geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: rowdy on Wed, 09 August 2017, 23:16:46
-
Would you prefer to live in the olden days (i.e .some period in the past, say the late 1800s, or a historical period of your choosing), or the present day? Or even the future? And why?
Now has internet and keyboards and soft drink, but also has terrorists, cancer and political correctness.
The past had respect for others, lots of jobs and clean air, but also had much less medical knowledge and less ability to travel the planet.
The future might be rosy with Star Trek-like technology, space ships and AI, or it might be a nuclear winter wasteland with the few survivors struggling to live.
-
60s/70s no contest.
Back with all that analog tech.... oh yeahhhhhhh
Also, stuff was built to last back then. Now all we have is cheap crap designed to break.
-
60s/70s no contest.
Back with all that analog tech.... oh yeahhhhhhh
Also, stuff was built to last back then. Now all we have is cheap crap designed to break.
That's true.
Even houses - houses from that period are still standing strong, but new houses are developing more and more faults. A guy at work had a house built only a couple of years ago, and it has already developed large water leaks and part of the ceiling collapsed.
Also things back then were built to be repairable - these days they are disposable instead.
-
If it hadn't been for medical advances, I would not have been alive today.
But apart from that, I believe that back in the '80s, especially before and also more in the '90s than now, people had more hope for the future. The economy was mostly on the rise. The only looming threat that people really were afraid of was the thread of a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR.
Even houses - houses from that period are still standing strong, but new houses are developing more and more faults.
There were new cheaper building methods in the '60s and '70s and even '80s that were later deemed really bad. For example new types of paints that flaked easily, highrises of prefab elements that fell apart like a house of cards, insulation materials that burned easily and caused nasty fumes that killed 80 people in a fire in 2017...
But yes, the methods were still new and the majority of houses were older and better.
I think now, though, that people are more wiser about which methods to avoid... but you would have to go through the effort of selecting good materials and methods and be ready to pay for it.
-
Fibro houses Rowdy, is that what you want FIBRO HOUSES!
-
I believe that back in the '80s, especially before and also more in the '90s than now, people had more hope for the future.
I was born in 1952 into an era of what I recognize, now, in retrospect, was extraordinary optimism for the future.
Advances in science, medicine, and technology promised a beautiful and peaceful world for us, and we never imagined that it would not happen that way.
The space program was the crown jewel of the age, and although the often pejorative term "the sixties" today conjures images of drug-saturated stupor and hedonism, it was also a time of an intense quest for social reform, philosophical liberation, and existential enlightenment.
Why did that momentum collapse at the end of the decade? For the US, the simplistic answer is probably that backlash from the Vietnam War triggered the implosion.
Why did human society fork with the overwhelming majority turning around and moving backwards? The simplistic answers are probably that western religion promised a happy afterlife and that "enlightenment" did not promise anything beyond the here and now, and that people felt validated when somebody told them that their "greed is good" emotion was ethically acceptable.
In my opinion, it might be summed up in the 3 words "Freedom is Frightening" and that most people are more comfortable with the simplicity of what they have known in the past, and that they desperately fear change.
My personal disappointment is that the last 2/3 of my life have been lived in a world so different from the one that the first 1/3 of my life promised.
-
NOW..
They got a new Dewalt cordless impact wrench with 700 Ft pound torque..
http://www.dewalt.com/en-us/products/power-tools/impact-drivers-and-wrenches/20v-max-xr-high-torque-34-impact-wrench-w-hog-ring-retention-pin-anvil-bare/dcf897b
-
The past had respect for others
How do you mean?
-
The past had respect for others...
Sure, as long as you were white.
-
NOW..
They got a new Dewalt cordless impact wrench with 700 Ft pound torque..
http://www.dewalt.com/en-us/products/power-tools/impact-drivers-and-wrenches/20v-max-xr-high-torque-34-impact-wrench-w-hog-ring-retention-pin-anvil-bare/dcf897b
Some serious wrist-breaking torque there my boy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
i want to live in 2011 so i can buy clacks at retail
-
The past had respect for others
How do you mean?
The past had respect for others...
Sure, as long as you were white.
In the past people respected each other far more, even in little ways. Walking along the footpath with head raised, smiling a greeting at everyone you pass and moving out of the way of those in your path. These days most people seem to walk around looking angry with heads down focussing on their mobile devices and not watching where they are walking. Don't bump into one - if you make him drop his precious device he's likely to go ballistic on you.
People also tended to add small, inconsequential things to speech, like "please" and "thank you", instead of just assuming they are entitled to be the first to get whatever. Probably for free too.
Yes there were racial prejudices back then - there still are today. But the masses are less tolerant of such behaviour, so although there are far more foreigners in any given country these days, people (both foreign and national) tend to be less tolerant of prejudice towards them.
-
I believe that back in the '80s, especially before and also more in the '90s than now, people had more hope for the future.
I was born in 1952 into an era of what I recognize, now, in retrospect, was extraordinary optimism for the future.
Advances in science, medicine, and technology promised a beautiful and peaceful world for us, and we never imagined that it would not happen that way.
The space program was the crown jewel of the age, and although the often pejorative term "the sixties" today conjures images of drug-saturated stupor and hedonism, it was also a time of an intense quest for social reform, philosophical liberation, and existential enlightenment.
Why did that momentum collapse at the end of the decade? For the US, the simplistic answer is probably that backlash from the Vietnam War triggered the implosion.
Why did human society fork with the overwhelming majority turning around and moving backwards? The simplistic answers are probably that western religion promised a happy afterlife and that "enlightenment" did not promise anything beyond the here and now, and that people felt validated when somebody told them that their "greed is good" emotion was ethically acceptable.
In my opinion, it might be summed up in the 3 words "Freedom is Frightening" and that most people are more comfortable with the simplicity of what they have known in the past, and that they desperately fear change.
My personal disappointment is that the last 2/3 of my life have been lived in a world so different from the one that the first 1/3 of my life promised.
I keep thinking that this is not the future I was promised, and wondered what that was all about.
Recently I found a bunch of old TV adverts from yesteryear on YouTube and watched a few. They brought back a lot of memories.
And reminded me that as a child I kinda expected adulting to be like in those pictures.
In reality life is nothing like that.
-
NOW..
They got a new Dewalt cordless impact wrench with 700 Ft pound torque..
http://www.dewalt.com/en-us/products/power-tools/impact-drivers-and-wrenches/20v-max-xr-high-torque-34-impact-wrench-w-hog-ring-retention-pin-anvil-bare/dcf897b
Some serious wrist-breaking torque there my boy.
I only own their previous Brushed version which only haz 400ftlb torque.. sigh..... Saving up for the new version..
-
Now...**** was going on back in the day, probably worse than now..you just didn't know about most of it due to mobile devices, social media etc.
Our life expectancy is going to be through the roof during our generation as long as we listen to the sound advice of our fearless leader, TP4.
And of course, DeWalt > All.
-
Now...**** was going on back in the day, probably worse than now..you just didn't know about most of it due to mobile devices, social media etc.
Our life expectancy is going to be through the roof during our generation as long as we listen to the sound advice of our fearless leader, TP4.
And of course, DeWalt > All.
100% Veggie, 10% Fats..
[attachimg=1]
-
Content with now. Sure I'll bring up some of my experiences from my 'then' when I empathize on occasion but overall I enjoy now. I think that people are superficially accountable for their actions now. Not perfect but it's a start in the right direction.
-
How about never? Or at least before sentience became a thing? [or is that a paradox?]
-
We have basically all the stuff they had in the past, or the ability to recreate it.. without having to die from polio, the plague, etc.
-
We have basically all the stuff they had in the past, or the ability to recreate it.. without having to die from polio, the plague, etc.
But.. Heart disease !!!!
-
We have basically all the stuff they had in the past, or the ability to recreate it.. without having to die from polio, the plague, etc.
Smart phones are a plague.
-
We have basically all the stuff they had in the past, or the ability to recreate it.. without having to die from polio, the plague, etc.
Smart phones are a plague.
I believe smartphones and screen-addiction is the natural process prior to wetware cybernetics.
-
I would prefer to live through the '80s and '90s in perpetuity. Computer technology was primitive enough that it wasn't quite ubiquitous or useful for everything, but it was advanced and common enough for lay people to use. I was too young in the '80s to remember it, but I grew up with the my older brothers' stuff (toys, shows, etc.), and I enjoyed the '90s quite a bit. I'd like to experience '80s music and movies when they were new.
The last really good year I can remember was probably 2007. I can't really think of much since then that I'd want to re-live.
Plus it just weirds me out that people born in the '90s are approaching 30 and people born in the '00s are approaching adulthood. I can't wrap my head around that; it stuns me on a daily basis.
-
I would prefer to live through the '80s and '90s in perpetuity. Computer technology was primitive enough that it wasn't quite ubiquitous or useful for everything, but it was advanced and common enough for lay people to use. I was too young in the '80s to remember it, but I grew up with the my older brothers' stuff (toys, shows, etc.), and I enjoyed the '90s quite a bit. I'd like to experience '80s music and movies when they were new.
The last really good year I can remember was probably 2007. I can't really think of much since then that I'd want to re-live.
Plus it just weirds me out that people born in the '90s are approaching 30 and people born in the '00s are approaching adulthood. I can't wrap my head around that; it stuns me on a daily basis.
Hahaha Kavik you gettin' old
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would prefer to live through the '80s and '90s in perpetuity. Computer technology was primitive enough that it wasn't quite ubiquitous or useful for everything, but it was advanced and common enough for lay people to use. I was too young in the '80s to remember it, but I grew up with the my older brothers' stuff (toys, shows, etc.), and I enjoyed the '90s quite a bit. I'd like to experience '80s music and movies when they were new.
The last really good year I can remember was probably 2007. I can't really think of much since then that I'd want to re-live.
Plus it just weirds me out that people born in the '90s are approaching 30 and people born in the '00s are approaching adulthood. I can't wrap my head around that; it stuns me on a daily basis.
Hahaha Kavik you gettin' old
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know, man, and I'm not even 30 yet myself. After about age 22 or so, time speeds up so much that it catches you by surprise that everything you know is so old and there are adults who aren't old enough to remember things you take for granted.
-
Now...**** was going on back in the day, probably worse than now..you just didn't know about most of it due to mobile devices, social media etc.
Our life expectancy is going to be through the roof during our generation as long as we listen to the sound advice of our fearless leader, TP4.
And of course, DeWalt > All.
The problem is that there are too many old people in some countries and not enough young people to look after them.
Not suggesting we should turn people into soylent green or anything.
-
Content with now. Sure I'll bring up some of my experiences from my 'then' when I empathize on occasion but overall I enjoy now. I think that people are superficially accountable for their actions now. Not perfect but it's a start in the right direction.
Superficially accountable, perhaps, but most people don't seem to care one way or another.
So those of us who do care either have to turn a blind eye 90% of the time or just get really angry but not be able to do anything about it.
-
We have basically all the stuff they had in the past, or the ability to recreate it.. without having to die from polio, the plague, etc.
What about the optimism?
Are people optimistic today?
Doesn't seem like it much of the time - threat of nuclear war, over population, political correctness, obesity in half the world, famine in the other half, extreme weather, skin caner, air pollution - most of that we didn't have in the past.
-
We have basically all the stuff they had in the past, or the ability to recreate it.. without having to die from polio, the plague, etc.
Smart phones are a plague.
Yeah. Before smartphones people were much more communicative.
[attachimg=1]
-
I would prefer to live through the '80s and '90s in perpetuity. Computer technology was primitive enough that it wasn't quite ubiquitous or useful for everything, but it was advanced and common enough for lay people to use. I was too young in the '80s to remember it, but I grew up with the my older brothers' stuff (toys, shows, etc.), and I enjoyed the '90s quite a bit. I'd like to experience '80s music and movies when they were new.
The last really good year I can remember was probably 2007. I can't really think of much since then that I'd want to re-live.
Plus it just weirds me out that people born in the '90s are approaching 30 and people born in the '00s are approaching adulthood. I can't wrap my head around that; it stuns me on a daily basis.
70s TV series were good, 80s movies were good, 90s? Down hill from there?
-
I know, man, and I'm not even 30 yet myself. After about age 22 or so, time speeds up so much that it catches you by surprise that everything you know is so old and there are adults who aren't old enough to remember things you take for granted.
Technology today is so very far advanced from what was around in the 70s and even 80s. And that was only 30 something years ago.
I'm wondering what will be around in another 30 years or so, when most of us will still be here to see it.
Will we embrace it? Or will we stick with what we know? Are young people today more accepting of new technologies and more likely to embrace them as they are invented?
-
Yeah. Before smartphones people were much more communicative.
People didn't walk down the street holding a newspaper in one hand while carrying a small child on their shoulders. A child that is only the second-most thing that the parent is afraid of dropping.
A child that will not build a good connection with their parents in their most formative years, and which will not be taught how to interact well with others at an early age -- because the parent preferred to read the newspaper instead.
People did not stand in doorways of police stations, train cars and shops blocking other people with their newspapers ... getting into an argument with you if you ask them to stand aside to let you through.
I have never had to prevent a woman from being run over by a train because she was distracted reading a newspaper.
Smartphones are active communication devices that request that the user interacts with it using a (sometimes) very clunky and (always) imprecise interface in real time. They can be stressing and they can be addictive.
Newspapers are passive: they don't demand that you use them right meow - they can be picked up whenever the user wants to, and then put down.
-
I've always wondered what it'd be like to live in the 1890's.
-
Yeah. Before smartphones people were much more communicative.
People didn't walk down the street holding a newspaper in one hand while carrying a small child on their shoulders. A child that is only the second-most thing that the parent is afraid of dropping.
A child that will not build a good connection with their parents in their most formative years, and which will not be taught how to interact well with others at an early age -- because the parent preferred to read the newspaper instead.
People did not stand in doorways of police stations, train cars and shops blocking other people with their newspapers ... getting into an argument with you if you ask them to stand aside to let you through.
I have never had to prevent a woman from being run over by a train because she was distracted reading a newspaper.
Smartphones are active communication devices that request that the user interacts with it using a (sometimes) very clunky and (always) imprecise interface in real time. They can be stressing and they can be addictive.
Newspapers are passive: they don't demand that you use them right meow - they can be picked up whenever the user wants to, and then put down.
While I agree with you for the most part, I did just see an article the other day where a man caused an auto collision because he was reading the newspaper while driving, injured himself and killed another driver.
-
Content with now. Sure I'll bring up some of my experiences from my 'then' when I empathize on occasion but overall I enjoy now. I think that people are superficially accountable for their actions now. Not perfect but it's a start in the right direction.
Superficially accountable, perhaps, but most people don't seem to care one way or another.
So those of us who do care either have to turn a blind eye 90% of the time or just get really angry but not be able to do anything about it.
I think having the knowledge to make a conscious decision makes a big difference. Before I had access to public facing servers no one took me aside and said, "Hey kid, this is how it goes, so pay attention." Plus, my siblings and I are of the first to legally avoid military service after generations of service--I'd rather not tempt 'fate' by going back to the past. Because I am a wuss haha
-
I'm wondering what will be around in another 30 years or so,
Will we embrace it?
I feel like I came along just at the cusp of the big change. My grandparents told me the stories of their first encounters with electricity, automobiles, and airplanes (my grandfather took one ride in an open biplane just after WW1 which terrified him, and my grandmother never got on an airplane in her life). My father had heard his grandfather's first-hand accounts of the Civil War, and our family's oral history goes back in a continuous line to the Revolutionary War.
I consider myself as clearly having been born into the bucolic, pre-technology age [I remember our first color TV, the coming of "tapes" (in the various audio and video forms), I remember Sputnik going up, getting our first cars that had seat belts, A/C, electric windows, etc], but I also feel that I have done a pretty good job of embracing the technologies that have grown up around me.
The things that bother me the most, and that have been brought to the forefront of our attention recently, are the incredible rise of deception and ignorance spewing out of the internet as "alternative facts" and the near-complete loss of privacy and individuality.
Man's greatest discovery/invention was certainly fire, the second was surely electricity, and "the interwebs" must be the third.
Instantaneous immediate continuous global communication has changed the human race forever, for better and also for worse.
-
I'm wondering what will be around in another 30 years or so,
Will we embrace it?
I feel like I came along just at the cusp of the big change. My grandparents told me the stories of their first encounters with electricity, automobiles, and airplanes (my grandfather took one ride in an open biplane just after WW1 which terrified him, and my grandmother never got on an airplane in her life). My father had heard his grandfather's first-hand accounts of the Civil War, and our family's oral history goes back in a continuous line to the Revolutionary War.
I consider myself as clearly having been born into the bucolic, pre-technology age [I remember our first color TV, the coming of "tapes" (in the various audio and video forms), I remember Sputnik going up, getting our first cars that had seat belts, A/C, electric windows, etc], but I also feel that I have done a pretty good job of embracing the technologies that have grown up around me.
The things that bother me the most, and that have been brought to the forefront of our attention recently, are the incredible rise of deception and ignorance spewing out of the internet as "alternative facts" and the near-complete loss of privacy and individuality.
Man's greatest discovery/invention was certainly fire, the second was surely electricity, and "the interwebs" must be the third.
Instantaneous immediate continuous global communication has changed the human race forever, for better and also for worse.
What are you 63 ?
If you start 100% Veggie 10% Fat , you'll get to see pretty much everything..
Don't give up..
-
Smartphones are active communication devices that request that the user interacts with it using a (sometimes) very clunky and (always) imprecise interface in real time. They can be stressing and they can be addictive.
Newspapers are passive: they don't demand that you use them right meow - they can be picked up whenever the user wants to, and then put down.
That's really straight forward, work from home + stop going outside..
Eventually , Cybernetic implants + Robots + telepresence..
-
Yeah. Before smartphones people were much more communicative.
People didn't walk down the street holding a newspaper in one hand while carrying a small child on their shoulders. A child that is only the second-most thing that the parent is afraid of dropping.
A child that will not build a good connection with their parents in their most formative years, and which will not be taught how to interact well with others at an early age -- because the parent preferred to read the newspaper instead.
People did not stand in doorways of police stations, train cars and shops blocking other people with their newspapers ... getting into an argument with you if you ask them to stand aside to let you through.
I have never had to prevent a woman from being run over by a train because she was distracted reading a newspaper.
Smartphones are active communication devices that request that the user interacts with it using a (sometimes) very clunky and (always) imprecise interface in real time. They can be stressing and they can be addictive.
Newspapers are passive: they don't demand that you use them right meow - they can be picked up whenever the user wants to, and then put down.
You'll always get things that distract people - newspapers, Rubik's Cubes, smart phones, fidget spinners - people of yore just seemed to have more common sense and awareness of what went on around them in general.
-
I've always wondered what it'd be like to live in the 1890's.
Although today we can duplicate the clothes, the buildings, the cars, even what passed for the latest technology at the time, we cannot duplicate the people and their ideals.
The closest I can get to this is reading a book, Sherlock Holmes is a favourite as Sir ACD was focussing on telling detective stories, and his descriptions of ordinary people and events ancillary to the stories are pretty much spot on.
-
Content with now. Sure I'll bring up some of my experiences from my 'then' when I empathize on occasion but overall I enjoy now. I think that people are superficially accountable for their actions now. Not perfect but it's a start in the right direction.
Superficially accountable, perhaps, but most people don't seem to care one way or another.
So those of us who do care either have to turn a blind eye 90% of the time or just get really angry but not be able to do anything about it.
I think having the knowledge to make a conscious decision makes a big difference. Before I had access to public facing servers no one took me aside and said, "Hey kid, this is how it goes, so pay attention." Plus, my siblings and I are of the first to legally avoid military service after generations of service--I'd rather not tempt 'fate' by going back to the past. Because I am a wuss haha
Back then you'd do your service, and so would everyone else. NOT doing it would be an exception that would draw attention to yourself.
If you were lucky you'd be out in 6 months or however long it was, and get on with your life.
Perhaps we're fortunate that there are less wars these days and so military conscription is a thing of the past in many countries where it was once common.
-
I feel like I came along just at the cusp of the big change. My grandparents told me the stories of their first encounters with electricity, automobiles, and airplanes (my grandfather took one ride in an open biplane just after WW1 which terrified him, and my grandmother never got on an airplane in her life). My father had heard his grandfather's first-hand accounts of the Civil War, and our family's oral history goes back in a continuous line to the Revolutionary War.
I consider myself as clearly having been born into the bucolic, pre-technology age [I remember our first color TV, the coming of "tapes" (in the various audio and video forms), I remember Sputnik going up, getting our first cars that had seat belts, A/C, electric windows, etc], but I also feel that I have done a pretty good job of embracing the technologies that have grown up around me.
The things that bother me the most, and that have been brought to the forefront of our attention recently, are the incredible rise of deception and ignorance spewing out of the internet as "alternative facts" and the near-complete loss of privacy and individuality.
Man's greatest discovery/invention was certainly fire, the second was surely electricity, and "the interwebs" must be the third.
Instantaneous immediate continuous global communication has changed the human race forever, for better and also for worse.
All good points - there are always some who embrace new technologies. The simple fact that you are posting on an internet-based keyboard forum says a lot about your acceptance of new technologies.
The majority of kids these days just accept new technology every few months as normal. My daughter mostly worked out for herself how to use an iPad (although we do try to limit the time she spends on it). She is likely to just pickup something new, play with it for a few minutes, and work it out. Me too, although I've always had a fascination with technical gadgets.
-
Content with now. Sure I'll bring up some of my experiences from my 'then' when I empathize on occasion but overall I enjoy now. I think that people are superficially accountable for their actions now. Not perfect but it's a start in the right direction.
Superficially accountable, perhaps, but most people don't seem to care one way or another.
So those of us who do care either have to turn a blind eye 90% of the time or just get really angry but not be able to do anything about it.
I think having the knowledge to make a conscious decision makes a big difference. Before I had access to public facing servers no one took me aside and said, "Hey kid, this is how it goes, so pay attention." Plus, my siblings and I are of the first to legally avoid military service after generations of service--I'd rather not tempt 'fate' by going back to the past. Because I am a wuss haha
Back then you'd do your service, and so would everyone else. NOT doing it would be an exception that would draw attention to yourself.
If you were lucky you'd be out in 6 months or however long it was, and get on with your life.
Perhaps we're fortunate that there are less wars these days and so military conscription is a thing of the past in many countries where it was once common.
Exactly. Even before any military draft, it was still mandatory to serve due to social obligation. Not serving would have affected job prospects and friendships to the point of isolation which probably led to crime etc. On one side of the family, it started after they paid a steam boat captain (Prussia) during the 1880's and on the other side well before that. If I back pedaled in time I know what my obligations would be. I'm not a Soldier or a Seaman, or an Airman, unfortunately.
-
I certainly wouldn't want to be born in the USSR in 1923.
-
Being born after a big war always rocks.
Booming economy, and jobs jobs jobs
-
I believe that back in the '80s, especially before and also more in the '90s than now, people had more hope for the future.
I was born in 1952 into an era of what I recognize, now, in retrospect, was extraordinary optimism for the future.
Advances in science, medicine, and technology promised a beautiful and peaceful world for us, and we never imagined that it would not happen that way.
The space program was the crown jewel of the age, and although the often pejorative term "the sixties" today conjures images of drug-saturated stupor and hedonism, it was also a time of an intense quest for social reform, philosophical liberation, and existential enlightenment.
Why did that momentum collapse at the end of the decade? For the US, the simplistic answer is probably that backlash from the Vietnam War triggered the implosion.
Why did human society fork with the overwhelming majority turning around and moving backwards? The simplistic answers are probably that western religion promised a happy afterlife and that "enlightenment" did not promise anything beyond the here and now, and that people felt validated when somebody told them that their "greed is good" emotion was ethically acceptable.
In my opinion, it might be summed up in the 3 words "Freedom is Frightening" and that most people are more comfortable with the simplicity of what they have known in the past, and that they desperately fear change.
My personal disappointment is that the last 2/3 of my life have been lived in a world so different from the one that the first 1/3 of my life promised.
That's an interesting perspective, did you have a personal hope for the future? You know how like some people wanted flying cars etc..
-
idk why anyone would choose to live in a less convenient time period, if anything I'd want to go way into the future
-
did you have a personal hope for the future?
I expected a world of peace and health, where the problems of humanity were being systematically solved and eliminated.
It took many years for me to understand how and why the human race has fallen into such complete disrepair.
To reduce my theory to its bottom-most simplicity: when the people ("people" being defined as: individuals to families to groups to nations) are governed by forces of emotion, that society is all but certain to become dysfunctional.
When people follow reason, compassion, information, logic, and the rule of law, peace and prosperity follow.
The United States, at times during its history the foremost bastion of the latter, has, during the last half century, fallen increasingly into the ranks of the former.
-
idk why anyone would choose to live in a less convenient time period, if anything I'd want to go way into the future
Soylent green.
-
did you have a personal hope for the future?
I expected a world of peace and health, where the problems of humanity were being systematically solved and eliminated.
It took many years for me to understand how and why the human race has fallen into such complete disrepair.
To reduce my theory to its bottom-most simplicity: when the people ("people" being defined as: individuals to families to groups to nations) are governed by forces of emotion, that society is all but certain to become dysfunctional.
When people follow reason, compassion, information, logic, and the rule of law, peace and prosperity follow.
The United States, at times during its history the foremost bastion of the latter, has, during the last half century, fallen increasingly into the ranks of the former.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your delineations are broad, undefined, and useless
I can't believe you're this old and this naive..
None of those nouns you speak of are concrete ideas..
They are complex extensions as means to an end.
What end.
The human system of desire is very simple.
It is a ruler that when used, always gets shorter.
Drink enough wine, one needs more wine
Smoke enough cigarettes, one needs more cigarettes
Have sex enough with the wife, one seeks the company of enterprise women.
As with drugs, as with wealth, as with happiness, as with all desires.
True damnation is not big-brother, and salvation is far from ideological law..
We have and always will be up against a very biological evolutionary barrier as enforced by the hedonistic response system of the human limbic system..
-
I can't believe you're this old and this naive..
I truly feel sorry for you. Your life must suck.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your delineations are broad, undefined, and useless
I can't believe you're this old and this naive..
None of those nouns you speak of are concrete ideas..
They are complex extensions as means to an end.
What end.
The human system of desire is very simple.
It is a ruler that when used, always gets shorter.
Drink enough wine, one needs more wine
Smoke enough cigarettes, one needs more cigarettes
Have sex enough with the wife, one seeks the company of enterprise women.
As with drugs, as with wealth, as with happiness, as with all desires.
True damnation is not big-brother, and salvation is far from ideological law..
We have and always will be up against a very biological evolutionary barrier as enforced by the hedonistic response system of the human limbic system..
I truly feel sorry for you. Your life must suck.
Hahaha..
says the person whose life is almost over and has learned nothing from it ..
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your delineations are broad, undefined, and useless
I can't believe you're this old and this naive..
None of those nouns you speak of are concrete ideas..
They are complex extensions as means to an end.
What end.
The human system of desire is very simple.
It is a ruler that when used, always gets shorter.
Drink enough wine, one needs more wine
Smoke enough cigarettes, one needs more cigarettes
Have sex enough with the wife, one seeks the company of enterprise women.
As with drugs, as with wealth, as with happiness, as with all desires.
True damnation is not big-brother, and salvation is far from ideological law..
We have and always will be up against a very biological evolutionary barrier as enforced by the hedonistic response system of the human limbic system..
I truly feel sorry for you. Your life must suck.
Hahaha..
says the person whose life is almost over and has learned nothing from it ..
Kids these days have most of their lives online - without a constant connection and a continual stream of incoming data they feel disconnected, as if they are not part of one enormous whole. And they have to transmit everything they do in order to feel significant in a world burgeoning under the load of 7,000,000,000 people.
Back in the day you could get by just being yourself in your own way in your own space. Optimism that there was something better to grow towards.
But is this it? Do you find yourself asking, "Is this all there is? Is there no more?"
For in today's world if you're not connected you risk missing out on the latest crazes from far corners of the world. Your optimism is controlled by the large corporations. Your own humble contribution pales to insignificance in a vast ocean of everyone else connected to the grid, but isolated in their own private torment.
When was the last time you saw someone genuinely happy with life?
-
Kids these days have most of their lives online - without a constant connection and a continual stream of incoming data they feel disconnected, as if they are not part of one enormous whole. And they have to transmit everything they do in order to feel significant in a world burgeoning under the load of 7,000,000,000 people.
Back in the day you could get by just being yourself in your own way in your own space. Optimism that there was something better to grow towards.
But is this it? Do you find yourself asking, "Is this all there is? Is there no more?"
For in today's world if you're not connected you risk missing out on the latest crazes from far corners of the world. Your optimism is controlled by the large corporations. Your own humble contribution pales to insignificance in a vast ocean of everyone else connected to the grid, but isolated in their own private torment.
When was the last time you saw someone genuinely happy with life?
The pursuit of happiness is the problem
The brain is only capable of receiving Finite Happiness.
Happiness is a chemical reaction
Across a certain threshold, this reaction becomes neurotoxic. THAT is the folly of man I'm talking about.
The small disconnect for most people looking from the superficial level, is that as if control is a matter of choice or higher decisions..
Rather this is a biological limit of the human motivational / pleasure system.
What the Superficial perspectives miss out, such as Fohat's narrow world view, is that The chemical reaction that I'm talking about does not Necessarily have to be triggered by Substance abuse..
Our chemical evaluation system can be thwarted by persistence of habit, even if that habit is generally innocuous, in modern society , because any such habit can be unceasing within any person's lifetime, The dopamine receptors WILL BE REDUCED, leading to progressively worse decision pathways..
-
The pursuit of happiness is the problem
= "when people are governed by forces of emotion, society is all but certain to become dysfunctional"
-
The pursuit of happiness is the problem
= "when people are governed by forces of emotion, society is all but certain to become dysfunctional"
No, that is incorrect.
General Happiness = elevated dopamine concentration
The Emotions in your usage, would cover a significantly vast manifestation of that Primary system.
It is not the consequences of those Complex extensions which doom humanity.
It is ONLY the core transmitter trimming system we have for evaluating risk/reward/pleasure/desire
-
Anyway, the question is whether you'd want to live in the past, present or future.
I was looking at some photos from Melbourne in the 1950s - life was so much simpler back then. Less expectations. More affordable. Less crowding. More common sense. Less technology. More time for people.
Today people seem more connected to technology than to other people.
-
Anyway, the question is whether you'd want to live in the past, present or future.
I was looking at some photos from Melbourne in the 1950s - life was so much simpler back then. Less expectations. More affordable. Less crowding. More common sense. Less technology. More time for people.
Today people seem more connected to technology than to other people.
Life seemed a little more "loose" back then, like you could absolutely wing it, and at the end of the day you would still have a chance of being "alright", if you were smart enough. I feel like, at least in most portrayals of a few decades ago, you really had to screw up. Hell, a little earlier and you could totally be a criminal and still run away somewhere.
The future is always appealing to me, but it's kind of a toss up since it hasn't been written. If it's like Futurama it would be pretty amazing; if it were like Elysium I'd be downin' radAway for breakfast everyday when I worked the line.
I think if given the choice, I would say the Future. Just because it's unknown and I wanna see it.
-
Anyway, the question is whether you'd want to live in the past, present or future.
I was looking at some photos from Melbourne in the 1950s - life was so much simpler back then. Less expectations. More affordable. Less crowding. More common sense. Less technology. More time for people.
Today people seem more connected to technology than to other people.
Life seemed a little more "loose" back then, like you could absolutely wing it, and at the end of the day you would still have a chance of being "alright", if you were smart enough. I feel like, at least in most portrayals of a few decades ago, you really had to screw up. Hell, a little earlier and you could totally be a criminal and still run away somewhere.
The future is always appealing to me, but it's kind of a toss up since it hasn't been written. If it's like Futurama it would be pretty amazing; if it were like Elysium I'd be downin' radAway for breakfast everyday when I worked the line.
I think if given the choice, I would say the Future. Just because it's unknown and I wanna see it.
I think humanity has reached the awareness that the Future probably will not contain humans.
At least not as the fleshy bags that we are today..
We are only a little better than the cows that we eat..
Cybernetic organisms or even 1 Unified AI constructed by humans replacing flesh bag progeny is significantly more likely
See, it's all good, to have many multi core processors, but you can only get so big without bandwidth between cores being the bottleneck.
Then eventually, the co-processors required to handle command hierarchy and communications consume all the processing time and resources..
Look at governments, banks and financial institutions, they are such co-processors. they have all the available resources at their finger tip, but they are terribly inefficient at making objective decisions to advance mankind.
That is what human society has been held back on.. The sum of its parts is the next step.. and it can not be done through peace/love/government/capitalism..
We need to upload into a unified machine architecture which is much more compact, less bandwidth locked, has greater and more-durable memory.
-
Anyway, the question is whether you'd want to live in the past, present or future.
I was looking at some photos from Melbourne in the 1950s - life was so much simpler back then. Less expectations. More affordable. Less crowding. More common sense. Less technology. More time for people.
Today people seem more connected to technology than to other people.
Life seemed a little more "loose" back then, like you could absolutely wing it, and at the end of the day you would still have a chance of being "alright", if you were smart enough. I feel like, at least in most portrayals of a few decades ago, you really had to screw up. Hell, a little earlier and you could totally be a criminal and still run away somewhere.
The future is always appealing to me, but it's kind of a toss up since it hasn't been written. If it's like Futurama it would be pretty amazing; if it were like Elysium I'd be downin' radAway for breakfast everyday when I worked the line.
I think if given the choice, I would say the Future. Just because it's unknown and I wanna see it.
I think humanity has reached the awareness that the Future probably will not contain humans.
At least not as the fleshy bags that we are today..
We are only a little better than the cows that we eat..
Cybernetic organisms or even 1 Unified AI constructed by humans replacing flesh bag progeny is significantly more likely
See, it's all good, to have many multi core processors, but you can only get so big without bandwidth between cores being the bottleneck.
Then eventually, the co-processors required to handle command hierarchy and communications consume all the processing time and resources..
Look at governments, banks and financial institutions, they are such co-processors. they have all the available resources at their finger tip, but they are terribly inefficient at making objective decisions to advance mankind.
That is what human society has been held back on.. The sum of its parts is the next step.. and it can not be done through peace/love/government/capitalism..
We need to upload into a unified machine architecture which is much more compact, less bandwidth locked, has greater and more-durable memory.
I have to disagree. Depending on the scale of time I think the hardiness of biological life in general is significantly more viable than current known and public technology can provide us.
The organisms/biological matter we are comprised of and come from are billions of years old, I mean there's even the idea of panspermia. If you are attached to the idea of life dominated by human bipedals, sure I guess I could buy a more dismal outlook.
We function like a mold now, if conditions are met, we proliferate. However, there are molds/parasites/bacteria that due to their biology can survive extreme biological hostility or universal indifference. Anthrax is one.
On average, I might believe we're worse off than a cow in the wild. However, the right persons might be vastly more prepared to survive long term than a cow as proven by history. After all, they're the ones in the slaughterhouses. Our trappings have to be a little more complex.
The idea of Society is a double-edged sword. It both propels us forward gradually and anchors us to the past. Capitalism/competition is the closest thing to "survival of the fittest" and culling uselessness, however the current reward and desired endgame is short-sighted which stunts progress. Very few people live to advance humanity purposefully through whatever means; culture, technology, quality of life etc. Generally its a hand-held, passive endeavor.
I think an AI or any synthetic organism is doomed without some built in sense of novelty. or human-like conscience/creativity/awareness. Any AI would function like an advanced mold unable to imagine its own advancement. It would consume until there is nothing more, then die or just exist; which in essence is death anyway.
If we DO manage to create an AI that contains that human aspect, or we pass that on to it, I don't see how that's different from evolution in the sense that it's still "human". Sure not your average flesh bag, but more of a "boltsbag". And absolute homogeny among organisms leads to stagnation, then death. Different perspectives are necessary. By having separate AIs you can solve your lack of processing power . And if they were individualized, then again it'd pretty much be humans again.
I think an advanced AI, with all the resources and tools of technology, with the human conscience/creativity aspect would function best in anarchy. There doesn't need to be any command heirarchy on that level, those who proliferate win, those who don't die and are phased out/assimilated.
But then it's just "boltbags" instead of flesh bags again.
Banks and large organizations function well in what they were designed to do. They were designed to be tools, the same will be for AI. It's a tool but until we can replicate the human creativity it will be inferior in terms of survival. In all representations of scifi (as far as I know), in AI vs Humans stories, generally AI/synthlife only has a foot hold because of the tools/resources at their fingertips and the humans struggle because of lack of resources. Should humans and AI stand on equal ground in terms of tools available and resources, the best humans will win.
Look at OpenAI and Dota. The program learned to master the game and challenge the highest top tier players in months I believe. Many people lost to it, however there were winner(s). And playing against this AI, it helped the top tier players learn new techniques which boosted their repertoire of available tools. Advancing the players even further than they could have come up with themselves currently.
At that point and level, humanity's biggest hang up will be believing everyone is necessary.
Depending on your definition of the last sentence, I guess what I'm getting at is that I agree with you haha.
Supposing all that is accomplishable, I think the next war beyond that would be which is superior? Synth life or engineered biological life? Could you imagine that being? Being able to take any traits of any biological lifeform and create an organism out of it.
Then it would be a matter of time before synth life and engi life merged as well, similarly how we would've in that scenario. Ever repeating. solve et coagula
I kind of ranted on, and I keep rereading it to see if it makes sense. I've given up now.
-
-----
-----
I follow what you're saying.
But, I think you give humans too much credit in their ability for novelty and true agency.
Biological life is a small replicant function in the universal series of events.
It follows a very simple rule, convert mass into xxxx-form..
That's all any lifeform has ever done, and that's all humans have ever done.
There are these side quests that humans seem to have, but the main focus and taming of human energy has been towards converting some other mass/ energy, INTO more humans.
I see no difference between ourselves and your delineation of -the doomed lifeless machines-
Human life can continue to spread in a 2 dimensional plane, more humans , more space, maybe even onto more planets.
However, without better bandwidth BETWEEN each human, we are little more than scattered ant colonies with their own queens.
There is a limit to this way of protraction, because space is incredibly vast..
We may be able to grow into the solar system in this way, but it would be impossible to manage such a system between distantly habitable worlds.
That is the scope I've alluded to.
The correct path to cross such distance is with one giant durable machine.
One solar flare, and it's the end for earth, or our space ship, or our mars colony (100x less dense than earth atmosphere)..
Getting rid of our bodily limits must be the precursor to higher life.
-
-----
-----
I follow what you're saying.
But, I think you give humans too much credit in their ability for novelty and true agency.
Biological life is a small replicant function in the universal series of events.
It follows a very simple rule, convert mass into xxxx-form..
That's all any lifeform has ever done, and that's all humans have ever done.
There are these side quests that humans seem to have, but the main focus and taming of human energy has been towards converting some other mass/ energy, INTO more humans.
I see no difference between ourselves and your delineation of -the doomed lifeless machines-
Human life can continue to spread in a 2 dimensional plane, more humans , more space, maybe even onto more planets.
However, without better bandwidth BETWEEN each human, we are little more than scattered ant colonies with their own queens.
There is a limit to this way of protraction, because space is incredibly vast..
We may be able to grow into the solar system in this way, but it would be impossible to manage such a system between distantly habitable worlds.
That is the scope I've alluded to.
The correct path to cross such distance is with one giant durable machine.
One solar flare, and it's the end for earth, or our space ship, or our mars colony (100x less dense than earth atmosphere)..
Getting rid of our bodily limits must be the precursor to higher life.
I can see how you'd think that. When I'm speaking generally, I agree on a whole I give too much credit. However, when applied on an individual level or small group level the result differs. Given actions are different than discussion. But here we are creating this universe in the ether, the only thing we lack is the means. The tools and resources. Which could be achieved by AI.
I'm strongly leaning to symbiosis between organic life and synth life..
Given that, had we all the utilities and tools, just imagining that world. We could've created it.
Now, I'm placing huge emphasis on the difference between Information (and the ability to store/transfer it) and creativity (the application of said information).
I disagree with the inference I'm making with what you said about converting mass into xxxx-form. I think you're downplaying the significance of it and drawing similarities that are misleading. Yes, people do the same thing as every organic being ever, but not only do we have creativity to adjust our productions, but also have knowledge of past productions and can build upon them. That to me, is the significant part. Its not special we do it, it's how we do it that's special.
"There are these side quests that humans seem to have, but the main focus and taming of human energy has been towards converting some other mass/ energy, INTO more humans."
I agree with this, but I think this is programming. That's what, for the most part, we're taught by society and/or nature. Throw offspring at the problem until one of them figures out the next level. That's how nature does it.
On a whole right now it is fairly synonymous. We are currently on the same path as the doomed machines. Unless fate is real, I don't think that matters. All it takes is a few bombs to reset us, or a gradual positive change to adjust our course.
That's where the AI comes into play, the symbiosis. I'm not arguing for the continuation bipedal organisms. Just the consciousness. The machinery provides us with new vehicles to proliferate, the AI provides us the means to store vast amounts of informations and tools to use, and the consciousness applies ideas.
That's why I mentioned anarchy. The system need to be decentralized with maybe hub AI planets, like planet sized storage drives for local symbiotes to draw from.
I agree that our physical frailty needs to be transcended.
I don't think a single large ship would be efficient. As you said, it's too centralized and vulnerable to catastrophe.