If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised. Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find. To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film. To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice. Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).