Lucien, don't kill my vibe.
And; in order to take away your trollish snack, I'll refocus my addition to the topic, which you've effectively concealed by turning the page..
Originally posted by Dolos
I digress.The answer is more attention to science and making scientifically literate the human race as a whole. Technology is just the instrument of science that leads to progress.
What's just as important as making politicians aware of science, and making the public less apathetic and sensitizing them to all kinds of issues that plague the world, is we need to make projects public and start pooling our efforts. The potential of global synergy is vastly untapped, because of how friggin lazy we are.
This is how I feel about how lazy people are, we only act when we're on the very precipice of our doom.
[QUOTE=14438718]Originally posted by Lord Lucien
[B]Please don't tell me you're one of those people whose personal philosophy is derived from a misconstrued movie message.Please?
On a massive level we're 7 billion children, not yet able to fend for ourselves, barely pulling through. Eventually, population will reach a level, and understanding and cooperation will not. That would be the end of it.
While we're lazy and letting things slip as Fight Club demonstrated, it is merely because of a lack of intrinsic motivation to create altruistically, and no common goal with subsequently unified cooperation in doing so. Of course; we already know this, it's an understanding so obvious that it's more intrinsic than intuition, it's common knowledge.
So it ignites a quasar of rage in me: We're aware of the major dilemma yet can't do anything about it. I'd intend to find a way, if humanly possible or otherwise. [/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by DolosWell what if the critical point of population>understanding and cooperation isn't the end, it's just a slow down? What if such an Armageddon is merely the end of our current cycle of "progress" but not necessarily the end of... "it"? A massive setback to be sure, but only a setback, one where the potential of a bounce back still exists. Couldn't such a scenario weed out the inefficiencies and give a needed reprieve? Wouldn't that be a good thing, ultimately?
A positive societal development would delay Armageddon, I postulated a negative societal development. Do you have the urge to troll, or are you genuinely attempting to understand my assertions?
Originally posted by Lord LucienFirst, I sincerely apologize for mistaking you as a troll.
Well what if the critical point of population>understanding and cooperation isn't the end, it's just a slow down? What if such an Armageddon is merely the end of our current cycle of "progress" but not necessarily the end of... "it"? A massive setback to be sure, but only a setback, one where the potential of a bounce back still exists. Couldn't such a scenario weed out the inefficiencies and give a needed reprieve? Wouldn't that be a good thing, ultimately?
Second, no. Absolutely not. Humanity may be diverted but our potential is not worth sacrificing for a smaller and more easily controllable population. Why? Because said post-apocalyptic population won't have much to work with. In the words of the late Carl Sagan:
I love Carl Sagan. Though I don't think I share his unabashed enthusiasm for the value of human life. If our current.. condition is unable to meet sustainable levels of sustenance and ecological balance, perhaps a culling of the herd is necessary. A species-wide near-death experience to shock us in to appropriate action.
Originally posted by Lord LucienOh it will shock us alright, but don't expect an expedient comeback. Even if there was somehow, against unfathomable odds, an eventual return from the second stone age despite to the staggering setbacks of horrible horrible removal of the ecosystem and catastrophic alteration of earth's natural climate, why should you expect a different result?
I love Carl Sagan. Though I don't think I share his unabashed enthusiasm for the value of human life. If our current.. condition is unable to meet sustainable levels of sustenance and ecological balance, perhaps a culling of the herd is necessary. A species-wide near-death experience to shock us in to appropriate action.
Maybe it won't. But total nuclear apocalypse aside, no calamity is capable of driving us back to the stone age. Middle Ages at best, but even then, it'll be a far more awesome version than our last Middle Age. There's too many of us who know too much, and our technology is dispersed so widely that even the collapse of society won't render our species intellectually inert. We won't have to spend centuries reinventing everything next time around. Too many books, too many archives, too many creations, too many things all around. Technologically, we'll rebound very speedily, even if our numbers don't.
And If we don't learn from that, then we'll be no different from what we already are. And if we do, then good for us. And if we kill everything in a MAD suicide pact, then lol.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
it'll be a far more awesome version than our last Middle Age.
Humanity would be, technological and population-wise, FAR worse off than the middle age DURING THE BLACK PLAGUE.
No coming back from that when you consider the lack of an eco-system. Sorry.
This isn't the same caliber of catastrophe as Carl Sagan proposed, the UN isn't coming to a New World Order agreement like in Doctor Strangelove. No sir, it's far worse than all of that, we are technologically capable of far more destruction than just nuclear warheads.
It's called dumping genetically engineered viral lifeforms into the ocean, transforming our planet into an environment that humans can't survive in: And then nuking every city, town, village, scientific or research laboratory, and military installation on the planet. A warring of all superpowers who have total access to every human heartbeat on earth via radiowaves transmitting global cyber-spatial mapping to millions of different databases, has that kind of precision capacity with that kind of fire-power. The teraforming of planet earth into something lethal to human life is far worse, though.
That's a worst case scenario and that would be the "end". Hence my query, what if, after reaching this critical mass, we don't get an ending scenario. We just get a huge setback, or delay. We'll still exist, and so will our collective memories and technology. We won't have to reinvent everything we invented in the last millennium.
Originally posted by Shabazz916Not necessarily.
technology retards the mind.. it hinders.. person to person communication..
There are many ways in which technology can be used, some are specifically to augment the human mind.
A computer simulation can determine a better arrangement of nucleotides in your genome and the right nano-application of altered DnA coding could turn you into Spock.
Originally posted by Oneness
Not necessarily.There are many ways in which technology can be used, some are specifically to augment the human mind.
A computer simulation can determine a better arrangement of nucleotides in your genome and the right nano-application of altered DnA coding could turn you into Spock.
the world will end when ppl. start to do too much.. we want to be in control so much that we can't use common sense to treat eachother right and preserve the planet.... but we want to improve on the perfect human body......
Originally posted by Shabazz916We want to be better.
the world will end when ppl. start to do too much.. we want to be in control so much that we can't use common sense to treat eachother right and preserve the planet.... but we want to improve on the perfect human body......
It is good for the mind, the body, and the soul to be better looking, healthier, smarter, and when one is all these things they will want companions on their level. So they will make others like themselves, because why would you want to date someone who isn't able to connect with you on an intellectual level.
When I look at the upper class, I see potential. I see the potential to actualize a concept like the Venus Project. Imagine 100 families each with a collective net-worth in the trillions. Like the Rothchilds. They're out there, and I'd see them building for themselves a futuristic city while the rest of the world falls apart due to wealth disparity and obsolete construction.
Their private city will inevitably become home to the rest of us as we abandon that which is falling apart.
Originally posted by Oneness
We want to be better.It is good for the mind, the body, and the soul to be better looking, healthier, smarter, and when one is all these things they will want companions on their level. So they will make others like themselves, because why would you want to date someone who isn't able to connect with you on an intellectual level.
When I look at the upper class, I see potential. I see the potential to actualize a concept like the Venus Project. Imagine 100 families each with a collective net-worth in the trillions. Like the Rothchilds. They're out there, and I'd see them building for themselves a futuristic city while the rest of the world falls apart due to wealth disparity and obsolete construction.
Their private city will inevitably become home to the rest of us as we abandon that which is falling apart.
better ? ppl are perfect as they are now... when you use the term better its used in a selfish way... ppl are born to live and die get sick...ppl. are destructiive we really dnt need to be living on other planets...
Originally posted by Shabazz916God wants all of us to be happy.
better ? ppl are perfect as they are now... when you use the term better its used in a selfish way... ppl are born to live and die get sick...ppl. are destructiive we really dnt need to be living on other planets...
There is no happiness for people coming up with Harlequin Ichthyosis.
If we do not spread, we will overpopulate.
Originally posted by Oneness
God wants all of us to be happy.There is no happiness for people coming up with Harlequin Ichthyosis.
If we do not spread, we will overpopulate.
silly talk... god wants us to be happy but that was pissed away along time ago.. the only true happiness we will have is believing his word and being accepted into heaven thats it...
Originally posted by Shabazz916You won't get into heaven with that demeanor.
silly talk... god wants us to be happy but that was pissed away along time ago.. the only true happiness we will have is believing his word and being accepted into heaven thats it...
Heaven is God's time, life is our time. God wants us to make the most out of it, it's the only purpose for something as powerful as God. Imagine not being able to be spontaneous, the only things you can experience as God exist because You say they exist. For humans, there's a chance to discover, to feel emotion. God evokes the spirit to provide abundance for everyone in life, so that He may experience through their emotions.
It is what's known as a symbiotic relationship.
In summary, make the most out of life. That includes self-improvement, and improvement of the human condition as well.
Originally posted by Oneness
You won't get into heaven with that demeanor.Heaven is God's time, life is our time. God wants us to make the most out of it, it's the only purpose for something as powerful as God. Imagine not being able to be spontaneous, the only things you can experience as God exist because You say they exist. For humans, there's a chance to discover, to feel emotion. God evokes the spirit to provide abundance for everyone in life, so that He may experience through their emotions.
It is what's known as symbiotic relationship.
In summary, make the most out of life. That includes self-improvement, and improvement of the human condition as well.
ahh i see you have reached the moment to where you know you have no point because you result to changing the subject