Creationism vs. Evolution

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Don't you think that a real AI, having a mind of its own, will do what it damned well pleases?  Effectively a new species, and we shouldn't make it too smart.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Also, it's our assumption at this day and age, that we'll eventually develop the technology to travel faster than the speed of light, or find some kind of other short-cut to travel insanely huge distances. It's all science fiction, because there's not a single thing in physics that agrees with or allows anything similar to "hyperspace", "slipspace", or FTL travel to even exist. We may never find such a technology, and it may be theoretically impossible to do so.

 

For all we know, the only way we'll be able to colonize something the size of the Milky Way, or let alone go out to other galaxies, might only be using the old-fashioned method. Slower-than-light travel. Where we send out robotic interstellar ships to explore the galaxy and beam back information at us at light-speed while we eventually send out "sleeper" ships with it's inhabitants frozen in time to eventually awaken in another world far, far, away and centuries or millenia later with everyone they left behind long gone. This may be the reason why we haven't encountered such "incredibly advanced" beings that theoretically could've existed for billions of years now. It maybe because the physics in this universe does not allow for FTL travel whatsoever.

 

On a sidenote: I think that the notion of AI's taking us over and starting some kind of war with us is just a misplaced fear. Unless anyone purposely made killing machines to attack us, I sincerely disagree that our own creations that we programmed to the very core will rebel against us. If we program them a certain way, with certain rules embedded into their coding, it'll be physically impossible for them to go against those rules... Much like it's physically impossible for us to fly, our own code (genetic code that is) does not allow for us to break those rules.

For the FTL thing, I wouldn't be so sure that FTL is not possible. I mean, all the renowned physicists were also utterly convinced that we would never be able to fly and that it was impossible with the laws of physics. And then came the Wright brothers and showed everyone how wrong they were. Our current understanding does not allow for FTL travel, certainly, but who knows what breakthrough will happen in the future that completely changes our understanding? If the history of science tells us one thing, its that the people who said something is impossible have almost always been proven wrong at some point. 

 

As for our AI, just think for a moment what our most advanced robots do, who build them and for what purpose. Thats right, they are drones, build by the military with the purpose of killing people. Imagine putting an AI in there. I wouldn't trust the army with building advanced artificial intelligence that don't break the three laws of robotics. And we could try to build in a source code that makes them not wanting to kill us, but a true AI, and every post singularity AI has by definition the capability of rewriting their own code. 

 

Well the most renowned physicists of that time and age hadn't studied gases enough. It wasn't until the 19th century when people really went crazy in depth with trying to understand fluid mechanics. I have to slightly disagree in that the physicists of time knew flight was possible (since just studying gases lead people to create the hot air balloon). All fluid mechanics needed was some more understanding. Also, it wasn't the Wright Brothers who came up with a motorized aeroplane all on their own. They brought together ideas that had been built up on for over a century by many others. These people viciously experimented with balloons and gliders trying to understand flight, people like Lilienthal, Pilcher, Ader, Maxim, and Langley. Some of these people actually died in terrible gliding accidents, despite hundreds of flights during the lives. This reinforced the notion that something was needed to control the aircraft as opposed to shifting your body around, which was largely inadequate, risky, etc... And balloon-flight was rather slow and cumbersome.

 

FTL travel, in stark contrast, is something that by no means will be figured out anytime soon. Flight was something that the physicists knew possible, all that was needed was a way to stabilize and control flight (like an engine), which the Wright Brothers eventually merged with the ideas of others like fixed wings. We have a vast understanding of mechanics right now, and the only two ways that we'll know if FTL travel is even possible in this universe is by either the Higgs Boson yielding a "new" physics allowing for such a thing, and/or when a successful theory that combines the three prime fundamental forces with the fourth force, gravity, finally emerges, that maybe it'll allow for FTL travel.

 

Those late-19th century aeronauts were very well aware of how fluids behave, they had all the math, formulas, and theories down... All they needed was to take that science and engineer something out of it. FTL is just pure science fiction at this point, we don't even have step 1: the science yet, nor do we know if we'll ever have that science because our current and deep understanding of physics simply do not allow for such a thing to exist whatsoever. Einstein's equation of E=mc² still holds, no exceptions. "c" in the equation, the speed of light, is a constant value and can never be changed in this universe. While I think it would be mighty cool if they can find "new physics" from the Higgs Boson (that they practically just discovered last year) that will unify the four fundamental forces and allow for something like FTL to exist and many other strange and unexpected things to exist, the physics right now is looking strongly against it, so I'm slightly leaning on the side that our universe doesn't allow for it. For all we know, all this science fiction might one day turn out to be just pure fiction.

 

I'm presently coming up with plots for my life's work, a series of 13 sci-fi novels, that have correct science (among many other things). A few of the stories are set around 100,000 years into the future, and FTL is one problem I keep running aground with. I don't know if I should completely scratch the idea of it and just replace it with sleeper ships (in which it's inhabitants are traveling deep into the future anytime they travel huge distances) or if I should incorporate FTL travel using the Alcubierre Drive and Wormhole-Generating Devices on board ships or on planets. Both have their pros and cons...

 

*The Alcubierre Drive itself is a mathematical way of traveling "FTL". Say a ship is trying to get to a point in space 1000 light years away, if it can bend space-time in such a way that takes all the space in front of it (or most of it) and temporarily relocates that space to being behind the ship, technically that ship can travel tremendous distances extremely quickly, and travel "Faster than light", though the ship itself wouldn't have to move fast at all. But, there's no known way to create the Alcubierre Drive, much like there's no known way for a White Hole to form in this universe or also how there's no known way to survive a black hole's singularity and travel to another universe. Maybe some day there might such a way, but I wouldn't place any bets in favor of one or the other.

 

Going back to AI's: We make AI's unable to rewrite their own code and make them unable to even think of about creating something to rewrite code. There's a lot of ways to avoid this, we don't have to model them after ourselves.

 

Either way, with the way technology is going, we're probably going to have our descendants bioengineered in such a way that robotics and biology sort of begin to merge into one. First, with things like neural implants and a much more rigid storage for thoughts and memories. Later on, maybe even things like "mind-uploading" ourselves into robotic bodies or another bioengineered human body to escape our eventual biological death. Or, as an alternative; making ourselves completely stop aging after reaching adulthood (giving us biological immortality like a lobster), thereafter we can make copies of our minds in case our body should end up being accidentally destroyed. Many hard science futurists already predict that we will slowly begin to merge with our technology.

 

 

As far as AI is concerned, it is something like a hot potato.  There has been some speculative fiction written about this as long ago as 1920 (R.U.R. - Karel Capek). 

 

Then there is that overblown motion picture based on a short story by Arthur C. Clarke (2001 - A Space Odyssey) in which the successor of Its a Big Machine (HAL) goes mad because it is unable to resolve conflicting instructions.  AI in the service of man will be a very delicate issue. 

 

This is also illustrated by Isaac Asimov's long running series on robots, the three laws, and a vast future history (the Foundation Trilogy).  In the end, the machines develop a new zeroth law overriding the first law.  One must ignore the currently circulating travesty of a pot boiling motion picture called "I Robot" which makes a total mish-mash of the whole Asimovian model.

 

AI robots are perhaps currently in reach.  FTL is a matter of new physics.  There hasn't really been any since Einstein and Schrodinger.  The final tests of these theories is ongoing.  They work well enough to create our turned-on society.

 

Space Odyssey was a great film! HAL was also great since he wasn't the traditional evil machine that decides to take us over because they "don't like working for humans" (like in The Terminator and to a lesser extent, The Matrix), his intentions were completely different in the film, and I can't help but feel some pity for him.

 

Asimov is also one of my heroes! I haven't read all his Robot short stories yet, but after reading the first one, I'm hooked! The new feature film "I, Robot" also falls in my category of misplaced fears, but I did like how Sonny was in the film, so it didn't totally condemn AI's as evils that will eventually try to turn against us. I personally don't like the Zeroth Law and think there definitely are many ways to

avoid that altogether, all you need is careful programming deterring away from human emotions or from thinking certain things. Either way, I really liked the film.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Sorry, there was nothing really wrong with HAL 9000.  It was abused by people it trusted, and given conflicting instructions.  An AI machine cannot be evil, for things are never evil.  That privilege is reserved for mankind.

 

My objection to the movie is that the Clarke short story only went as far as the first scene on the moon.  The rest is screen play, with Dr. Clarke's connivance.  HAL did not appear in the original story at all, which is only around 800 words.

 

Poor HAL, it couldn't reconcile its contradictory instruction paths and so aborted the wrong set.  This is an example of what happens when the military mind, full of fear and apprehension, interferes with what could have been great science.  The guilty party here is the fool who gave such instructions.  All in all, the whole trilogy was an exercise in cold war propaganda which wrecked a cracking good story.

 

Otherwise, the trilogy of space odysseys was quite an interesting set of movies with some, for the time, startling FX.  I particularly liked the Pan-Am space station.  Too bad we are not capable of putting up such a nice permanent wheel as that.  Maybe some day.  If we do, it should be called Tsiolkovsky station.  The inventor of the idea deserves the honour.

 

I am more inclined to the DS9 model of station.  A big freight station with lots of docks.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well the most renowned physicists of that time and age hadn't studied gases enough. It wasn't until the 19th century when people really went crazy in depth with trying to understand fluid mechanics. I have to slightly disagree in that the physicists of time knew flight was possible (since just studying gases lead people to create the hot air balloon). All fluid mechanics needed was some more understanding. Also, it wasn't the Wright Brothers who came up with a motorized aeroplane all on their own. They brought together ideas that had been built up on for over a century by many others. These people viciously experimented with balloons and gliders trying to understand flight, people like Lilienthal, Pilcher, Ader, Maxim, and Langley. Some of these people actually died in terrible gliding accidents, despite hundreds of flights during the lives. This reinforced the notion that something was needed to control the aircraft as opposed to shifting your body around, which was largely inadequate, risky, etc... And balloon-flight was rather slow and cumbersome.

 

 

FTL travel, in stark contrast, is something that by no means will be figured out anytime soon. Flight was something that the physicists knew possible, all that was needed was a way to stabilize and control flight (like an engine), which the Wright Brothers eventually merged with the ideas of others like fixed wings. We have a vast understanding of mechanics right now, and the only two ways that we'll know if FTL travel is even possible in this universe is by either the Higgs Boson yielding a "new" physics allowing for such a thing, and/or when a successful theory that combines the three prime fundamental forces with the fourth force, gravity, finally emerges, that maybe it'll allow for FTL travel.

 

Those late-19th century aeronauts were very well aware of how fluids behave, they had all the math, formulas, and theories down... All they needed was to take that science and engineer something out of it. FTL is just pure science fiction at this point, we don't even have step 1: the science yet, nor do we know if we'll ever have that science because our current and deep understanding of physics simply do not allow for such a thing to exist whatsoever. Einstein's equation of E=mc² still holds, no exceptions. "c" in the equation, the speed of light, is a constant value and can never be changed in this universe. While I think it would be mighty cool if they can find "new physics" from the Higgs Boson (that they practically just discovered last year) that will unify the four fundamental forces and allow for something like FTL to exist and many other strange and unexpected things to exist, the physics right now is looking strongly against it, so I'm slightly leaning on the side that our universe doesn't allow for it. For all we know, all this science fiction might one day turn out to be just pure fiction.

 

I'm presently coming up with plots for my life's work, a series of 13 sci-fi novels, that have correct science (among many other things). A few of the stories are set around 100,000 years into the future, and FTL is one problem I keep running aground with. I don't know if I should completely scratch the idea of it and just replace it with sleeper ships (in which it's inhabitants are traveling deep into the future anytime they travel huge distances) or if I should incorporate FTL travel using the Alcubierre Drive and Wormhole-Generating Devices on board ships or on planets. Both have their pros and cons...

 

*The Alcubierre Drive itself is a mathematical way of traveling "FTL". Say a ship is trying to get to a point in space 1000 light years away, if it can bend space-time in such a way that takes all the space in front of it (or most of it) and temporarily relocates that space to being behind the ship, technically that ship can travel tremendous distances extremely quickly, and travel "Faster than light", though the ship itself wouldn't have to move fast at all. But, there's no known way to create the Alcubierre Drive, much like there's no known way for a White Hole to form in this universe or also how there's no known way to survive a black hole's singularity and travel to another universe. Maybe some day there might such a way, but I wouldn't place any bets in favor of one or the other.

 

 

 

Its a pretty famous story of Lord Kelvin writing a paper on how its supposedly against the laws of physics to fly a few months before the Wright brothers got it right. And while there are other pioneers in the field as well, they all got it wrong and their contraptions were not much more than glorified hang gliders with no control. 

 

Also, a balloon or zeppelin is a totally different thing from an actual airplane. Balloons and Zeppelins float, planes actually fly, even the laws on which they operate are different. Balloons work with hot air and zeppelins with gasses that are lighter than air and trap them in the balloon part. Planes fly because of the speed and air flows under their wings, not because of hot air or lighter than air gasses. 

 

To make an analogy with FTL travel, we know its possible to go up there, and we know its possible to reach other planets. But right now, we only have the most rudimentary hot air balloons at our disposal to get there. It simply takes a better understanding of physics as well as engineering before we can make FTL drives. But it is much to early to say that it is completely impossible. 

 

As for your Sci Fi novel, if you make it with 'correct' science, you can pretty much do whatever you want by virtue of acceleration of technological advancement. If that rate keeps up, we'd be immortal gods by then. 

 

Going back to AI's: We make AI's unable to rewrite their own code and make them unable to even think of about creating something to rewrite code. There's a lot of ways to avoid this, we don't have to model them after ourselves.

 

In which case you won't have an AI, as it is unable to learn and therefor improve. The best you get in that case are super fast computers that mimic intelligence by being able to think really really fast. But they are not creative, and as such we would never reach the singularity. 

 

Either way, with the way technology is going, we're probably going to have our descendants bioengineered in such a way that robotics and biology sort of begin to merge into one. First, with things like neural implants and a much more rigid storage for thoughts and memories. Later on, maybe even things like "mind-uploading" ourselves into robotic bodies or another bioengineered human body to escape our eventual biological death. Or, as an alternative; making ourselves completely stop aging after reaching adulthood (giving us biological immortality like a lobster), thereafter we can make copies of our minds in case our body should end up being accidentally destroyed. Many hard science futurists already predict that we will slowly begin to merge with our technology.

 

We already have, though not in a very obvious way. I once saw an interesting lecture about this, where the lecturer argued that essentially things like mobiles and laptops are already a form of prosthetics as they physically enhance our capabilities, compensating or replacing things that our bodies can't do or can't do very well. I think the lecturer even went as far as saying that things like glasser or walking canes are already prosthetics. The next big step will simply be implanting these things right into our bodies, rather than using them as separate physical tools. 

 

Still, combined with current social and more importantly economical and political trends, this presents worries. Medical science is privatized with a profit motive. We can be sure that once the technology for enhancing your brain or body becomes available, it will be extremely expensive. It will create a physical barrier between the people that have and the people that have not. 

 

Also, this: 

 

Life becomes a subscription based service provided by corporate entities. Such a future....is not worth it. 

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Alright, explain it to me from ground zero. The singularity is something I've bumped heads with several times in the past, but never actually understood why it was so significant or important. Why is it so?

 

And, you're right I don't care about having machines that have all the capabilities we do. Just have robots work certain jobs via a pre-programmed (like collect trash, industrial labor, construction), and maybe give the ones that interact with humans regularly a bit of personality (like those intelligences built into cars to do our driving, the intelligences in the service sector like in retail stores or restaurants).

 

In response to the video and last real paragraph you wrote: Then I will make it my mission in life to burn capitalism to the ground. That video was incredibly disturbing, it reminded me of Brave New World where humanity is divided up in castes, with the lower ones doing intensive labor tasks, and the higher ones being the intellectual heads of the world.

 

I'm also testing out thought experiment right now that gets rid of money completely in some of my novels. The way to do it would be to keep the world population very low (like only a couple hundred million at absolute most), have machines take up all the labor-intensive jobs for us, and ultimately "freeing" up all humans to live out lives of endless adventures, exploration, and constant learning. I know it's only a dream, there's still a few things I have to work out in the larger picture, but overall that's what it looks like. The only way to bring about such a future dream is to end our current way of living, stop the division, educate everyone, and save the world from ourselves. Otherwise, a future similar to that of Huxley's Brave New World combined with Orwell's 1984 is what awaits us. A terrible caste system, where the people at the bottom are mentally inferior to the people at the top, and everyone has their own role in society, while the top declares themselves as the elite class and runs everything via money, propaganda, and brainwashing... Oh, and wars, lots of wars, and destruction of the planet... Terrible.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Alright, explain it to me from ground zero. The singularity is something I've bumped heads with several times in the past, but never actually understood why it was so significant or important. Why is it so?

 

Simply put, the Singularity is the moment when we create a machine that is so advanced that it can make machines that are better than itself, without human help. Essentially, its when we create true artificial life. After that, well it depends on who you listen to. You have the optimists like Ray Kurzweil who believe the singularity is the next paradigm shift for humanity, the moment when it becomes us who determine our own evolutionary path from that moment forward, and you have the pessimist, who believe the singularity may kill us all. You know, big scary robots killing everyone. 

 

In either case, the singularity represents a moment when scientific and technological advance at astonishing rates. Imagine, robots that have the creative capabilities of humans, only with the processing speed that is so much more faster than we are ever capable of. And according to people like Ray Kurzweil, that is the moment when we really start to merge biology with machinery. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do believe that it will take us decades before we find ways to efficiently merge humans with implants without suffering from things like rejection. It may need intellects that are bigger then our own to do those things. 

 

And, you're right I don't care about having machines that have all the capabilities we do. Just have robots work certain jobs via a pre-programmed (like collect trash, industrial labor, construction), and maybe give the ones that interact with humans regularly a bit of personality (like those intelligences built into cars to do our driving, the intelligences in the service sector like in retail stores or restaurants).

 

Meh, intelligent tools are all nice, but I think I prefer to have some true AI's as well. There are much better restraints rather than such dogmatic rules like Asimov's three laws or programmed shackles that dumb down the intelligence. The same shackles that bind us for example, would work for every intelligent being. Emotions for example. Rather than have an AI that works purely on logic, we could program in things like emotions. What better way to prevent intelligent beings from doing something than the knowledge that it will make them feel very bad afterwards?

 

In response to the video and last real paragraph you wrote: Then I will make it my mission in life to burn capitalism to the ground. That video was incredibly disturbing, it reminded me of Brave New World where humanity is divided up in castes, with the lower ones doing intensive labor tasks, and the higher ones being the intellectual heads of the world.

 

Well the video was meant to be disturbing. Though I'm not sure if capitalism needs to be destroyed for it. It has a number of very strong pro's to it. 

 

 

I'm also testing out thought experiment right now that gets rid of money completely in some of my novels. The way to do it would be to keep the world population very low (like only a couple hundred million at absolute most), have machines take up all the labor-intensive jobs for us, and ultimately "freeing" up all humans to live out lives of endless adventures, exploration, and constant learning. I know it's only a dream, there's still a few things I have to work out in the larger picture, but overall that's what it looks like. The only way to bring about such a future dream is to end our current way of living, stop the division, educate everyone, and save the world from ourselves. Otherwise, a future similar to that of Huxley's Brave New World combined with Orwell's 1984 is what awaits us. A terrible caste system, where the people at the bottom are mentally inferior to the people at the top, and everyone has their own role in society, while the top declares themselves as the elite class and runs everything via money, propaganda, and brainwashing... Oh, and wars, lots of wars, and destruction of the planet... Terrible.

I'm quite sure we already have that. Though it is not quite as nightmarish as described in the books. The nightmarish part of 1984 was the total indifference people had for their own living conditions. Society all around the world was...stagnant. The system was kept in place simply for the sake of keeping the system in place. And the system itself assumed that power was its own reward. Thankfully such a system cannot truly exist on earth as human beings are not flat 1 dimensional characters who operate on a single motivation. Besides that, power itself is hardly a reward. What fun is power if you don't use it, either to get rich or to change something. 

 

The Brave New World dystopia is a little different, in that for many people it would actually be an utopia. Entertainment 24/7, almost no responsibilities, living in a constant state of bliss. Hedonistic to the extreme, no restrictions information, in fact, you are bombarded with information, to the point it becomes irrelevant. The only part people might object to is the idea of creating physically inferior beings as servants. But even that objection is taken away when you read that these beings actually become unhappy when they are no longer forced to work. This is actually a much more actual threat, and no offense, but a future with robots doing all the boring tasks would only bring this nightmare closer. Unless a total change in culture, behavior and attitude happens before we let robots do the hard work, this nightmare is exactly what will happen. The only thing that is stopping us from obsessing over our own pleasures, the only thing that stops us from a constant almost instant pleasure gratification is the fact that most things cost money and most people do not have enough money to instantly buy it. So they need to work first. Imagine what would happen in a world where the economy is run by robots and humans are free to pursue their pleasures. Given what you know of your fellow American citizens, do you honestly believe more than 5% of them would use all that free time to creating art, or thinking of philosophy or pursuing science? 

 

And war isn't as bad as you think. Yes, people die, parents lose their children and children lose their parents. Tragic as that is, the bigger picture is actually...positive. Western states exist solely because they were very good at waging war. Our technological advances are thanks to war. European civilization was the first civilization to actually be spread over the entire world. Again thanks to war. And peace? Well, I suppose peace is a nice thing to strive for during a war. But to strive for peace during peace? Corrosive and destructive. Look what 75 years of peace brought us? Political incompetence, apathy, obesity, social disintegration, technological stagnation. Hell, even our supposedly superior military is just a joke. It can't even win from a bunch of farmers with guns and bombs made out of stuff you find in the local supermarket. No, once peace has been attained, man's real dark side takes over. 

[Zukunftstraume 220]

You're right where you say that "Do you honestly believe more than 5% of them would use all that free time to creating art, or thinking of philosophy, or pursuing science?" If a genie came out of nowhere and granted someone the wish of robots taking over the manual labor for us and making things equally valued, I think at first utter chaos would ensue. The masses would go absolutely crazy with have an endless amount of unconstrained fun, many other people that were used to working their entire lives would find themselves not knowing what to do and would find their lives meaningless and go into depressions.

At this point in time, we're definitely not ready for such a change in society, this is the kind of thing that we'll have to develop slowly over a few generations. This is also something we would have to develop alongside a change in societal structure and in the mentality of the masses.

The idea that the "best" things in life are the most expensive is something that has been embedded into us because of the way society is currently structured. If we were to bring a newborn infant into a world where the idea of money and materialism didn't exist then said infant would grow into an adult that would find the idea of money and materialism quite puzzling and confusing. This is something that is not in our human nature… Money wasn't always around, in the distant past we traded for other things, and even before then it was the survival of the fittest where the notion of anything having any "luxury" value was outlandish and bizarre.

Imagine a world where everyone is treated as equals, no one strives to possess materials, and where no one is a sheep to trends. A world where people were raised as free-thinking individuals, with benevolence for each-other and nature, and a strong curiosity of what else is out there. I imagine a very diverse society, where people constantly love learning new things, are ultra friendly with all the new people they meet, where some people constantly travel from one place to another, and where everyone has a great deal of fun most of the time. Very few things will be redundant, boring, or unexciting since society would be structured where there's always somewhere new to go, someone new to me, and something else to learn or to do. Whether you dedicate your life to designing roller-coasters, building a simulated eye-candy reality as a personal playground, mastering balance and physics to become a great martial artist or skateboarder, exploring the world to learn it's history and diverse past cultures, sitting behind the control decks of robots being sent into deep space, or bioengineering new humans with better abilities (like better memory and greater longevity)… life will be exciting, fun, and a never-ending adventure.

I know it's only a dream right now, but for the rest of my life, that's what I'll be fighting for.

But yet again, we're not ready for that society just yet.

As for war… Yup, I agree that war is what brought us here to today. So long as society is structured in this top to bottom structure where making money is in the interest of practically everyone and the mega-corporations are abusing their power by corrupting the media and government to control the way the masses think, we'll never advance. War only persisted for so long because the reason wars were fought changed over time. Originally wars were fought for survival. Wars were later  fought because of differences in culture, a desire to claim more territory, and condemning the "others" as inferior because of the differences. But now, they're fought for mainly economic purposes, to force the others to trade with us and sell us their products, and allow our corporations to run amuck within their nations thereby still asserting our dominance. <--- This consumerist system is broken and will slowly deteriorate the planet if we don't abolish it within a century.

War has lasted for so long because we saw differences in the others, wanted to dominate them and assure our continued elite class lifestyle stays so. The biggest fear for most rich people is to fall from the leisure class. They continuously have to tell themselves that they're somehow better than the rest of the world. But now, instead of race or culture, the world is divided up into castes based on wealth. The differences continue and technology only advances to replace old consumerist technology (like the new PlayStation, iPhone, better computers, or stronger and more sleek looking cars). Technological advancement is in the hands of the leisure class and it's for the sole purpose of keeping us commoners entertained while they rake in endless amounts of cash and continue living large.

The lack of a competitor against the US is the reason why we haven't established a permanent presence in space. We should've been colonizing Mars by now with the way the Apollo Program was going in the 60's! War also brought us the means to which to develop intense weapons and the sort, and to establish the foundations of the internet. Since the 80's, everything that's happened in technological advancement was the result of the Soviet Union collapsing and all sorts of powerful companies across the world stepping in to create something "better" that everyone would want. This whole world revolves around money!

Continued wars in the Middle East are getting us nowhere technologically, and we're not advancing at all. The US is slowly losing power and China will be the new powerhouse within a couple decades, the spotlight will then switch to them.

My whole point is that we don't have to rely on war as being the reason for advancement in society, we can devote more federal money into educating the masses, having people deter away from wasting their lives on simplistic things, and strive to develop awesome technologies to really make the human condition that much better. We'll need most people to work together for this (instead of just a few scientists or engineers working for mega-corporations). We should be doing this instead of wasting our money on ridiculous backwards ideas or on terrible pointless wars and other military endeavors around the world. As long as another Republican president doesn't win a US election for a very long time (or ever again), I think these goals will slowly become reality.

Then again my user name means "Future Dreams" (minus an umlaut), and it's just me being ultra hopeful that we don't have to continue gruesome traditions in order to advance. Doing so will just slowly destroy the planet. And with 7 billion people and growing, with the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, and people remaining as equally oblivious to the world's problems as ever… We're just setting ourselves up for doom. We're entering the absolute bottleneck of our entire history as a species, and it's the only one we'll ever face on such a cliff-hanging scale. The time to act is now! One way or another, our way of living for the last several centuries or even millennia is nearing it's end. We're about to enter a transformation, for better or worse. Now's our time to decide which route to take.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The idea that the "best" things in life are the most expensive is something that has been embedded into us because of the way society is currently structured. If we were to bring a newborn infant into a world where the idea of money and materialism didn't exist then said infant would grow into an adult that would find the idea of money and materialism quite puzzling and confusing. This is something that is not in our human nature… Money wasn't always around, in the distant past we traded for other things, and even before then it was the survival of the fittest where the notion of anything having any "luxury" value was outlandish and bizarre.

 

That idea does not come from the idea that something must be expensive in order to be good. Tell me, what gives you more satisfaction? If someone just handed you a university diploma in bio-engineering because they think you are awesome enough to just get one for free, or you have to work your ass off to get that diploma? For most people, they gain more satisfaction from working hard to reach a certain goal rather than to just receive it for free. Expensive means it cost you time, effort and energy. Money is just a way to quantify that. No one gets money for free, you have to work hard to get it (for most people at least) and it comes in a limited supply, so it can't be squandered just like that. 

 

In any case, when there is trade, there should be money. Its just more efficient that way. 

 

Imagine a world where everyone is treated as equals, no one strives to possess materials, and where no one is a sheep to trends. A world where people were raised as free-thinking individuals, with benevolence for each-other and nature, and a strong curiosity of what else is out there. I imagine a very diverse society, where people constantly love learning new things, are ultra friendly with all the new people they meet, where some people constantly travel from one place to another, and where everyone has a great deal of fun most of the time. Very few things will be redundant, boring, or unexciting since society would be structured where there's always somewhere new to go, someone new to me, and something else to learn or to do. Whether you dedicate your life to designing roller-coasters, building a simulated eye-candy reality as a personal playground, mastering balance and physics to become a great martial artist or skateboarder, exploring the world to learn it's history and diverse past cultures, sitting behind the control decks of robots being sent into deep space, or bioengineering new humans with better abilities (like better memory and greater longevity)… life will be exciting, fun, and a never-ending adventure.

 

As someone with such an interest in biology, you should know that such a world is...stagnant and dead. Evolution, progress, it happens where there is competition of some sort. With no competition, there is no reason to progress. You might as well hang behind a tv playing games all day in such a world. Sure, there are tons of things to do, to explore, to learn. But why bother? Why would you learn anything if it gets you nothing? People need a reason other than to satisfy their natural curiosity. 

 

 

 

 

My whole point is that we don't have to rely on war as being the reason for advancement in society, we can devote more federal money into educating the masses, having people deter away from wasting their lives on simplistic things, and strive to develop awesome technologies to really make the human condition that much better. We'll need most people to work together for this (instead of just a few scientists or engineers working for mega-corporations). We should be doing this instead of wasting our money on ridiculous backwards ideas or on terrible pointless wars and other military endeavors around the world. As long as another Republican president doesn't win a US election for a very long time (or ever again), I think these goals will slowly become reality.

 

The reason for progress has always been competition. Whether it is done by states (war) or private companies (capitalism) history has shown that competition forces people to progress in order to survive. For companies that is making a profit rather than a loss, and for states it means not getting conquered by a rival state. Simply throwing money at education is not going to solve anything. You get smarter people, alright, but then what? Inventing new things costs a lot of money, so it needs to be beneficial to someone somehow. That either means that investors will give you money because they believe that if you sell whatever you invent, you end up making a profit, or it means that states will buy it because they believe it gives them an edge against other states. 

 

As terrible as it sounds, but there is simply no incentive for anyone to simply invest in something that benefits everyone for free. Think of it as evolution, what use has it to evolve something that benefits everyone, and not just you? 

Then again my user name means "Future Dreams" (minus an umlaut), and it's just me being ultra hopeful that we don't have to continue gruesome traditions in order to advance. Doing so will just slowly destroy the planet. And with 7 billion people and growing, with the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, and people remaining as equally oblivious to the world's problems as ever… We're just setting ourselves up for doom. We're entering the absolute bottleneck of our entire history as a species, and it's the only one we'll ever face on such a cliff-hanging scale. The time to act is now! One way or another, our way of living for the last several centuries or even millennia is nearing it's end. We're about to enter a transformation, for better or worse. Now's our time to decide which route to take.

Meh, the principals of evolution remain valid, now and forever. For that reason, humanity will always compete with itself and its surroundings. That is not a bad thing though, that is simply how evolution works. 

[Zukunftstraume 220]

No need for money nor trade when the world population is small and the material possessions are handed to us essentially on a silver platter. No need to make one thing immensely more valuable than the other, it's just a mentality that would be obsolete in such a world.

Though, I wouldn't compare a Bioengineering Ph.D. to that. Of course that's not going to be handed to anyone! There's no way I'd accept it… But if someone handed me a million dollars right now, you bet I'd accept it! (I'd probably even accept it with open arms if I found out it was stolen, just so long as it couldn't be traced back to me). I wouldn't give a creedence about whether I actually deserved that million or worked hard for it. If someone offered it to me without any strings attached, I wouldn't give a second's hesitation to take it.

You would think that such world may be stagnant and dead, but the mentality of that society will make it otherwise. It's a bias from our society to say we wouldn't progress just because we aren't used to the idea of not competing with one another. Why wouldn't we learn? It's for the thrill and joy of knowing new things, exploring new frontiers, going where no one has ever gone before, and knowing something no one has ever known before. You would say we need another reason besides natural curiosity to progress, but I beg to differ. With what we're used to in today's world, absolutely… There's no way we'd progress! But in a different society where people strove to learn about the world around them and go to greater heights, especially if people were bioengineered to think that way (besides just making everyone be raised with those morals), then progress will be the never-ending goal of said culture.

It's hard to picture this from the world we live in, just as it would be hard to explain to a hunter-gatherer who had never come across civilization the concept of currency and value of products (much like many Native American groups that had no concept of possessions). But you've got to envision this outside of the box, beyond everything you've been raised around. In this scenario you're analogous to the hunter-gatherer and the idea of that society is analogous to explaining to the hunter-gatherer what currency is.

And there are also many people out there who have started countless foundations (either private foundations or government-run), where these people give back to the community and help to educate the youth. My personal favorite example is National Science Foundation, which seeks to educate the youth and works closely with NASA. However, their budget is limited, and what they can do is also heavily limited due to lack of funding. But, with what they have, they've done awesome things to try snd bring the youth over the world of science (and they've gotten a few of the people in my own generation to really care, including myself). They use quirky and interesting shows or tools such as Bill Nye the Science Guy, Mars Rover Projects, Field Trips, Astrocamps, and many many other things. It's pretty awesome. We need to increase funding for them.

And just because something isn't profitable to an individual doesn't mean that every person will think it's a bad-idea to invest in it. People are much too caught up on the idea of money, but there's many people out there who could care less about it and instead give their money and devote their lives to such benevolent and selfless things because they care about our future, the youth, etc. People like Sagan and Tyson. We need more people like them around.

You would also think that we'll be stuck to the rigors of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so forth forever. But now that we're approaching gargantuan technological feats, especially in nanoengineering and bioengineering, we'll slowly become less restricted by nature in the sense that we won't have to compete for resources, we won't have to live in a fragmented society, we won't have start wars on each other, etc. Such a way of living is only good for something that lacks sapience. But now that we've evolved sapience and now that we're halfway into our technological revolution, remaining like so can only be detrimental to our continued existence.

[Jay Ess 15]

You guys drive some hard arguments. Sadly, this is all I have to offer:

 

Religion is dead.

 

That is all. Thank you to everyone for allowing me to deposit my two cents.

[Blakeway 211]

What are you saying Jay Ess? I'm right here. I'm back. Believe in me. But Evolution is right... I asked Father.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

What are you saying Jay Ess? I'm right here. I'm back. Believe in me. But Evolution is right... I asked Father.

 

I think I just died XD

 

And why did you go to Kansas out of all places? Is that the true holy ground?

[LexusInfernus 908]

No need for money nor trade when the world population is small and the material possessions are handed to us essentially on a silver platter. No need to make one thing immensely more valuable than the other, it's just a mentality that would be obsolete in such a world.

 

You'd still have the problem of scarcity. Resources are finite, therefore, rarer resources are more valuable than abundant ones. 

 

Though, I wouldn't compare a Bioengineering Ph.D. to that. Of course that's not going to be handed to anyone! There's no way I'd accept it… But if someone handed me a million dollars right now, you bet I'd accept it! (I'd probably even accept it with open arms if I found out it was stolen, just so long as it couldn't be traced back to me). I wouldn't give a creedence about whether I actually deserved that million or worked hard for it. If someone offered it to me without any strings attached, I wouldn't give a second's hesitation to take it.

 

Money is a tool, not a goal (though a lot of people seem to forget that). Though trust me, you would not value material possessions as much if you have a lot of money and can thus easily afford to buy those possessions. Buying a computer, or a car or I dunno, even a game, you like it a lot more if you had to save for it first, had to work for it. Why do you think rich pop stars so carelessly buy all that crap? Do you think any of them value their sports car if they can have 10 more of them without to much effort? Well of course, they would value their sports car, but not in the same appreciative manner as an average Joe, working hard his entire life so when he is 50 he finally saved enough money to also buy one of those sports cars. 

 

You would think that such world may be stagnant and dead, but the mentality of that society will make it otherwise. It's a bias from our society to say we wouldn't progress just because we aren't used to the idea of not competing with one another. Why wouldn't we learn? It's for the thrill and joy of knowing new things, exploring new frontiers, going where no one has ever gone before, and knowing something no one has ever known before. You would say we need another reason besides natural curiosity to progress, but I beg to differ. With what we're used to in today's world, absolutely… There's no way we'd progress! But in a different society where people strove to learn about the world around them and go to greater heights, especially if people were bioengineered to think that way (besides just making everyone be raised with those morals), then progress will be the never-ending goal of said culture.

It's hard to picture this from the world we live in, just as it would be hard to explain to a hunter-gatherer who had never come across civilization the concept of currency and value of products (much like many Native American groups that had no concept of possessions). But you've got to envision this outside of the box, beyond everything you've been raised around. In this scenario you're analogous to the hunter-gatherer and the idea of that society is analogous to explaining to the hunter-gatherer what currency is.

 

The soviets tried it, and it didn't work out. People rejected the idea, corrupted it and we all know what happened next. And they even had a rival to compete with! Still, because of the internal structure set up by communism their economy became inefficient on every level. 

 

We have schools over here that do not 'teach' but depend on the 'natural curiosity' of children to want to learn new things. They have small classes, they do not work with schedules, and they are supposed to learn by working together with other children in that school. What do they do? Play Minecraft all day. 

 

And there are also many people out there who have started countless foundations (either private foundations or government-run), where these people give back to the community and help to educate the youth. My personal favorite example is National Science Foundation, which seeks to educate the youth and works closely with NASA. However, their budget is limited, and what they can do is also heavily limited due to lack of funding. But, with what they have, they've done awesome things to try snd bring the youth over the world of science (and they've gotten a few of the people in my own generation to really care, including myself). They use quirky and interesting shows or tools such as Bill Nye the Science Guy, Mars Rover Projects, Field Trips, Astrocamps, and many many other things. It's pretty awesome. We need to increase funding for them.

And just because something isn't profitable to an individual doesn't mean that every person will think it's a bad-idea to invest in it. People are much too caught up on the idea of money, but there's many people out there who could care less about it and instead give their money and devote their lives to such benevolent and selfless things because they care about our future, the youth, etc. People like Sagan and Tyson. We need more people like them around.

 

As awesome as someone like Tyson is, he is sadly not someone with the resources to fund large research projects. 

 

Also, let me ask you this, they got you interested in science, which is great. So now you're trying to get a degree in some science course, also great. But then what? Where are you going to work? I mean, if you want to really bioengineer anything, you will need a lab, you need equipment, you need resources. That costs money, so where are you going to get that money? You could work for a company or a commercial lab, but in those cases, you would be working for them, inventing things that help them make money, and everything you invent gets patented by those companies. So only people who pay will benefit from whatever you discover. 

 

And even if you work for a state sponsored program, like NASA. Do you really think the US is going to share the technology developed by NASA with just everyone? Perhaps some of the stuff that is non critical to the US technological advantage over other countries. But make no mistake, the US as a state competes with all the other states, they are not going to give out technology for free that benefits everyone just like that. 

 

Sadly, the days where people could just do science in the shed in the backyard are over. For today's science, you need money, and most of the money is in the hands of people who only have their own commercial interests in mind, and only to a lesser extend the interests of humanity as a whole. 

You would also think that we'll be stuck to the rigors of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so forth forever. But now that we're approaching gargantuan technological feats, especially in nanoengineering and bioengineering, we'll slowly become less restricted by nature in the sense that we won't have to compete for resources, we won't have to live in a fragmented society, we won't have start wars on each other, etc. Such a way of living is only good for something that lacks sapience. But now that we've evolved sapience and now that we're halfway into our technological revolution, remaining like so can only be detrimental to our continued existence.

Again, it was war and competition that made the whole technological revolution possible in the first place. But you are right, we are moving away from traditional warfare, I am just not so sure if that is actually beneficial. 

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Everything you said is the reason why this system needs to be done away with. Everything revolves around money! Soviet Communism didn't work for two reasons: 1) They were near-totalitarian, silencing all opposition, and incredibly one-sided… That's never a good thing. 2) Half the world was against them, and the US and it's allies were the richest at the time, effectively shutting them down economically and making the standard of living for everyone remain low.

Nowadays here, the rich consider themselves the owners of the world and most have few morals and are materialistic, reckless, elitist slobs. Meanwhile, they have the lower classes brainwashed into thinking the more expensive brands are the "better ones". Girls are brainwashed into thinking they have to look a certain way, act a certain way, talk a certain way, and even think a certain way. People seem like they're near clones of each other, mindless sheep following whatever the current societal trend is, pursuing dead-end personal pleasure careers that do nothing to better the world. Magazines, radio, television, facebook, instagram, etc, it all has us girls thinking they need to buy certain beauty products to fit in, act a certain way, look a certain way to fit in, and listen to certain genres of music (like that rubbish mainstream hip-hop that only degrades girls and promotes partying and indirectly condemns education). Meanwhile many of the guys think they need to be macho-men, breaking girls hearts from left to right, and condemning them as sleaze-bags thereby further feeding the positive feedback loop. The mega-corporations backing the media and product-advertising are responsible for this and have effectively enslaved the masses. They're keeping society distracted from the bigger issues in the world and largely uneducated! Whether it's all on accident or on purpose for the sake of producing themselves larger profits, it's nonetheless a disgusting system. But we can change that!!!

You're right in the sense that I care about the things I worked hard to obtain. But not in the sense that I would be reckless with it. I know that mass-consumerism is a bad thing, I would never allow myself to just buy a new object to replace one that has a slight dis-function or is getting old. Take my laptop for instance, I had to work real hard to buy this. Even if I had all the money in the world, I know better than to just buy a new laptop to replace the old one should some small internal problem happen. Many people don't realize this and it just goes back to our consumerist society, where most people are under the impression that new is better, and to keep spending and buying things they don't need. Meanwhile the poor just sit there drooling at all the things they can't have and idolize the rich way of living. Even I do that to an extent. It's because we're mentally enslaved to think this way. But it doesn't have to be this way! If there is a number 1 evil in this world, it's money. It's enslaved us physically and mentally, and we need to break away from these bonds.

That hypothetical society I was talking about will only work under two conditions: 1) Everyone is raised on the morals to not consume en masse (whether food or material products). 2) Keep the population of such a society very small, that way we'll minimize the environmental impact created. With both those two things in mind we can still keep a high standard of living, while creating minimal waste and minimal damage to the rest of the world. Many resources are indeed finite, but there's many ways to work around that. Recycle metals, plastics, switch from petroleum to electric cars, and use solar, wind, geothermal power where abundant and possibly fission, natural gas, and hydrogen wherever the others aren't abundant. Keep the rest of the world green and untouched except for a few patches of civilization thereby heavily reducing our footprint (sidetone: Environmental Science was my first major choice).

To be honest, since I'm far from rich right now, I only get incredibly paranoid and extra cautious about my laptop or car. If I was filthy rich I would probably not care as much, so you're right there (despite knowing that constantly buying new things to replace the old further contributes to environmental degradation and resource depletion). BUT, if I were told that the laptop supply is limited (like in that hypothetical society), and also raised with a very strong understanding of why it's important to consume as little as possible and fix/adjust what we have instead of consistently replacing things… I believe I would care about my laptop as much as I do now, or maybe even more so than in the present.

My plan is to become an bioengineer, become pretty rich (and maybe even richer should those novels work out nicely ), and use that money to help contribute to changes in the way this intense capitalistic society is managed. I'll use money to fight money, their own medicine against them!

Moving away from traditional warfare-wise, it's not beneficial to us at all. Traditional warfare will never happen again (unless North Korea or Iran say otherwise). Beyond that, it's just going to be insurgencies, rebels, terrorists, regional warlords, drug cartels, and pirates that we'll be fighting off, almost all of them in the pursuit of money… Though I feel would should be fighting off the heavily right-winged mega-corporations more so than the others. But now that we're moving away from traditional warfare, we're not going to be advancing much. No real benefits to the human condition will arise this way. The human condition is at it's peak right now and will slowly deteriorate through the next several decades. This is why we need to change, we need to stop being brainwashed by the rich, we need to stop pursuing ambitions chasing down money, and we need to unite with each other and become one… Through the next several decades we need to stop the divisions, stop the wars, and open people's eyes! We need to rise up! But before we can start any changes, first we got to get mad!

[Blakeway 211]

What are you saying Jay Ess? I'm right here. I'm back. Believe in me. But Evolution is right... I asked Father.

 

I think I just died XD

 

And why did you go to Kansas out of all places? Is that the true holy ground?

 

Yeah, well, I got lost...

 

It seem this topic got out of the main subject... Evolution and Creationism are theories. They can even complete each others. A lot of scientists believe in creationism.

 

Speaking of scientists, why are we all just believing everything they say? I mean they could be lying, maybe they are. Why aren't we doubting what they say? Why do we think they are right simply because of their position? Are we that naive? Trusting people because of their apparent knowledge and studies... 

 

Let's doubt and progress. Let's put a maximum wage in the US, shall we? Oh my My, Jesus is a socialist. OF COURSE. Read the Bible. I help the poors... 

 

 

 

Iran isn't a threat to the United States. The United States are a threat to Iran. Who's surrounding Iran? Who's surrounding North Korea? The minute NK launches a missile towards SK or the US, bam, the US blow it up and attacks NK. Isn't it easy? Iran's surrounded as well. Israel could beat Iran easily anytime at the moment. Of course, I'm against nuclear proliferation, but american imperialism and Bush and Obama's foreign policy (which is by the way the exact same thing), known as interventionism, is disgusting me.

 

Then after, western medias will bash on Venezuela how they do not respect human rights. Will completely ignore the revolution in Iceland that happened in 2011. On the other end, the medias are talking about the US's glorious involvment and help in the Arab Spring, but hey, the US helped most of the dictators that these people are trying to remove from power. Define hypocrisy. 

 

'MURICA!

 

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

[LexusInfernus 908]

Everything you said is the reason why this system needs to be done away with. Everything revolves around money! Soviet Communism didn't work for two reasons: 1) They were near-totalitarian, silencing all opposition, and incredibly one-sided… That's never a good thing. 2) Half the world was against them, and the US and it's allies were the richest at the time, effectively shutting them down economically and making the standard of living for everyone remain low.

 

Actually, there is an interesting bit there. Communism supposedly doesn't really care about money or getting rich. And seeing how the communists pretty much controlled the other half, they had sufficient resources to become self sustainable. So why did America's money win from a system that supposedly doesn't care about about money? The answer is quite simple. A system like communism is simply horribly inefficient, thanks to this whole lack of competition thingy. Where in capitalism everyone competes with everyone, you can be sure that only the best survive. Its survival of the fittest really. I'm not saying that is right, I believe we could definitely do with a more restrained form of capitalism, or a more human centric form of capitalism. But it is very clear that for now, capitalism is the most efficient system when it comes to resource management. 

 

Nowadays here, the rich consider themselves the owners of the world and most have few morals and are materialistic, reckless, elitist slobs. Meanwhile, they have the lower classes brainwashed into thinking the more expensive brands are the "better ones". Girls are brainwashed into thinking they have to look a certain way, act a certain way, talk a certain way, and even think a certain way. People seem like they're near clones of each other, mindless sheep following whatever the current societal trend is, pursuing dead-end personal pleasure careers that do nothing to better the world. Magazines, radio, television, facebook, instagram, etc, it all has us girls thinking they need to buy certain beauty products to fit in, act a certain way, look a certain way to fit in, and listen to certain genres of music (like that rubbish mainstream hip-hop that only degrades girls and promotes partying and indirectly condemns education). Meanwhile many of the guys think they need to be macho-men, breaking girls hearts from left to right, and condemning them as sleaze-bags thereby further feeding the positive feedback loop. The mega-corporations backing the media and product-advertising are responsible for this and have effectively enslaved the masses. They're keeping society distracted from the bigger issues in the world and largely uneducated! Whether it's all on accident or on purpose for the sake of producing themselves larger profits, it's nonetheless a disgusting system. But we can change that!!!

 

Oh of course we can change it, but that is not the question. The real question is, do we want to change it? And the answer to that is a clear no. Capitalism is democracy, you vote with your wallet. Everything that is popular right now, that brings in a lot of money to the people behind it? A lot of people vote on it, by buying the products and services. Mind you, non of these people is forced to buy any of those products. Yet they do. The system is not disgusting, the people using the system are disgusting. Compare it to this. If people would vote tomorrow for a totalitarian dictator during elections, does that mean that democracy as a system is disgusting because it could allow such a thing to happen? Of course not, democracy is not to blame for this, the people who voted for the dictator are to blame, they are just...idiots. 

 

You're right in the sense that I care about the things I worked hard to obtain. But not in the sense that I would be reckless with it. I know that mass-consumerism is a bad thing, I would never allow myself to just buy a new object to replace one that has a slight dis-function or is getting old. Take my laptop for instance, I had to work real hard to buy this. Even if I had all the money in the world, I know better than to just buy a new laptop to replace the old one should some small internal problem happen. Many people don't realize this and it just goes back to our consumerist society, where most people are under the impression that new is better, and to keep spending and buying things they don't need. Meanwhile the poor just sit there drooling at all the things they can't have and idolize the rich way of living. Even I do that to an extent. It's because we're mentally enslaved to think this way. But it doesn't have to be this way! If there is a number 1 evil in this world, it's money. It's enslaved us physically and mentally, and we need to break away from these bonds.

 

Is it a bad thing? I mean, from an environmental point of view, sure, its bad. But technology progresses with tiny steps. The slower people are willing to replace their technology, the lower the incentive for companies to increase performance of said technology. Look at computers. The first computers were huge, barely useful and were so expensive only governments could afford them.It took a while before they went from the first computer to the first personal computer, and the difference in power was relatively minimal. Then it got adopted by nearly everyone almost overnight. Now look at the difference in computing power between 2013 PC and a 1990 pc and compare that to the difference of a 1990 pc and a 1960 computer. 

 

As for money, it is just a tool. I agree, more people need to realize it is just a tool, not a goal. But as a tool, its an extremely useful tool. The fact that it has been around for thousands of years only shows how useful it is. 

 

That hypothetical society I was talking about will only work under two conditions: 1) Everyone is raised on the morals to not consume en masse (whether food or material products). 2) Keep the population of such a society very small, that way we'll minimize the environmental impact created. With both those two things in mind we can still keep a high standard of living, while creating minimal waste and minimal damage to the rest of the world. Many resources are indeed finite, but there's many ways to work around that. Recycle metals, plastics, switch from petroleum to electric cars, and use solar, wind, geothermal power where abundant and possibly fission, natural gas, and hydrogen wherever the others aren't abundant. Keep the rest of the world green and untouched except for a few patches of civilization thereby heavily reducing our footprint (sidetone: Environmental Science was my first major choice).

 

Power is not a problem, just a technological obstacle that is easily solved in a few years, if we would want it. Hell, we could solve it right now if we wanted to. And while we could of course recycle a lot more than we do now, recycling anything for a 100% is simply not possible, 

 

And minimizing our numbers sounds nice, but how would you do that without some seriously screwed up measures like 1 child policies or worse. 

 

As for not consuming en masse, just realize that mass consumption is the primary incentive for our current technological progress. It is literally funding the whole thing. Without it, progress would slow down to a crawl. 

 

 

 

My plan is to become an bioengineer, become pretty rich (and maybe even richer should those novels work out nicely ), and use that money to help contribute to changes in the way this intense capitalistic society is managed. I'll use money to fight money, their own medicine against them!

 

Heh, good luck with that

 

Moving away from traditional warfare-wise, it's not beneficial to us at all. Traditional warfare will never happen again (unless North Korea or Iran say otherwise). Beyond that, it's just going to be insurgencies, rebels, terrorists, regional warlords, drug cartels, and pirates that we'll be fighting off, almost all of them in the pursuit of money… Though I feel would should be fighting off the heavily right-winged mega-corporations more so than the others. But now that we're moving away from traditional warfare, we're not going to be advancing much. No real benefits to the human condition will arise this way. The human condition is at it's peak right now and will slowly deteriorate through the next several decades. This is why we need to change, we need to stop being brainwashed by the rich, we need to stop pursuing ambitions chasing down money, and we need to unite with each other and become one… Through the next several decades we need to stop the divisions, stop the wars, and open people's eyes! We need to rise up! But before we can start any changes, first we got to get mad!

Technically we are going to see an increase of very old fashioned conflicts. Back to 15th century style warfare. But you are right, such things were done mostly out of profit for the people fighting. I wouldn't say that there is nothing we could gain from that kind of war though. It will be different technology, more small scale, human based technology, as soldiers once again become the center of the conflict. Also, I suspect it will greatly aid the advance in artificial intelligence and robotics. Soldiers will need support, and whats better than robots? 

 

I love that bit of video. I hear it so often in the music I like  

[Ace3 1,209]

 'MURICA!

 

Oh lord, if only that was Revelations 22:22

 

In all seriousness, about the topic, I imagine there is no definite answer, but I would argue that Creationism seems somewhat ridiculous to me personally. Has anything in this universe ever just popped out of nowhere? I wouldn't believe humans did either. However, there's the problem. If nothing within the universe has ever all of a sudden commenced existence, then how did the universe come about existence? Who knows? Who cares? There's infinite ways to explain it, and a defined number of 0 ways to prove it. So I would just live with it, and forget about dealing with it. 

 

This topic evolved into warfare I guess and the modern human condition.

 

Moving away from traditional warfare-wise, it's not beneficial to us at all. Traditional warfare will never happen again (unless North Korea or Iran say otherwise). Beyond that, it's just going to be insurgencies, rebels, terrorists, regional warlords, drug cartels, and pirates that we'll be fighting off, almost all of them in the pursuit of money… Though I feel would should be fighting off the heavily right-winged mega-corporations more so than the others. But now that we're moving away from traditional warfare, we're not going to be advancing much. No real benefits to the human condition will arise this way. The human condition is at it's peak right now and will slowly deteriorate through the next several decades. This is why we need to change, we need to stop being brainwashed by the rich, we need to stop pursuing ambitions chasing down money, and we need to unite with each other and become one… Through the next several decades we need to stop the divisions, stop the wars, and open people's eyes! We need to rise up! But before we can start any changes, first we got to get mad
!

 

Open people's eyes to what exactly? I don't understand why you are against large corporations. Isn't it the corporations that allow us to more easily pursue our ambitions through their products? Isn't it the corporations that create competition in the global economy, and our dream that our lives will be fulfilled when successful in said economy? That dream may be misguided, but the fact that humans can't comprehend the origins of our universe give our lives little "purpose". So don't bash the corporations. They make the game fun. Open the eyes of the people, and you'll find yourself with 7 billion people wondering what their purpose is in life right? 

[Zukunftstraume 220]

 

What are you saying Jay Ess? I'm right here. I'm back. Believe in me. But Evolution is right... I asked Father.

 

I think I just died XD

 

And why did you go to Kansas out of all places? Is that the true holy ground?

 

Yeah, well, I got lost...

 

It seem this topic got out of the main subject... Evolution and Creationism are theories. They can even complete each others. A lot of scientists believe in creationism.

 

Speaking of scientists, why are we all just believing everything they say? I mean they could be lying, maybe they are. Why aren't we doubting what they say? Why do we think they are right simply because of their position? Are we that naive? Trusting people because of their apparent knowledge and studies... 

 

Let's doubt and progress. Let's put a maximum wage in the US, shall we? Oh my My, Jesus is a socialist. OF COURSE. Read the Bible. I help the poors... 

 

 

 

Iran isn't a threat to the United States. The United States are a threat to Iran. Who's surrounding Iran? Who's surrounding North Korea? The minute NK launches a missile towards SK or the US, bam, the US blow it up and attacks NK. Isn't it easy? Iran's surrounded as well. Israel could beat Iran easily anytime at the moment. Of course, I'm against nuclear proliferation, but american imperialism and Bush and Obama's foreign policy (which is by the way the exact same thing), known as interventionism, is disgusting me.

 

Then after, western medias will bash on Venezuela how they do not respect human rights. Will completely ignore the revolution in Iceland that happened in 2011. On the other end, the medias are talking about the US's glorious involvment and help in the Arab Spring, but hey, the US helped most of the dictators that these people are trying to remove from power. Define hypocrisy. 

 

'MURICA!

 

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

 

My idol, Carl Sagan was actually one of the supporters of religion and science coexisting. The extreme creationism that adheres to everything in the bible as being historically accurate however, contradicts that of the currently scientifically accepted theories. So, those two extremities are highly incompatible. The middle ground where there might've been a creator to the universe who destined the laws of physics to eventually allow for life to develop, now that's completely fine and still compatible.

You're right in the sense that we shouldn't trust anyone's word just because they say so. It's as bad as believing the Bible as being factual simply because it's been said to be God's book and what He wanted us to follow.

However, if you've ever taken a Biology class, Physics class, etc… You'll see one of the most important things they have you do (which is NOT to study the theories of evolution and genetics in detail based on what's inside a book), but it's to actually test out theories in the lab and see for yourself!

I've seen a bacteria colony evolve in front of my very eyes to accept a gene taken out of a jellyfish and glow fluorescent pink as a result. I've seen a drop of pond water be placed under a microscope and have been completely flabbergasted by watching single-celled things I never knew existed come to life, swim about, eat each other, and so forth… It's one of the moments I cherish the most in school. I've seen the laws of physics come to life as theories out of a book for electromagnetism make someone with very long hair have their hair completely stand up straight! I've seen the planet Jupiter behind a high-powered telescope and saw the 4 major moons too, including Europa, which is supposedly one of the biggest contenders for housing life outside Earth. I've synthesized an organic chemical that had the aroma of almonds in a chem-lab and have also spilled a very high concentration of sulfuric acid spill on me once set my lab equipment on fire for not following directions.

I even had my own doubts about the Big Bang. I asked myself, what the devil makes this a valid theory as opposed to anything else? For the longest time I only had but the simplest understanding of what the Big Bang was. A semester ago, after studying the electromagnetic spectrum (microwaves in particular) and the four fundamental forces, there it was in front of my very eyes, the direct evidence to how we know the Big Bang happened and what we know happened in it's many stages.

I constantly try to tell people not to listen to what anyone else says and follow their own minds and think for themselves. It's amazing what the evidence around someone would show you if one actually took the time to listen to all the viewpoints, instead of just one mindset. And I should know, I've been raised Catholic, then Buddhist for 8 years or so, and now I don't associate myself with any organized religion. The evidence for things in the Bible (mainly the entirety of Genesis) and many other things simply don't exist. An immense amount of evidence for the other things I have seen directly contradict it.

I can't tell you if things like Dark Matter, Destiny, or an Afterlife exist because I haven't seen any overwhelming amount of evidence to prove or disprove any of these nearly completely. Don't get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing that I'd rather find out than that an afterlife actually exists. I'd love to know that I'll at least end up somewhere else after this life is over, perhaps somewhere better, and that my absolute existence won't end here. But, at this point in time, I can't be certain of anything.

But what I can tell you is that based on all the data, evidence, all the logic, all the reasoning that I've come across in the labs for school, or on my own out in the world, that things like Evolution, The Heliocentric Model, Plate Tectonics, Genetics, The Laws of Physics, all exist… They're all true. That evidence is there. It's not just some textbook mumbo-jumbo that some old dude is telling you to believe, no… I've seen, with my own eyes, it's all been piece by piece assembled under my nose, and it's something quite complex and very beautiful.

On more modern issues. There's nothing I hate more than the extreme capitalistic ways of the far-right end of the political spectrum, the rich mega-corporations who seek to enslave us mentally with all their psychological propaganda (like bright elegant commercials that try to get you to buy the new burger at Carl's Jr, or to buy a certain beauty product, or to look like a certain model, or listen to a certain kind of music, all of this because it'll make you "fit in")… It's disgusting. It's turning us into mindless trendhopping sheep, we're losing our individualism!

 

The US is the cause for most of the world's problems right now. If we left everyone alone then North Korea and Iran wouldn't be so hostile towards us, we wouldn't be getting terrorized so relentlessly by angry Muslim extremists. We should all just leave them alone damn it! But nope! Anyways, hopefully Obama turns things around in this 2nd term. There's nothing I'd rather see than the US to help lead the world into a prosperous unified future instead of forcing capitalism upon them.

[Ace3 1,209]

Tell the over 1,400 kids that have been killed in Syria by their harsh government in the past few years that we should remain out of global politics.

 

I'm sorry, but that's an extremely naive statement to make right? I mean, if the U.S hadn't been involved in WWII, who knows what D-Day could have been? Don't hold America in low lights either for attempting to uphold liberty and freedom elsewhere. 

 

You think we're losing our individualism? When did we have any to begin with? If you can't define why humans exist, then who cares if people are misguided by corporations (not saying they are, because once again, without corporations like Apple, Microsoft, etc., you couldn't even be writing this stuff.). 

[hym 358]

Considering this thread is about Creationism vs evolution and we are talking about global politics, I think it is time we wander back on topic.

[Blakeway 211]

 

 

 'MURICA!

 

Oh lord, if only that was Revelations 22:22

 

In all seriousness, about the topic, I imagine there is no definite answer, but I would argue that Creationism seems somewhat ridiculous to me personally. Has anything in this universe ever just popped out of nowhere? I wouldn't believe humans did either. However, there's the problem. If nothing within the universe has ever all of a sudden commenced existence, then how did the universe come about existence? Who knows? Who cares? There's infinite ways to explain it, and a defined number of 0 ways to prove it. So I would just live with it, and forget about dealing with it. 

 

This topic evolved into warfare I guess and the modern human condition.

 

Moving away from traditional warfare-wise, it's not beneficial to us at all. Traditional warfare will never happen again (unless North Korea or Iran say otherwise). Beyond that, it's just going to be insurgencies, rebels, terrorists, regional warlords, drug cartels, and pirates that we'll be fighting off, almost all of them in the pursuit of money… Though I feel would should be fighting off the heavily right-winged mega-corporations more so than the others. But now that we're moving away from traditional warfare, we're not going to be advancing much. No real benefits to the human condition will arise this way. The human condition is at it's peak right now and will slowly deteriorate through the next several decades. This is why we need to change, we need to stop being brainwashed by the rich, we need to stop pursuing ambitions chasing down money, and we need to unite with each other and become one… Through the next several decades we need to stop the divisions, stop the wars, and open people's eyes! We need to rise up! But before we can start any changes, first we got to get mad
!

 

Open people's eyes to what exactly? I don't understand why you are against large corporations. Isn't it the corporations that allow us to more easily pursue our ambitions through their products? Isn't it the corporations that create competition in the global economy, and our dream that our lives will be fulfilled when successful in said economy? That dream may be misguided, but the fact that humans can't comprehend the origins of our universe give our lives little "purpose". So don't bash the corporations. They make the game fun. Open the eyes of the people, and you'll find yourself with 7 billion people wondering what their purpose is in life right? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, they kinda went out of subject a long time ago I guess, now it's a non-debate between Zukunftstraume and LexusInfernus about some economical delusions I didn't read.

 

ACE! Defending corporations? Omg, are you in the tea party now?    Not that they're really bad, I mean, Rand Paul just did a hell of a good move last Wednesday in the Senate, but he's a Paul after all. So Romney eh? "Corporations are people my friends." Bwahahaha, REGULATION is the key. Of course finding your true self or like goal in life is important, primordial to an extent. Anyways, corporations aren't perfect and they need very strong regulations so the State can do its primary role which is to protect the citizens. Corporation's only objective is to make profit for its shareholders. And they can achieve their objective without caring about other people. So, it's with strong laws that we can solve our problems and not with trust.

 

 

 

 

What are you saying Jay Ess? I'm right here. I'm back. Believe in me. But Evolution is right... I asked Father.

 

I think I just died XD

 

And why did you go to Kansas out of all places? Is that the true holy ground?

 

Yeah, well, I got lost...

 

It seem this topic got out of the main subject... Evolution and Creationism are theories. They can even complete each others. A lot of scientists believe in creationism.

 

Speaking of scientists, why are we all just believing everything they say? I mean they could be lying, maybe they are. Why aren't we doubting what they say? Why do we think they are right simply because of their position? Are we that naive? Trusting people because of their apparent knowledge and studies... 

 

Let's doubt and progress. Let's put a maximum wage in the US, shall we? Oh my My, Jesus is a socialist. OF COURSE. Read the Bible. I help the poors... 

 

 

 

Iran isn't a threat to the United States. The United States are a threat to Iran. Who's surrounding Iran? Who's surrounding North Korea? The minute NK launches a missile towards SK or the US, bam, the US blow it up and attacks NK. Isn't it easy? Iran's surrounded as well. Israel could beat Iran easily anytime at the moment. Of course, I'm against nuclear proliferation, but american imperialism and Bush and Obama's foreign policy (which is by the way the exact same thing), known as interventionism, is disgusting me.

 

Then after, western medias will bash on Venezuela how they do not respect human rights. Will completely ignore the revolution in Iceland that happened in 2011. On the other end, the medias are talking about the US's glorious involvment and help in the Arab Spring, but hey, the US helped most of the dictators that these people are trying to remove from power. Define hypocrisy. 

 

'MURICA!

 

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

 

My idol, Carl Sagan was actually one of the supporters of religion and science coexisting. The extreme creationism that adheres to everything in the bible as being historically accurate however, contradicts that of the currently scientifically accepted theories. So, those two extremities are highly incompatible. The middle ground where there might've been a creator to the universe who destined the laws of physics to eventually allow for life to develop, now that's completely fine and still compatible.

You're right in the sense that we shouldn't trust anyone's word just because they say so. It's as bad as believing the Bible as being factual simply because it's been said to be God's book and what He wanted us to follow.

However, if you've ever taken a Biology class, Physics class, etc… You'll see one of the most important things they have you do (which is NOT to study the theories of evolution and genetics in detail based on what's inside a book), but it's to actually test out theories in the lab and see for yourself!

I've seen a bacteria colony evolve in front of my very eyes to accept a gene taken out of a jellyfish and glow fluorescent pink as a result. I've seen a drop of pond water be placed under a microscope and have been completely flabbergasted by watching single-celled things I never knew existed come to life, swim about, eat each other, and so forth… It's one of the moments I cherish the most in school. I've seen the laws of physics come to life as theories out of a book for electromagnetism make someone with very long hair have their hair completely stand up straight! I've seen the planet Jupiter behind a high-powered telescope and saw the 4 major moons too, including Europa, which is supposedly one of the biggest contenders for housing life outside Earth. I've synthesized an organic chemical that had the aroma of almonds in a chem-lab and have also spilled a very high concentration of sulfuric acid spill on me once set my lab equipment on fire for not following directions.

I even had my own doubts about the Big Bang. I asked myself, what the devil makes this a valid theory as opposed to anything else? For the longest time I only had but the simplest understanding of what the Big Bang was. A semester ago, after studying the electromagnetic spectrum (microwaves in particular) and the four fundamental forces, there it was in front of my very eyes, the direct evidence to how we know the Big Bang happened and what we know happened in it's many stages.

I constantly try to tell people not to listen to what anyone else says and follow their own minds and think for themselves. It's amazing what the evidence around someone would show you if one actually took the time to listen to all the viewpoints, instead of just one mindset. And I should know, I've been raised Catholic, then Buddhist for 8 years or so, and now I don't associate myself with any organized religion. The evidence for things in the Bible (mainly the entirety of Genesis) and many other things simply don't exist. An immense amount of evidence for the other things I have seen directly contradict it.

I can't tell you if things like Dark Matter, Destiny, or an Afterlife exist because I haven't seen any overwhelming amount of evidence to prove or disprove any of these nearly completely. Don't get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing that I'd rather find out than that an afterlife actually exists. I'd love to know that I'll at least end up somewhere else after this life is over, perhaps somewhere better, and that my absolute existence won't end here. But, at this point in time, I can't be certain of anything.

But what I can tell you is that based on all the data, evidence, all the logic, all the reasoning that I've come across in the labs for school, or on my own out in the world, that things like Evolution, The Heliocentric Model, Plate Tectonics, Genetics, The Laws of Physics, all exist… They're all true. That evidence is there. It's not just some textbook mumbo-jumbo that some old dude is telling you to believe, no… I've seen, with my own eyes, it's all been piece by piece assembled under my nose, and it's something quite complex and very beautiful.



On more modern issues. There's nothing I hate more than the extreme capitalistic ways of the far-right end of the political spectrum, the rich mega-corporations who seek to enslave us mentally with all their psychological propaganda (like bright elegant commercials that try to get you to buy the new burger at Carl's Jr, or to buy a certain beauty product, or to look like a certain model, or listen to a certain kind of music, all of this because it'll make you "fit in")… It's disgusting. It's turning us into mindless trendhopping sheep, we're losing our individualism!

 

The US is the cause for most of the world's problems right now. If we left everyone alone then North Korea and Iran wouldn't be so hostile towards us, we wouldn't be getting terrorized so relentlessly by angry Muslim extremists. We should all just leave them alone damn it! But nope! Anyways, hopefully Obama turns things around in this 2nd term. There's nothing I'd rather see than the US to help lead the world into a prosperous unified future instead of forcing capitalism upon them.

 

 

If you want an isolationist United States, you'd better vote for Ron Paul. Even if I don't agree to all his policies, his foreign program is the only thing I really care about, as I'm not american (yes, I lied), and it's quite isolationist. Actually, the US can do good some good internationally as well. If they let NK alone, they'd invade South Korea, then China wouldn't care and Japan would back up South Korea and there will be a huge war again. I do not like the fact that your government is acting as the Good Samaritan of the World, the so called Protector of pseudo-Democracy. An isolationist united states, but interventionist in certain major issues would be ideal. On the other end, the US have tons and tons of domestic problems that need more of their attention. But as long as the american people will be afraid to speak, nothing will change.

 

 

 

 

 

Back on topic: Evolution is still only a theory. It is a highly possible theory, but it's not a pure fact. I've seen a gag about it recently.

 

Creationist: "Evolution is only a theory!"

Guy: "So is gravity, but I don't see you jumping off a bridge."

[Forthwall 1,118]

My body is a theory.

But anyway uh....

You can't debate this stuff, we already know that there is a slim chance anyone will change their mind or believe anything they don't want to. I don't see the point in arguing between fact and fiction (whatever you think fact and fiction is). Anychew, my opinion is that Evolution exists, why else would God make some of us believe it?  

 

but yeh, evolution

[Ace3 1,209]

Humans from Monkeys>Humans from Dust

 

All the way

[Blakeway 211]

No Ace, creationism is:

 

Humans from Light.

 

so personally...

 

Humans from Monkeys<Humans from Light

 

because Light power << if you know what I mean.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Considering this thread is about Creationism vs evolution and we are talking about global politics, I think it is time we wander back on topic.

 

Right... Sorry, my fault.

 

Anyone who still wants to talk about this care to start a new thread? (the other ones seem highly specific to certain topics that don't fit most of this under an umbrella topic). Or PM's maybe?

 

I had actually written out a huge response to Mr. 10¹³... And then I saw this post above, and for the sake of rerailing this thread, I'll just keep it saved for now.

 

Also Lexus, mind if I ask what type of music that is?

 

 

Picture related:

 

[Ace3 1,209]

PM me your response that you saved, I'd love to chat it out 

[Blakeway 211]

 

Have fun peeps.

 

OMG ACE you DID change your name. bwahahahahah

 

I'll make a thread for random talk about anything randomly with all seriousness indented, seriously tho.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ok, now back to topic.  If it is really done, let's lock this and be done with it.

[macvirt 361]

Right, to get back on topic ... Here's a ball going up in the air.

 

Everything is theory. That is why we're always looking for a theory of everything. 

 

Science is but an empirical attempt at a process of discovery our ancient belief systems engage on in symbolism (incidentally, with us increasingly finding out that Sagan was right all along, two sides of the same coin discovering at different paces and speaking different languages).

 

Science has the same fundamental challenge as belief, the moment you insert humans into the mix you find out that in any form of organisation there is a severe risk of dogmatizing findings and information alike. This is why science carries syndromes like "not invented here" and "screw that other guy I published first" and "what we cannot see does not exist .. ah crap now we can detect tachyons ffs we got to remove a bunch of old guys from old worn seats because they are now emberassing". And that is also why belief, which is personal and tolerant, is subverted into religion which is dogma and instrumentation of power. 

 

Evolution theory, creationism, I am not going to be surprised if at one point we find out that it is just another case similar to a scientist figuring out string theory by following teachings of a buddhist and an old jewish scholar in a scientific process. The really big problem is always that people abuse concepts for power (look at how creationism is used as an instrument of a modern version of the old Jesuit theorem of "give me a child for 5 years and he is mine for life") and that we as humans create our own inertia against the bridging of perspectives. Still, we may very well find out one day that there is a big problem with how we have anthropomorphised the god concept in finding out that our dear old concepts of alpha and omega actually do have a place in a computational multiverse as both science and belief systems are slowly finding out

 

 

So here is a fun statement, for all those still vested in either scientific dogma or religeous zeal:

 

only those who crave power fear knowledge and the exposure of people to different perspectives.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. I admit that I have read only a portion of this thread. It goes so fast.

2. I think that as technology progresses, so must culture/society/civilization. Unfortunately, this is not the case and the current civilization is in decay. We have the ability to end poverty and starvation. We have the ability to wipe out most diseases ravaging the underdeveloped areas of the world. We have the ability to recycle a majority of what we have. We have the ability to colonize other planets and mine asteroids. Are we doing these? NO, the cold truth is that virtually no one wants to invest that much money into developing existing technologies to do so.

3. I think that messing with human bodies goes against nature and depending on the context can be considered "playing God" by a lot of people. When I am old, I will be one of those "technology Luddites/reactionaries" who does not want to have technology implants or gene splicing. Heck, I won't even want to undergo cosmetic surgery or date anyone who has. I also think that pollution needs to be cleaned up or we must colonize pollution-free worlds in order to lower all the malignant mutations going on. We have various disabilities becoming more widespread and we are seeing organs being malformed.

 

 

--Ocram