, if you gave a million dollars to everyone on earth, the act of simply ''magicking 7x10^15'' dollars into existence lessens the value of each dollar in existence. A dollar is supposed to signify a certain ammount of work done, the energy it took to create that note of ''power'' which is why people do things for said dollars as they ammount to stored work. At any instant, the total ammount of work done and stored in the world is finite, so adding dollars into this system (of which a finite ammount of work is availiable) lessens the value of said dollars. Simply put, this is the effect of inflation. So simply giving free money to everybody will not solve poverty, nor will it improve lives. The only way to end ''poverty'' would be to take all availiable monetary value and eqally distribute it between every person on earth, which is ofcourse a completely retarded and communistic idea which would never work in reality.

Even if that did occur, poverty would be eliminated, but everyone's wealth would have diminished to equal levels... not improving the prosperity of humanity or increasing the wealth of humanity but simply distributing a small ammount of wealth to everyone.

What people fail to realise is that energy is and always has been the key to wealth. As I said before, wealth is the ability to do/use more work.

[Anonymous No.4255110]

The answer to end poverty and increase everybody's wealth in real terms is extremely simple... so simple infact, it is trivial.

We (humanity) must generate more energy/work/electricity. The more energy that is availiable to use, the more work each person has access to using, therefore wealth.

Stored work allows us to travel further, faster and longer. Stored wealth allows us to generate heat in homes, generate light and communicate. Stored work also allows us to create means to effiiently use this energy, building more efficient energy transferance devices or machines such as efficient cars, lighting and even more efficient ways of generating energy itself.

That dollar you use to buy a packet of crisps is being used to exchange for the work which was carried out to generate that dollar in exchange for the work used to transport, assemble and manufacture all the components of that packet of crisps. From the fuel to power farming equipment, transporting various ingredients or to run the factories to the energy used by the distributor to power the computers to facilitate the route planning and order forms to distribute those materials. Pretty much every human endevour boils down to how much work potential you have availiable and how efficiently you can use it.

======================================

[Anonymous No.4255125]

To increase findamental wealth of our countries and citizens we must generate MUCH more energy, easily a hundredfold more than we currently do. Making energy as ''cheap'' and abundant as possible is essential to a wealthy and prosperous civilization. We need a new breakthrough in energy generation, similar to the Egyptians first use of slaves to build their empire... the widespread use of coal by the British in the industrial revolution to lead the world in technology and most recently the utilization of easy-to-access oil reserves. As each energy revolution before, the use of the newfound source sparked massive increases in wealth and technology but eventually hit a roof, be it supply, environmental or social.

Furthermore, the recent rise in importance of ''being green'' has seriously hampered our ability to generate energy cheaply and quickly, which has resulted in economic and social stagnation due to high ''price'' of oil (which is simply the fact that more work needs to be done to get work-producing resources than before). Oil now faces relative scarcity (there is definately not enough of it to provide the energy for our next leapfrog in technology), increasing opposition of social use (increasing red tape, taxation and resistance for use), both resulting in a slowdown of wealth throughout the world.

Just as oil cannot satisfy our need for energy, ''green'' technology is equally unfit to replace it. Whereas we COULD probably run our world on mostly green technology and improve our energy efficiency to a great degree, both result in either a limit to our wealth generating potential or infact a decrease in our wealth (if we reduce the energy we use to ''offset'' cost, which results in use being able to do less work, reducing our wealth)

[Anonymous No.4255126]

At the moment, Nuclear power is possibly our easiest route to generating and fufilling our next stage of energy demands, but Nuclear power has a lot of stigma and danger attatched, resulting in a percieved increase of ''cost'' reducing the chance of widescale use of nuclear energy.

There are several technologies currently in development which COULD allow us to take our next step, but al of these are still decades away from being truly implemented.

TL;DR main points:

Going green is good for the environment, but not good for humanity.
Society is currently looking at our wealth/energy problems backwards. We need to generate/use MORE energy, not less. We need to reduce simply giving other countris/people ''money'' and instead provide them with cheaper energy.
We do infact, need to become less dependant on oil.

[Anonymous No.4255132]

>>4255126
>>4255125
>>4255110
>>4255106
TL;DR

[Anonymous No.4255145]

>>4255125
The ancient Egyptians never used slaves to build.

[Anonymous No.4255154]

>>4255145
wat

http://www.aldokkan.com/society/slavery.htm

[Anonymous No.4255159]

>>4255126
>Going green is good for the environment, but not good for humanity.
Having a functioning biosphere is good for humanity. You're just being unimaginative assuming that the only way humanity can live good lives is the same intense resource exploitation as a fraction of the world has been relying on for a century and a half.

>Society is currently looking at our wealth/energy problems backwards. We need to generate/use MORE energy, not less. We need to reduce simply giving other countris/people ''money'' and instead provide them with cheaper energy.
In keeping to this economic structure, you retain reliance on perpetual growth, which is insane.

>We do infact, need to become less dependant on oil.
We will become less dependent on oil whether we like it or not.

[Anonymous No.4255162]

>>4255145
OP here.
I Now I know what kind of people believe in ancient aliens.
So, how long do you think it took them to build the myramids?

[(e^(i*pi))+1 !cEqiNxUA6E No.4255166]

>>4255106
>>4255110
>>4255125
>>4255126
Yes

[Anonymous No.4255177]

>>4255159
>Having a functioning biosphere is good for humanity. You're just being unimaginative assuming that the only way humanity can live good lives is the same intense resource exploitation as a fraction of the world has been relying on for a century and a half.

Good points, but still missing the most vital point. I am talking about creation of wealth. With wealth comes the ability to repair biospheres. Ofcourse having a good biosphere is vital for humanity, but ''green energy projects'' themselves only address the environmental side. They do not generate sufficient energy to provide benefit to society. Only stasis.
With an expanding population, statis is bad. Not only that, but human endevour should be projected towards increasing Every person's wealth on earth, not redistributing it.

[Anonymous No.4255180]

Problem is OP we already have enough energy for everyone in the world to escape poverty , it's just that energy is not distributed evenly.

I'm not saying that we should all have access to the same amount of energy , but that all humans should be given a basic amount to live.

[Anonymous No.4255190]

>>4255180

You might have to add that we need to limit our population so that we don't exceed our limits, as well.

I am not sponsoring the wholesale slaughter of people, genocide, or rampant abortions. What I am saying is that we do need to slow down our reproduction, or we are fucked.

[Anonymous No.4255191]

>>4255180
agreed.
But that still perpetuates stasis. Despite lifting people out of poverty, it still leaves humanity at the same energy poor stage.

We need to have the ability for the common person to be able to travel around the world and not have it cost 10% of their yearly earnings.

[Anonymous No.4255205]

>>4255191

> We need to have the ability for the common person to be able to travel around the world and not have it cost 10% of their yearly earnings.

This is a problem of demand, not supply. There are billions of us all trying to compete for the same resources, and all of us want more than the next.

Travelling around the world is in high demand, because it is currently useful in controlling wealth (as OP has propositioned as being the key to wealth).

[Anonymous No.4255216]

>>4255177
>With wealth comes the ability to repair biospheres.
Not really. The major way this has been occurring in wealthy countries is by outsourcing the environmental damage to other, poorer countries. This leads to ecosystems being repaired in the first world because they repair themselves when left alone. The wealthy standard of living is still coming at the cost of environmental destruction, it's just happening further away then it was previously.

>Ofcourse having a good biosphere is vital for humanity, but ''green energy projects'' themselves only address the environmental side. They do not generate sufficient energy to provide benefit to society. Only stasis.
That's not necessarily true. What they are is a reaction to the past historical trend of economic development being pursued without regard to environmental effect. In essence, externalizing economic costs to the poor, and to future generations.

>With an expanding population, statis is bad.
An expanding population is bad to begin with. Assissting it would be worse.

>Not only that, but human endevour should be projected towards increasing Every person's wealth on earth, not redistributing it.
Which is not what economic growth according to the popular paradigm you're trying to save has been doing. It has been entirely about redistribution and externalization of costs.

[Anonymous No.4255217]

>>4255190
>>4255190
aha, I was waiting for somebody to say this.

You are correct, at our currentability to produce energy, yes, our population is too large and is expanding too fast to be supported. This is why we need the next step in energy production to happen sooner rather than later. Sidetracts like green energy simply slow us down and encourage anti-development solutions.

Think about this. With energy production increased a hundredfold, launching a real space programme would be easily possible. Solar development IS the next step, the next leapfrog you could put it. We need to be able to generate enough wealth so people can viably afford to be transported around the solar system. At that point we no longer need to limit our population growth as we will have the entire solar system to expand out to.

We are currently constricted in availiable resources, energy and land, which are the main causes of most of the world's problems today. With sufficient energy we can simply expand outwards rather than condense inwards.

[Anonymous No.4255227]

>>4255190

>You might have to add that we need to limit our
population so that we don't exceed our limits, as well.

Actually it seems that this is not necessary , only in industrializing nations is there rampant growth. For example were I live (Canada) our birth rate is so low we don't reproduce enough to sustain our small population of 30 mill people. The only reason were growing is due to immigration.

The U.S. is similar it only reaches it's sustainable birth rates because of Hispanics.

[Anonymous No.4255242]

>>4255217

If we remove wealth with the ability to control energy, then I would agree on most points.

Unfortunately, I don't think that pursuing green energy and technology is a waste of time. It promotes an understanding of ecological systems, which will be very important when said systems are isolated in biodomes or ships. Learning to recycle and balance with the nature around you (artificial or not) is vital to survival.

> Note I said green energy/tech. Green politics is absolute shit.

I'd also have to argue with energy production. There is a limited amount on Earth, and we're only accruing so much more every moment from the Sun. Eventually, we're going to have to figure out how to ration and store up more, since there is no way to make it from nothing (as of yet).

[Anonymous No.4255250]

>Not really. The major way this has been occurring in wealthy countries is by outsourcing the environmental damage to other, poorer countries. This leads to ecosystems being repaired in the first world because they repair themselves when left alone. The wealthy standard of living is still coming at the cost of environmental destruction, it's just happening further away then it was previously.
Firstly, you are right, we need to reduce environmentally damaging methods of energy production. Not only because of their environmental impacts, but BECAUSE they do not generate enough energy anyway. Secondly like I said, the ''wealthy'' nations are energy-rich nations. The poorer nations are such because they are still behind in energy technology and availiability.

>That's not necessarily true. What they are is a reaction to the past historical trend of economic development being pursued without regard to environmental effect. In essence, externalizing economic costs to the poor, and to future generations.

the poor are only poor because energy ''costs'' so much. This is my entire point, the whole problem is energy production, not monetary wealth itself. Basing your energy production on low production methods such as wind power will only futher problems of poverty.

[Anonymous No.4255251]

>>4255227

This might be right. Do you have sources or citations? (Not arguing, just interested. I would have assumed greater technology to have safe births/longer lives would cause larger populations.)

[Anonymous No.4255300]

but what could produce so much energy?

[Anonymous No.4255331]

>Thinking of wealth as money

Money isn't wealth. Wealth is stuff people want. Money is simply a medium of exchange which we use to represent wealth because we can turn it into wealth. Money itself is not wealth though.

Work is not wealth either. If you try to bake a cake but you suck at baking and the cake turns out badly and no one wants it, you have used up work (and energy) but produced no wealth.

The distance between the poorest person and the richest person can only increase with technology. Technology magnifies the difference between the most productive person and the least productive person. The most productive person produces the most wealth and compensated very poorly for his efforts. The least productive person produces the least wealth (if they produce any at all) and are compensated the best for their efforts.

The most productive will only receive a fraction of the wealth they create. Someone with a job but who creates very little wealth will receive many times the amount of wealth they have created. The ratio of wealth created:compensation is very bad for the most productive person even if that person is a CEO. Think about all the value which Bill Gates has brought about by driving down the prices of personal computers. His wealth is only a small sliver of that. Think about the lazy welfare recipient. They receive many times the wealth that they created for they create 0 wealth.

[Anonymous No.4255334]

>>4255331
last two paragraphs because I couldn't fit them with that post.

When people far removed from the creation of wealth read about the distribution of income, they think injustice because they do not produce very much. Indeed the politician, the reporter and the college student's model for wealth is that it is a pie. The pie should be divided up equally. They do not realize that the pie is made bigger by creating more things that people want. And those who increase the size of the pie are increasing their slice of the pie if it weren't for less productive employees, shareholders who are no longer productive but provide useful capital and the government which extorts and steals without discrimination.

I'm not even sure what I'm on about any more but your posts seem to think that money is wealth, all energy and labour is used for useful work, and that it is possible to equalize productivity. If everyone's output is equal, it isn't because you have lots of Einsteins but more likely because you have none.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255351]

>>4255177

Protecting the environment does generate wealth.

Think of it like this.

You can have a healthy environment or cars. Either one or the other. In this regard having the environment comes at the cost of cars. However if we invest money into technology and efforts that can make us more efficient and smarter, we can have cars and an environment.

We have become wealthier because we have more than what we did before.

[Anonymous No.4255358]

>>4255331
no, but thats wrong you retard.
In using the energy in the first place he has increased wealth through a medium of exchange between him and his energy provider AND he has used up finite energy, raising the cost of all other energy in the world, however miniscule the effect.

The destruction of the materials used in the cake also increase the value of other cake related produce by removing excess from the supply.

maybe he should invest some more energy in going to a cooking class and learning how to cook so he can transfer wealth from the energy grid to a cake more EFFICIENTLY

[Anonymous No.4255373]

>>4255334
energy, labour, wealth and work are infect the same thing in different stores. The efficiency of transfer between these dictate just how much wealth is retained and adds to the system as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4255388]

>>4255358
The value of the materials going into the cake is something. People want the materials which went into it. Wealth went into the cake.
The value of the cake is nothing. No one wants it, it is not wealth.
He has actually destroyed wealth in this manner. He has also lost some of his wealth as represented by the medium of exchange. He cannot regain the money which went into making the failcake.
It was just an example to show that simply using energy does not create wealth.

[Anonymous No.4255394]

>>4255351
only to a certain point. Focusing on the environment limits you to ''green'' technology. It does negate the environmental cost BUT that cost is ease of generating energy.

Frankly, both fossil fuels AND green energy are 2 sides of the same coin. They both have equal cost and perpetuate stasis. We need to focus on developing much more radial means of generating energy, such as Nuclear

[Anonymous No.4255397]

>>4255373
Labour, work, and energy can have value but they don't necessarily have value.
Wealth is, essentially, value itself.

[Anonymous No.4255407]

>>4255388

The point is not with what you do with the energy, but that the energy is availiable to use. Wether or not the person can bake a good cake or not is irrelevant. The fact that he has the CHANCE to create a cake, which could be valuable, is wealth in itself.

Without the energy to attempt to make the cake, there is no chance whatsoever of making a delicious cake.

[Anonymous No.4255419]

tl;dr your fucking posts, and your main points don't seem too good.

Bill Gates support the green movement and he seems to know what he's doing in regards to helping humanity.
>pic related: he's goddamn batman

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255425]

>>4255388

Why would anyone make a cake if they didnt want the cake?

[Anonymous No.4255423]

>>4255407
How is energy different from any other commodity then? How is it different from the flour which went into the cake? That it has more uses or fulfill more needs? That it has a far cheaper price/utility ratio?

[Anonymous No.4255433]

>>4255397
>Labour, work, and energy can have value but they don't necessarily have value.
Wealth is, essentially, value itself.

Labour is simply the human form of work. Labour can be stored in wealth. If somebody has wealth, they can give that wealth to the person in exchange for labour. That labour is a store of potential energy, which can be used to make more wealth, more energy or use wealth and energy to make a product which can be exchanged for labour or wealth.

The process of exchange is down to how efficiently you can interchange between each state of wealth.

[Anonymous No.4255439]

>>4255423
everything is a store of energy. The percieved value of items depends on how much energy went into that item and how esily the energy of that item can be utilised.

[Anonymous No.4255447]

the basis is that everything we do requires energy. The more energy we have, the more stuff we can do.

[Anonymous No.4255451]

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255452]

I dont think you guys are using the word "wealth" in any sort of technically accurate sense.

[Anonymous No.4255454]

>>4255447

[Anonymous No.4255470]

>>4255447
this

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255481]

>>4255447
>>4255454
>>4255470

Its also true that the more efficient we become with energy the more we can do. You dont necessarily need to increase the amount of energy at your disposal.

[Anonymous No.4255493]

>>4255481
indeed. however, getting that initial efficiency increase always costs a significant ammount of energy and even once you have surpassed the energy debt period, savings of 10% are hard to come by.

10% is not enough to have the next technological revolution.

[Anonymous No.4255512]

>>4255481
What if we are already pareto optimal? We've hit a ceiling with the current paradigm of energy.

This isn't true yet, but it will be quite soon.

[Anonymous No.4255517]

>>4255439
My point being precisely that it is possible to put a lot of energy into something whose value could still be nothing. Not all energy has value, not all labour has value.

>>4255433
The product itself is wealth. Very few people want the intermediary parts in a manufacturing process. Someone will use the medium of exchange which they got by trading away wealth they created in order to hire someone to help him make more wealth which can then be traded for more money. The wealth is gone as soon as it has been turned into money. The employee can also derp around all day and be less than productive and receive money despite not creating any wealth.

>>4255425
Maybe they carried out the measurements wrong or forgot an important ingredient. The end product is an inedible cake which therefore has no value though.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255538]

>>4255493

You seem to have very strict feelings regarding efficiency. As in the only way of attaining greater efficiency is by paying a well understood price to attain a well understood outcome. I dont share these feelings.

If we could be more efficient today, we would be. We arent because we dont know how to be. The nature of being more efficient is unknown, therefore the costs and benefits are unknown. Since we dont understand what we are dealing with there is no particular course of action that we should do to. It could be discovered by hard work every day or hanging out on 4chan.

Not, what I said isnt realistic either. I think that the reality is some middle ground. Everything is only partially understood and the costs and benefits are themselves vague. As long as there is ambiguoity we cant act like we know exactly how many dollars of science we need to buy to save the world, which I think it basically what OP is doing (not that I read anything he said).

>>4255512

How could you know that? I could be misunderstanding you, but I believe you are suggesting we cannot become more efficient anymore.

There is still more to learn, and there is still more to develop. As long as there is some potential in some area of work I think that implies we have no maxed out our "efficiency coefficient."

Besides, I think there is an element of social efficiency too. Even what is "pareto efficient" is not necessarily best.

[Anonymous No.4255572]

>>4255538
>How could you know that? I could be misunderstanding you, but I believe you are suggesting we cannot become more efficient anymore.
No you understand me. Our current methods of energy production limit us to a certain amount of energy. Like for instance, there is no humanly possible way to create the iron man suit. It's energy consumption is beyond that which we are currently able to produce. So until the next big breakthrough in energy, (most likely fusion of sorts), by increasing efficiency we are only getting closer and closer to a ceiling.

[Anonymous No.4255580]

each person in the US uses 327,380,000,000 joules (327 billion) per year

the world's production of energy is 474×10^18 joules (474 billion billion joules) per year

2.29x10^21 joules would be required per year if eevryone in the world used as much energy as the average american (which is still pretty energy poor in relation to technology)

This is almost five times as much energy as we produce currently. This would satisfy everybody in the world being as energy-wealthy as the average american. However, the average American still needs to pay a large chunk of their paycheck to travel and energy costs. England for example is classed as in energy poverty by having most of its residents paying 30% of their wages on energy and travel costs alone, before tax. America is not far behind.

We would need to generate 50x our current output to hae everyone in the world be able to satisfy their energy and travel costs to below 5% of their paycheck. This would effectively make everyone ''energy rich'' thus improving the wealth of society as a whole and allowing people to do much more than they could before, such as travel across the world monthly rather than yearly, allowing peoiple to do much more with their lives.

Eventually sometimes in the distant future we should get energy costs down so low, a single person would have access to activities as energy intensive as running a modern city, which would translate into being able to economically travel into space.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255585]

>>4255572

If we became more efficient, the ceiling rises of our energy production.

There is no way to creat an Iron Man suit... given our certain technological constraints (technology being synonymous with efficiency in economics as I know it).

Perhaps a physicist could argue that there are physical constraints, but I am unaware of these.

[Anonymous No.4255595]

>>4255572
OP here. Exactly what this guy said. We are currently limited to a certain ammount of energy, therefore wealth and ability. What we are currently doing is messing around with green energy to ''scrape back'' morsels of efficiency and perpetuality. However, green energy cannot satisfy future energy demands, nor can oil.

We need the enxt big breakthrough. which would allow you to travel around the world for a fraction of the cost, therefore increasing your ability to do work, therefore your wealth.

[Anonymous No.4255609]

>>4255585
>There is no way to creat an Iron Man suit
I disagree with your statement. Current means of energy production and technology means in our current state we cannot create a functioning iron man suit. However If we concentrated more on how to generate massively larger ammounts of energy rather than how we can scrape single percentage points from our current production, we could eventually devise a way to generate the kind of energy a suit like that would need.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255618]

>>4255609

I agree completely.

Sorry, I cant type. By "Certain" I meant "current."

Given a present present technology we cant do it. But I absolutely agree that it could be possible with future efficiency/technology.

[Anonymous No.4255622]

you could create the suit and plug it into the mains ie national grid.

then when you have quantified the energy required you can go about developing a solution specifically for the problem.

[Anonymous No.4255623]

>>4255618
It's not future technology. All of the technology currently exists.
We have:
-robotics
-vision software
-missiles
-guns
-display technology
-etc.
It's the energy needed to power it. That's why in the movie he has to create a mini fusion reactor...

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4255642]

>>4255623

I believe creating such a reactor constitutes technology/efficiency.

Its true, fields like robotics, computer software, weapons technology all exist today, but that doesnt imply the "technology" exists. It just means people are actively doing research in these fields.

We might have reactors, and laser beams, and armor suits, but perhaps under current technologic constraints we cannot build something that small, powerful, and reliable.

Thats what "technology" means. Sorry if I am using that word in a weird regard. I am just trying to talk about this in a framework I understand, which is economics. I dont mean technology as in physical stuff, I mean technology as in potential and capacity.

[Anonymous No.4255651]

>>4255642
There's your problem. You keep thinking about things like a scumbag economist.

If you weren't so narrow in your application of knowledge you'd have a better understanding of this thread.

[Anonymous No.4255655]

>>4255623
say you want a ''shield'' to stop a bullet instantly (less than 0.1 seconds) you would need to provide a massive equal and opposite force.

if you had a bullet travelling at 1km/s with a mass of 100g the KE of the projectile would be 1/2(mv^2) = 500,000 joules of energy.

to stop that bullet in 0.1 second you would need an opposing force with the equivalent of 5 megawatts of power.

[Anonymous No.4255662]

>>4255655

50,000 joules*

you would need a wattage of 500 Kwatts

[Anonymous No.4255681]

>>4255662
>>4255655
and thats just for a single bullet. Not counting explosives or other applications like the jet boots.

If you had 10 rounds per second hitting you, you would need 5megawatts of power on the go. Also, on second thought, you would need to stop the bullet in a much shorter time than 0.1 second. Since it's travelling at 1km/s you would need to stop it within it travelling about a mm.

You would need to stop the bullet in 1 millionth of a second. requiring a power of 50 ggawatts... so yeah. A lot of power when you actually get down to it.

[Anonymous No.4255690]

there was that guy that made the bear suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWiPiks1sU&feature=related

and that looks like a really long time ago.

im thinking that if there was money behind it then iron man would have been a lot closer to reality.

[Anonymous No.4255729]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNEOI7bYl3c

[Anonymous No.4255737]

>>4255690 outside
+
>>4255729 inside
+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbQk4F_rRD0

well all it needs is lazers and rocketboots.