|
CommieGIR posted:Actually most of those things could not technically happen. Didn't you take your mandatory doom and gloom training?
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Didn't you take your mandatory doom and gloom training? I believe you were giving the presentation with your 'Cheap energy is MAH RIGHT! drat you Greens for caring about the environment'
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Radbot posted:About as much of a stretch as projecting infinite technological growth into the future. In a retrospective, historical sense, that's been a pretty bad prediction. Most technology is derived from something else. So you think tech in 1995 is more similar to today, than 1975?  I hear that a lot. We invented nukes and space rockets and disco and then we just stopped. Where's my flying car? Thing is, humans do not have an infinite number of basic needs to address so there's not an infinite number of inventions to address those needs. We can't invent something that saves as much labour as a washing machine, every 10 years. We have automated most things we need to do - you can buy all your food processed if you want, you don't need to sow your own clothes, we have machines that wash your clothes and dishes and your car and even robots that can vacuum your floors. There's not that many basic needs that we haven't addressed yet. From here on out it's going to be mostly about luxuries until we have actual robot butlers. This doesn't mean tech advancement has stopped or slowed down - just that we have it pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Newsflash: we've got no place else to go. We will go to the stars, citizen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:I hear that a lot. We invented nukes and space rockets and disco and then we just stopped. Where's my flying car? Thing is, humans do not have an infinite number of basic needs to address so there's not an infinite number of inventions to address those needs. We can't invent something that saves as much labour as a washing machine, every 10 years. We have automated most things we need to do - you can buy all your food processed if you want, you don't need to sow your own clothes, we have machines that wash your clothes and dishes and your car and even robots that can vacuum your floors. There's not that many basic needs that we haven't addressed yet. From here on out it's going to be mostly about luxuries until we have actual robot butlers. This doesn't mean tech advancement has stopped or slowed down - just that we have it pretty good. Technological development over the past 30 years or so has been primarily focused around communications and organization/coordination. Those are not as flashy as flying cars*, but they are far from the sole domain of luxury goods and are still showing incredible amounts of development. There's also the little fact you ignore - even if we invent a great new technology, propagation is still going to take a long time. Even if all of our technological progress stopped right now you could probably get multiple future decades worth of improvements just from having the less developed parts of the world catch up. *Unless you remember that the entirety of the Internet falls under the category of communications & coordination. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Most technology is derived from something else. So you think tech in 1995 is more similar to today, than 1975? I just think it's ludicrous to assume that technology has done a good job at meeting the basic needs of most humans on earth. And I'm not saying "flying cars", I'm saying technology hasn't become the labor-saving savior it was supposed to be - and that's because humans want it that way. That's why we won't see exponential technological development in really anything that doesn't benefit the rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Technological development over the past 30 years or so has been primarily focused around communications and organization/coordination. Those are not as flashy as flying cars, but they are far from the sole domain of luxury goods and are still showing incredible amounts of development. Pretty much. We haven't invented the next washing machine (what a weird example) in the past 30 years, oh noes. Instead we've connected a couple of billion people to each other through the internet and smart phones. That's a pretty staggeringly huge achievement and nobody has any real idea of what kind of things will happen based off of an inter-connected humanity in the future. Sky is the limit, friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I just think it's ludicrous to assume that technology has done a good job at meeting the basic needs of most humans on earth. And I'm not saying "flying cars", I'm saying technology hasn't become the labor-saving savior it was supposed to be - and that's because humans want it that way. That's why we won't see exponential technological development in really anything that doesn't benefit the rich. Most of the major technological advances come around because either someone says "I'm going to keep trying until it works" or some government/large entity sets a goal and says "We WILL achieve this" A'la Salt Reactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knofNX7HCbg An idea seen as so ludicrous and mindbogglingly dumb idea resulted in a major advance for no other reason than being told 'It has to be done.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
How are u posted:Pretty much. We haven't invented the next washing machine (what a weird example) in the past 30 years, oh noes. I guess that's not that impressive to me, considering the world was already connected via the telephone, and we already had an Internet-like thing 30 years ago. We just improved on it and gave more people access. poo poo, we had computer networks in 1969.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I guess that's not that impressive to me, considering the world was already connected via the telephone, and we already had an Internet-like thing 30 years ago. We just improved on it and gave more people access. poo poo, we had computer networks in 1969. I mean, by that criteria a flying car isn't really that impressive either. It's just a car that floats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
A solid understanding of physics and a firm belief that space colonization will save us from global warming are mutually exclusive. Check out Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan for a great overview of why space colonization is unrealistic and why it was promoted as an idea in the 60s and 70s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I guess that's not that impressive to me, considering the world was already connected via the telephone, and we already had an Internet-like thing 30 years ago. We just improved on it and gave more people access. poo poo, we had computer networks in 1969. Equivocating billions of people being "connected" by the telephone and billions of people being connected by the internet is Dumb As poo poo, sorry. Likewise comparing a computer network in 1969 that was only accessible by white computer techno-wizards in a lab in Palo Alto and only able to speak to a tiny group of a few dozen other computers across the nation to a fruit vendor or cattle herdsman in sub-Saharan Africa being able to log online and access and participate in the breadth and depth of human knowledge is also stupid as god drat poo poo. The changes to intra-human connectivity that have occurred over the past 20 years are entirely without precedent and nobody knows what they will lead to. Only a fool would downplay its significance or potential. How are u fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I mean, by that criteria a flying car isn't really that impressive either. It's just a car that floats. Besides, we already have personal, single-passenger airplanes, and have had them for a long time. The only thing that makes a flying car different is that it would, in theory, be flown daily, and more casually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Space flight is different than communications technology. In the 1959 Richard Feynman gave a lecture (check it out on youtube) in which he explained the specific ways that computers would become smaller and more efficient. He reviewed how lithography would enable integrated circuits to be created at smaller and smaller scales and defined the limits of computers in terms of commonly known physical laws. You will find no similar lecture regarding spaceflight because the commonly known physical laws show that we cannot ever visit far off galaxies in any reasonable human timeframe. It is such a simple equation of time, mass, and energy, that no serious scientist advocates space colonization as a cure for any modern problem. Not overpopulation, not global warming, not food shortages, not resource shortages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Space flight is different than communications technology. In the 1959 Richard Feynman gave a lecture (check it out on youtube) in which he explained the specific ways that computers would become smaller and more efficient. He reviewed how lithography would enable integrated circuits to be created at smaller and smaller scales and defined the limits of computers in terms of commonly known physical laws. You will find no similar lecture regarding spaceflight because the commonly known physical laws show that we cannot ever visit far off galaxies in any reasonable human timeframe. It is such a simple equation of time, mass, and energy, that no serious scientist advocates space colonization as a cure for any modern problem. Not overpopulation, not global warming, not food shortages, not resource shortages. Nobody in this thread is actually advocating for space colonization as a solution to taking action on climate change here and now, today. However, you can only take so much of "YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT SPACE THERE ARE PROBLEMS ON EARTH!!!  " morons before you have to tell them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Not overpopulation, not global warming, not food shortages, not resource shortages. Exactly. And Carl Sagan and multiple others have been pretty clear space flight will do none of these things. But, they also advocated FOR space flight for no other reason than we should go. We've just had one too many people showing up pulling a GOP "Why go to space, we need to pay for things on Earth like the F-35"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
How are u posted:Nobody in this thread is actually advocating for space colonization as a solution to taking action on climate change here and now, today. Global warming has to be considered in the philosophical context of unbounded growth. Historically we have grown and believed the idea that we will always grow. This manifest destiny mode of thinking must now be extinguished as we push past the limits of earths sustainable limits. While spaceflight might not be thought of as a solution to *global warming* by this thread it is absolutely considered as mechanism to allow infinite growth of the human race by people in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Exactly. And Carl Sagan and multiple others have been pretty clear space flight will do none of these things. Wrong; Carl Sagan advocated unmanned space flight in that book, but not manned space flight. In fact he has an entire chapter in that book ripping on common myths about why we should pursue manned exploration. I too advocate for unmanned exploration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Wrong; Carl Sagan advocated unmanned space flight in that book, but not manned space flight. In fact he has an entire chapter in that book ripping on common myths about why we should pursue manned exploration. I too advocate for unmanned exploration. He specifically points out in the very beginning of the book that he argues against his own points on purpose. He was still a major believer in manned space missions. He was very much a proponent of it. He saw arguing against himself and dispelling myths as all part of a good scientific overview of things. Yes, he had an entire chapter dedicated to rebutting common arguments, but he still came out swinging in favor of manned flights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Wrong; Carl Sagan advocated unmanned space flight in that book, but not manned space flight. In fact he has an entire chapter in that book ripping on common myths about why we should pursue manned exploration. I too advocate for unmanned exploration. Alas the goon dream of loving green alien chicks will never come to pass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
humanity's only future lies in the unfeeling embrace of the void
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
eat arby's
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Global warming has to be considered in the philosophical context of unbounded growth. Historically we have grown and believed the idea that we will always grow. This manifest destiny mode of thinking must now be extinguished as we push past the limits of earths sustainable limits. While spaceflight might not be thought of as a solution to *global warming* by this thread it is absolutely considered as mechanism to allow infinite growth of the human race by people in this thread. I absolutely agree that infinite growth has been a terrible idea for our civilization for the past couple hundred years, obviously. Infinite growth, however, is only a problem when you are limited to a confined space, such as a planet. Outside of this planet there is infinite space, so I see no reason not to have infinite growth out there. You just have to recognize that there are limits to growth within certain confines and once you hit those limits you have to move onward and outward. Even if we can't make it to other stars our own solar system has enough resources to sustain infinite growth basically forever. e: there's over 150 million asteroids in the solar system oh no we will run out in like 100,000 years what's even the point we should never leave our god-given rock 
How are u fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
lol i thought this was the climate change thread, not the how-to-turn-humanity-into-grey-goo thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Marijuana Nihilist posted:lol i thought this was the climate change thread, not the how-to-turn-humanity-into-grey-goo thread. And you were contributing so much!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Space colonisation means 1) sticking a bunch of scientists, rich tourists, and other well funded industry and special interest groups in space tin cans (this could enable us to do cool stuff), and/or 2) insuring that there will always be something descended from the hairless apes that evolved on planet earth left to conquer the galaxy, because a self sufficient space colony could declare space independence and ensure space human survival while watching the population of earth die from stupidity/a gamma ray burst/whatever. So yes, space travel and space science is cool and good and can be helpful to solve problems we're facing, but space colonisation beyond scientific outposts/billionaire retirement homes/lol asteroid mines lol will not and has never been intended to save the bulk of earth humans from climate change related disasters. This has always been obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Climate change doesn't require new technology, nor do we really even new technology to address climate change within a capitalistic framework. We just need to make it very profitable for big business to address climate change rather than resist addressing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And you were contributing so much! Haha sorry buddy but when someone says something ridiculous, people are going to laugh at that person. And the idea of using space travel to achieve infinite growth of humanity is inherently funny. Edit: vv 
Marijuana Nihilist fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Marijuana Nihilist posted:Haha sorry buddy but when someone says something ridiculous, people are going to laugh at that person. And the idea of using space travel to achieve infinite growth of humanity is inherently funny. You are terrible at this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
The reason that nasa constantly pushes to de-prioritize human spaceflight is that human space-colonization is essentially a pipe dream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Global warming has to be considered in the philosophical context of unbounded growth. Historically we have grown and believed the idea that we will always grow. This manifest destiny mode of thinking must now be extinguished as we push past the limits of earths sustainable limits. While spaceflight might not be thought of as a solution to *global warming* by this thread it is absolutely considered as mechanism to allow infinite growth of the human race by people in this thread. This is 100% on the money and the only thing I have to add is that I think your argument can be extended a bit: not only have we been a species that is focused on growth and the illusory idea of "infinite growth," we've also been a species whose primary goal has been control and domination of nature. No matter how objective science claims to be, it is political in that it has always been oriented to those ends (nearly every scientific discovery or achievement has been used to further our control of nature). For obvious reasons, this kind of life strategy can't continue forever. We'll never be (and shouldn't be) fully in control of nature. Note that I'm not saying we should just stop sciencing or whatever, so let's nip that in the bud before someone tries to suggest that that's what I'm saying. How are u posted:I absolutely agree that infinite growth has been a terrible idea for our civilization for the past couple hundred years, obviously. Infinite growth, however, is only a problem when you are limited to a confined space, such as a planet. Outside of this planet there is infinite space, so I see no reason not to have infinite growth out there. You just have to recognize that there are limits to growth within certain confines and once you hit those limits you have to move onward and outward. But it's not only a problem when you're limited to a confined space. Every aspect of modern life (space travel, the Internet, smartphones, you name it) requires resources to produce. Resources are limited and we will one day either run out or encounter physical limits associated with burning/using/consuming resources (hello climate change!). The technological explosion of the last century or so has been predicated totally on the back of fossil fuels; without them, most of what you see around you would not exist. Potential energy sources other than fossil fuels we could transition to (such as solar cells) would also not exist without fossil fuels. By definition, discovery of extraplanetary fossil fuels would first require us to find life elsewhere in the universe. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, we are beginning to bump up against some hard physical limits and there is not a clear answer as to how we're going to get ourselves out of it. Motto posted:humanity's only future lies in the unfeeling embrace of the void  
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:This is 100% on the money and the only thing I have to add is that I think your argument can be extended a bit: not only have we been a species that is focused on growth and the illusory idea of "infinite growth," we've also been a species whose primary goal has been control and domination of nature. No matter how objective science claims to be, it is political in that it has always been oriented to those ends (nearly every scientific discovery or achievement has been used to further our control of nature). For obvious reasons, this kind of life strategy can't continue forever. We'll never be (and shouldn't be) fully in control of nature. Note that I'm not saying we should just stop sciencing or whatever, so let's nip that in the bud before someone tries to suggest that that's what I'm saying. "Living in communion with nature" is a falsity that at best is highly dependent on your perspective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Ultimately, we should still explore space AND combat climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:We shouldn't be fully in control of nature. Why not? Also, I think we're trying to control our surroundings (because of our instinctual drives to secure access to food, mates, homes where we won't be eaten by lions, etc) which just happen to be whatever you've decided "nature" is. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Living in communion with nature" is a falsity that at best is highly dependent on your perspective. Frankly, at this point, focusing on merely co-existing with nature would be a massive improvement over what we are doing now, much less "living in communion with it." You've got me pegged in that I think that's a noble goal, but I didn't mention that at all in my post. Do you agree that our current strategy has been control and domination of nature, and that it'll probably end up being a bad idea in the long run? E: Hello Sailor posted:Why not? Because we've only managed to barely scratch the surface in truly understanding how the universe works, and even in our limited understanding, we've managed to gently caress up quite a large number of things. The other thing to realize is that we'll never have full knowledge of the way the world/universe/nature works, because despite what we've been lead to believe, we are not capable of understanding things from a truly objective point of view. "Objectivity" in the scientific sense is impossible, which is something that even science itself is willing to admit. Your Sledgehammer fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Do you agree that our current strategy has been control and domination of nature, and that it'll probably end up being a bad idea in the long run? The first question is kind of inarguable, yes. The second question I disagree with because "Nature" is not a coherent entity or group. It's a shorthand for "not-people (or their creations)".
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The first question is kind of inarguable, yes. The second question I disagree with because "Nature" is not a coherent entity or group. It's a shorthand for "not-people (or their creations)". Ok, let me rephrase the second part a bit then - when I say it'll be a bad idea, I don't mean it'll be a bad idea for "nature," but it'll be a bad idea for us. Do you agree?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Ok, let me rephrase the second part a bit then - when I say it'll be a bad idea, I don't mean it'll be a bad idea for "nature," but it'll be a bad idea for us. Do you agree? Again, no, because the alternative (from history) is "Nature" eating us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Forget long run, it's been proven to be disastrous right now. How many species and habitats have been wiped out in the name of agriculture and industry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Arguing if we're "ready to/should be in full control of nature" is like parents of a 6mo old asking if they're "ready to/should be parents." Guess what? Its took loving late. Mistakes were made, and ready or not, we're already in full control of nature. We just currently don't do it with intention. Like it or not, we've already engineered biomes, we've already structured ecosystems and we're already changing the climate. We're already doing geoengineering. We're just loving it up because we haven't owned up to the responsibility yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 21:25
|
|