HookedOnChthonics posted:

Okay, so first things first, there's a lot to unpack here. You've made the same accusatory points before; so to break them down:

1. Slavery is bad. No one here is disputing this, you brought this up before. Do you feel it is inevitable that technology will progress to the point robots will become sentient? Well putting aside that there's currently no sentient robots and no one is suggesting sending sentient robots/androids against their will, doesn't this contradict your overall implicit position that technology will not progress to the point that space travel will become safe, economical, convenient, comfortable? What is your actually point here? Do you actually think sending robots to assist humans as a labour force in outerspace or (in "present day present time" Earth mind you!) terrestrially is morally wrong? Please enlighten us as to what you mean.

2. It's called luxury gay space communism comrade. You keep insisting that space will be terrible for any human to have to experience. And I've absolutely addressed this before. We can make space travel, as soon as their is a need for it to be, extremely comfortable and luxurious. In Zubrin's Mars Direct book he even addresses in great detail all the ways we can make the trip to Mars even in a "capsule" (which would be larger and more comfortable than you currently are giving credit for) like pretty reasonably comfortable. NASA planners are pretty well aware of peoples psychological needs for creature comforts and whether its Mars or "Alpha Centauri" we can make it comfortable. Can you please address this point that we can make a spacecraft as roomy and comfortable as it needs to be? Like you're aware in a hypothetical Mars Direct mission the crew would have walking space, a 70" plasma screen TV with Netflix and Adventure Time* and the internet right? If they're going to be spending 180 days, are you seriously suggesting, that comfort would not be taken into account? Have you need read the multiple posts I've already made explaining this?

*To be clear this is a joke from Hellsing Abridged, I have no doubt there will be some sort of entertainment and semi-internet access though. But you can definitely fit flat screen tv's and probably Xbox too.

3. Okay, I was clearly using and referring to inductive reasoning as a concept. Which does for the record apply to humans; wikipedia has an example if you want to know more. But in anycase, I wasn't saying "By proof of induction ergo qed I am right", I was describing the thought process or the broader idea of my argument is that given the evidence, that technology, economies, etc, have basically through all human history has had a certain broad trend, we can assume with more probability than not, that it will continue. This is a reasonable to make, which requires you, if you wish to dispute this, to do more legwork than you've currently done, which is what I am trying to say.

4. I think you misinterpreted the point of the quote, I never suggested Alpha Centauri was a good place to send humans to colonize unless it turns out to have a habitable planet just floating there out of sight? And to be clear, I put "Alpha Centauri" in quotes a few paragraphs above to reference this fact. No one is suggesting humans should, or would, go out of their way to colonize uninhabitable planets in other star systems; which to be clear is a separate argument from the case for terraforming Mars or Venus because they're in our solar system and only a few months away vs being decades away. The point of the quote was to illustrate my description of my argument as using inductive reasoning. Can you please respond to what I am actually saying.

Anyways, can you please either acknowledge the points I made, and either retract the arguments that don't seem relevant; or actually elaborate on why you think these points are relevant to the discussion and address my responses to them.

So can you please make a new argument, and not the same argument, that I've already address at least twice now.

The Oldest Man posted:

i assume you're posting this from space

HookedOnChthonics posted:

So putting aside just how flippant and clearly uninterested your post here is; I don't think you've actually asserted at any point an actual affirmative position. In addition to just completely bringing up things completely irrelevant to the discussion and completely out of left field you've only responded a double negative sort of claim in response to something I've said and instead of clearly laying out your argument you've been very vague and appealing to non-sequitors. [...] My own argument has been pretty clear; there will be a manned presence in space in the far future, it's pretty simple.

Also if you read the relevant chapters in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers you clearly see that the EU, USSR, USA, China, India, Japan, etc all put hundreds of billions of dollars into all sorts of relevant R&D; such as agriculture, but there's not been much visible progress in our scientific or technological advancements in agricultural or horticultural science; but by any objective measurement this is relevant research and needed funding, since being forced to rely on food imports is a massive national security issue and increasing yields is important to have the capital funds for industrialization and development. By this standard the government is entirely wasting all R&D if fancy flashy results can't be secured, and cool experiments like having shrimp on exercise treadmills is a waste of money?

Well for one, I think more money for NASA overall is for more than just more manned missions, I dunno if you think that's all I've been suggesting but that isn't true. Second however that being said I do think a massive increase in funding for manned missions would provide considerable long term benefit; some of which we couldn't possibly predict; because scientific and technological progress isn't like advancing the tech tree in a game of Civilization.

Like you seem to be suggesting a quaint variation of the confucian bureaucracy's argument to the Emperor; that funding expensive manned overseas missions would provide no benefit to the people of china. And we saw how that worked out for them.

Basically there is a societal "energy" societies have; to be innovative and to remain innovative, as a society you need to be doing things and reaching further and higher; or else you'll grow complacent and fall behind. We see this in every great power that has ever risen; they all eventually decline and fall once they lose their will and become directionless.

Like a frontier community on Mars would be extremely innovative, and probably lead to a split human community with their own values and focus on surviving under difficult conditions, creating a successor civilization better able to lead humanity to achieving its manifest destiny to spread across every star.

Stereotype posted:

this is why I refuse to get my kids a phone

Banana Man posted:

was shopping at the store today, and the extremely warm and muggy air a few days into October crack pinged me pretty hard, and I basically disassociated staring at the piles of stacked pumpkins while sweating.

like a few things that sort of got to me, between this and the lack of pollinators in my garden this year compared to a few years back.

really weird!!

Banana Man posted:

was shopping at the store today, and the extremely warm and muggy air a few days into October crack pinged me pretty hard, and I basically disassociated staring at the piles of stacked pumpkins while sweating.

like a few things that sort of got to me, between this and the lack of pollinators in my garden this year compared to a few years back.

really weird!!

cash crab posted:

a friend of mine told me her friend from back home is now having kids with the express intention of, and i quote, "making sure there are good people in the world who can help," because this woman apparently believes liberal values can be passed down genetically and thinks that her kid, somehow, will be able to reverse climate change and increasingly tense global relations

lol

SixteenShells posted:

someone strap the sea ice down better on New Zealand's roof so it stops losing it

Crazycryodude posted:

I'm a biologist lmao, I promise the octopuses would also destroy the planet if they lived more than 10 years and invented steam engines. The problem is genes don't give a poo poo about preserving the environment 200 years in the future, they care about eating cheeseburgers and getting laid right now and anything after you nut is pointless to worry about. But the octopuses probably wouldn't do it via robber barons wearing top hats and calling Pinkertons on their striking octopus workers.

HookedOnChthonics posted:

Okay, so first things first, there's a lot to unpack here. You've made the same accusatory points before; so to break them down:

1. Slavery is bad. No one here is disputing this, you brought this up before. Do you feel it is inevitable that technology will progress to the point robots will become sentient? Well putting aside that there's currently no sentient robots and no one is suggesting sending sentient robots/androids against their will, doesn't this contradict your overall implicit position that technology will not progress to the point that space travel will become safe, economical, convenient, comfortable? What is your actually point here? Do you actually think sending robots to assist humans as a labour force in outerspace or (in "present day present time" Earth mind you!) terrestrially is morally wrong? Please enlighten us as to what you mean.

2. It's called luxury gay space communism comrade. You keep insisting that space will be terrible for any human to have to experience. And I've absolutely addressed this before. We can make space travel, as soon as their is a need for it to be, extremely comfortable and luxurious. In Zubrin's Mars Direct book he even addresses in great detail all the ways we can make the trip to Mars even in a "capsule" (which would be larger and more comfortable than you currently are giving credit for) like pretty reasonably comfortable. NASA planners are pretty well aware of peoples psychological needs for creature comforts and whether its Mars or "Alpha Centauri" we can make it comfortable. Can you please address this point that we can make a spacecraft as roomy and comfortable as it needs to be? Like you're aware in a hypothetical Mars Direct mission the crew would have walking space, a 70" plasma screen TV with Netflix and Adventure Time* and the internet right? If they're going to be spending 180 days, are you seriously suggesting, that comfort would not be taken into account? Have you need read the multiple posts I've already made explaining this?

*To be clear this is a joke from Hellsing Abridged, I have no doubt there will be some sort of entertainment and semi-internet access though. But you can definitely fit flat screen tv's and probably Xbox too.

3. Okay, I was clearly using and referring to inductive reasoning as a concept. Which does for the record apply to humans; wikipedia has an example if you want to know more. But in anycase, I wasn't saying "By proof of induction ergo qed I am right", I was describing the thought process or the broader idea of my argument is that given the evidence, that technology, economies, etc, have basically through all human history has had a certain broad trend, we can assume with more probability than not, that it will continue. This is a reasonable to make, which requires you, if you wish to dispute this, to do more legwork than you've currently done, which is what I am trying to say.

4. I think you misinterpreted the point of the quote, I never suggested Alpha Centauri was a good place to send humans to colonize unless it turns out to have a habitable planet just floating there out of sight? And to be clear, I put "Alpha Centauri" in quotes a few paragraphs above to reference this fact. No one is suggesting humans should, or would, go out of their way to colonize uninhabitable planets in other star systems; which to be clear is a separate argument from the case for terraforming Mars or Venus because they're in our solar system and only a few months away vs being decades away. The point of the quote was to illustrate my description of my argument as using inductive reasoning. Can you please respond to what I am actually saying.

Anyways, can you please either acknowledge the points I made, and either retract the arguments that don't seem relevant; or actually elaborate on why you think these points are relevant to the discussion and address my responses to them.

So can you please make a new argument, and not the same argument, that I've already address at least twice now.

Charlatan Eschaton posted:

hasn't rained in a while so i was outside watering stuff under the white haze of canada forest smoke. one of the lizard friends was watching the water to catch a drink, not knowing what a well or electric pump is. a giant just waving around a magic tube that makes drinkable water spray from my fingertips. drink and eat ants and grow big and feathered my fellow invasive.

HookedOnChthonics posted:

Xaris posted:

hmm... big yikesaroo

not sure there's anything left to say anymore tbh

Microplastics posted:

What was the prompt for this one?

"ChatGPT, write a hostile forums post response to someone who mistakenly thinks space travel will never be practical, in the style of a debate club nerd"

Fell Mood posted:

Let's do this, a multi page multi day derail yet again.

Egg Moron posted:

i can't do anything about this global warming, no one reading it can or will either

Puppy Burner posted:

I wonder if we can get over 2C this year?

justcallhimdragon posted:

oh yeah uhh biosphere: our queen left the hive this summer, rip our bees. no one wants to reproduce anymore

Skaffen-Amtiskaw posted:

Everyone should read Aurora by KSR, especially the tech bros.

justcallhimdragon posted:

no one wants to reproduce anymore

Microplastics posted:

It's a very good story but the message definitely isn't "space travel is impractical" (because given what's accomplished in the book, it very much is)

The message is "alien life might gently caress you up" which is only true if it exists at all on whatever planet you've got your sights on

HookedOnChthonics posted:

So putting aside just how flippant and clearly uninterested your post here is; I don't think you've actually asserted at any point an actual affirmative position. In addition to just completely bringing up things completely irrelevant to the discussion and completely out of left field you've only responded a double negative sort of claim in response to something I've said and instead of clearly laying out your argument you've been very vague and appealing to non-sequitors. [...] My own argument has been pretty clear; there will be a manned presence in space in the far future, it's pretty simple.

Also if you read the relevant chapters in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers you clearly see that the EU, USSR, USA, China, India, Japan, etc all put hundreds of billions of dollars into all sorts of relevant R&D; such as agriculture, but there's not been much visible progress in our scientific or technological advancements in agricultural or horticultural science; but by any objective measurement this is relevant research and needed funding, since being forced to rely on food imports is a massive national security issue and increasing yields is important to have the capital funds for industrialization and development. By this standard the government is entirely wasting all R&D if fancy flashy results can't be secured, and cool experiments like having shrimp on exercise treadmills is a waste of money?

Well for one, I think more money for NASA overall is for more than just more manned missions, I dunno if you think that's all I've been suggesting but that isn't true. Second however that being said I do think a massive increase in funding for manned missions would provide considerable long term benefit; some of which we couldn't possibly predict; because scientific and technological progress isn't like advancing the tech tree in a game of Civilization.

Like you seem to be suggesting a quaint variation of the confucian bureaucracy's argument to the Emperor; that funding expensive manned overseas missions would provide no benefit to the people of china. And we saw how that worked out for them.

Basically there is a societal "energy" societies have; to be innovative and to remain innovative, as a society you need to be doing things and reaching further and higher; or else you'll grow complacent and fall behind. We see this in every great power that has ever risen; they all eventually decline and fall once they lose their will and become directionless.

Like a frontier community on Mars would be extremely innovative, and probably lead to a split human community with their own values and focus on surviving under difficult conditions, creating a successor civilization better able to lead humanity to achieving its manifest destiny to spread across every star.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Erghh posted:

anyway hope evveryone enjoyed the last 'good' year

Spaced God posted:

This is like year two of usable LLMs. Just wait until all the Bitcoin people switch their mining rigs to power their own ai

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

https://twitter.com/micefearboggis/status/1709173045913362507

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1709217151452954998

https://twitter.com/mikarantane/status/1709141665762492512

good stuff. can't wait for october data

Erghh posted:

anyway hope evveryone enjoyed the last 'good' year

Hubbert posted:

things aren't that bad yet

Clyde Radcliffe posted:

Already happening. I attended a talk by an expert who works alongside law enforcement in tracking down creators and traders of child sexual abuse material.

She talked about how In the last six months there has been an explosion of AI-generated abuse images being churned out by miners who've discovered it's actually profitable compared to crypto. And it's not even being carried out in the darker corners of the web. People are selling these images on their Patreons.

Cryptobros are going from uselessly wasting energy to wasting energy to actively make the world a worse place.