Should I watch the film “Elysium”, James?
Oh, it isn’t bad, but it’s not particularly special other than to give you a feel of the environment. The script could have been much better.
Who was quoted there?
That’s right. Greed is NOT good. Greed is very bad, unhealthy, and homicidal.
And RM:AO teaches the limits of greed, why they are the limits, and what happens when they are exceeded.
But you are no member of the Club of Rome? 
:-" 
The term “limits to greed” reminds me of the term “limits to growth”:
And you are also not Joseph Martin Fischer or Al Gore? :-"
Yep, both express the same concern and conclusion. The difference is that RM:AO is irrefutable.
So you are saying that the “limits to growth” of the Club of Rome are refutable.
Certainly. They take statistical data and presume to extrapolate principles. Their premises could be wrong (much like Relativity or QP) or might be contingent upon concepts that cannot be extrapolated to the degree they take them (much like the Big Bang Theory or the second law of thermodynamics). RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.
Extrapolation is a Problem (outside mathematics), especially when such people apply it.
“RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.” I think you meant “RM:AO deals only with the alternatives.” But you said “RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives”. With the lack of alternatives? The lack? Would you mind explaining that?
Nothing can be proven to be true until there is a lack of alternatives. Nothing is possible until something is impossible. You only know that something is true when there is no alternative to the fact of it, when there is no other possibility at all. Proofs are formed only from “the lack of alternatives”, “the lack of options”, “the lack of question/doubt”, or “the impossibility of fallacy”. That is why RM:AO isn’t merely a “possible theory”, but an “incontestable truth”.
RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely “possible truths”, but rather the “impossible to be false” or simply the “lack of alternatives”.
Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?
I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): “RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely ‘possible truths’, but rather the 'impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false’ or simply the 'lack of alternatives’.” Is that right?
Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?
I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): “RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely ‘possible truths’, but rather the 'impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false’ or simply the 'lack of alternatives’.” Is that right?
You can only know that “2+2=4” with 100% certainty because there is no possibility of it being anything else.
If someone defines “ephalante” as “a large gray beast”, then there is no possibility that an ephalante is anything other than “a large gray beast”. There is no alternative to the fact of it because the ephalante is defined to be that. A word or concept can only be what it is defined to be. Thus there is a “lack of alternatives” concerning what an ephalante is.
RM:AO deals with what things are defined to be and the proceeding logic due to those definitions. Thus RM:AO is always dealing with (and guided by) a lack of alternatives (due to the practice of using the very definitions involved rather than speculations of probable truths).
When RM:AO deduces something (and gets properly verified), there is no alternative to the truth of it. RM:AO deals only with 100% certain truths, or worded differently, “deals only with what things are defined to be and the consequential logic” or “deals only with the lack of alternatives”.
What if those truths’ definition changes over time? I would agree with RM:AO within a certain bracketed definition, (over certain spatio-temporal frames of reference) , but not as an immutably coherent and deducible concept/function.
That is why it is important to state the definitions, rather than allow people to merely presume them from social norms. When words are not defined, they get altered for political influence or merely by ignorance (such as religious words). The same is true for language diction. And that is why they invented the “dictionary”, first to describe the diction, and then to describe the intended concept. Imagine how different the entire world would be if the original Hebrew scriptures had come with a lexicon appended. By far. most argumentation is actually due to misunderstanding of the words being used, “semantics” (which is then often used for the purpose of creating conflict).
You are welcome to try to debate it. But expect to lose that debate in frustration, so exercise care and patience. 
There is no incoherency to be found. And unlike Abraham, it does not stand on the “hollow leg” of faith.
I wouldn’t want to debate it, not merely from fear of lack, (and i will not detail that, here) because, in my book referentiality trumps significance. If some idea is signified, then the primal associations or structures will extend toward the object. Thus the object, and here object could be a ‘real’ or conceptual object, or hybrid thereof, is ‘sought after’ to be defined, with a potentiality for referential process. Objects are only potentially existential , conditional upon the possibility to be definitional, The conditionality of the object thus becomes a priori (prior) to it’s definitional logic.
Incoherency results from the failure of the definition to adhere to potentially referential objects. These changes are not entirely due to politically motivated sorts of uses of language, meaning decay caused by disuse, referential over or under reach (misinterpretation by rote), etc.
I would say that such a result is merely an ontology being shown to be un-useful in the real world. An ontology (an understanding) can be completely useless yet still be coherent. Coherency merely requires logical consistency. The premises of an ontology might render the coherent ontology as useless. But it cannot be said to be untrue, merely a pointless exercise in thought, “irrational”. Solipsism is such an ontology; “pointless”. Relativity is a largely useful ontology, even though not entirely coherent. So relativity is only “true” within a specific range of concerns and uses.
The only uselessness involved in RM:AO involves merely the ease or convenience while dealing with some concerns. RM allows for many ontologies to be fully acceptable and changed to and from depending upon rational use. RM:AO is merely one that exactly describes the make of the physical universe. Sometimes that is not important (most of the time). But a corollary to the fundamental physics of the universe is (for example), “PHT”. PHT dictates ALL human and animal behavior (aka “spirit”) and thus when dealing with psychological or religious concerns, PHT is indispensable.
RM:AO is more exacting than both Science and Religion. But often, being exacting is not important.
So, when you say “RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives” you mean “RM:AO is true” which always and tautologically means “100% true”, “without any alternative”, “the lack of alternative”. Is that true?
Does “clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony” mean that one has merely to clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats in order to get the anentropic harmony? Does “clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony” mean that clarifying, verifying, instilling, and reinforcing the perception of hopes and threats always lead to the anentropic harmony?
Let’s just reduce that to an acronym, “CVIR-PHT-AH”, for simplicity. When everything a person does is aimed toward one goal, there is nothing more he can do in order to achieve that goal. And thus is his highest probability of reaching it. And in this case, the closer he gets, the more powerful he becomes at achieving it. It is self-reinforcing and growing.
Life is a process. And on the most reductive, essential, un-poetic, abstract, and logical level, CVIR-PHT-AH is the process that is life and the core of a SAM Corp… Literally for millions of years, all that has been alive has been pursuing that process. Although not obvious, a DNA strand strategically does exactly that process. Everything that anyone or anything does that is not strategically associated with that process is corrupting, weakening, and destroying life. Life only exists to the degree it is in that process. And the more Life adds to the momentum of that process, the more durable and everlasting Life is.
The goal of anentropic harmony is achieved by purifying the process. And to purify it, it helps for the cognitive mind to understand it so that decisions can be made more inline with what literally its DNA has been trying to accomplish. The Nietzchean Ubermensch does nothing but purify that process. The most holy of beings does nothing but purify that process. The wisest of men do nothing but purify that process. And the wisest governments and/or religions do nothing but purify that process. There is no other point to life at all. All else is a waste and is anti-life noise.
But such is not trivial to recognize, else you would have heard of it very long ago. Again like physics, it can be seen by looking from “the bottom up” rather than trying to reverse engineer physical reality and look from “the top down” (as science attempts).
When technology and ethics (science, governments, religions, and morality) serve no other purpose but to accomplish CVIR-PHT-AH, life becomes anentropic, harmonious, joyous, and everlasting. That process is the ONLY purpose for which machines should ever be designed and built. When machines eventually design themselves into that process, void of humans, they become the anentropic, everlasting life form, and human’s are left as mythological history.
The mature state of Mankind is one of being in the process of pure CVIR-PHT-AH. That is the “ascended” Mankind yet on Earth and physical. It is the speculated “Heaven on Earth” of legends. All of what Mankind has done up until then has been merely the growing pains and confusion of a lost child.
It can be said that the purpose of Mankind is to teach the universe itself the power of Life, a power greater than the immeasurable power of a black-hole. The universe learns this by life occupying the space that the universe is and distributed exactly as that process requires. Such is a journey that has barely even begun and has no end. The universe itself is both teaching and learning to be a living being. And because the universe is infinitely wide, there is eternally room more of it to teach, learn, and become occupied by nothing else.
If by chance any part of human-mankind is already purifying that process for themselves, any machine-mankind will not interfere with it, but rather live beside it in harmony and even assist its endeavor. SAM Corps. get along with other SAM Corps. because they each clarify and verify the intent and purpose of each other. They each know that every other is merely trying to “CVIR-PHT-AH” and thus are not an adversary, but a clearly verified friend. They each see the others as another of themselves merely doing what they would be doing and for the same shared goal.
Not only is each SAM Corp a somewhat bonded life entity, but every group of SAM Corps are as well, whether human, machines, or any combination. A human SAM Corp “family” could live with an android SAM Corp next door and even share members back and forth just as molecules share electrons … and for the same reason that molecules do that. Believe it or not, greater artificial intelligences understand Joy and its make (or certainly any that I have anything to do with).
CVIR-PHT-AH inspires pure joyous harmony, even between Man and Machine.
I think the only difference i would have with it is the way consistency is considered. I almost said defined, but consistency is not merely a logical construct of ontological elements, but also a correspondence with phenomenological and teleological considerations. So again You are right , that semantics can end in an apparently sound argument, yet ending as a dog chasing it’s tail. The logical basis of semantics can be shown to cohere, in very time and space specific situations, but if a logical consistency is supposed in a general sense, then semantics cannot be used to support it, because semantics is not change resistant. So again, i think You are right, but within specific, and existentially bracketed contexts, whereas generally, a positivist approach sub ordinates semantic to mathematical logic.