Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Visions of the post-scarcity super-utopia

electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
edited March 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
So lately I've been thinking. What do we do with ourselves once we achieve a post-scarcity society?

It doesn't sit right with me for us just to exist because we can, at least not until we've improved the lot of everyone. Which got me thinking: surely the ultimate utopia needs to provide for not only those fortunate enough to live in it, but all those who suffered before to make it possible.

My proposal is thus that the ultimate utopia would be one where we use our technology to bring every human being that has ever lived back to life as well. We must build our own afterlife.

Obviously this depends on technology and physics we don't have in order to accomplish it. But to me it seems like a moral imperative of a post-scarcity society for us to establish conclusively whether or not it can be done. Even then - it would be a huge undertaking - dealing with the mental health and specific requirements of so many billions of people. But to me, it seems like we would have a moral imperative - if it could be done - to do such a thing.

electricitylikesme on
Dis' wrote: »
Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
«13

Posts

  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm curious, actually, as to the assumptions you have that make this idea even possible. Like, are you going off the assumption that there is an afterlife, and we'd be bringing the dead back here from it? Or that their consciousnesses are still floating around, waiting for us to invent the technology for them to come back?

    I'm just really confused as to how that would work, even if we had real actual magic.

    camo_sig2.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It's a little bit inspired by the end of AI.

    We develop some technology which lets us observe the past accurately, meaning we can take accurate readings of people's brains/bodies right up to the moment of death. With this information, we recreate them in the present.

    There was also a movie from the 80's which had the same idea, only their they were kidnapping people who died in highly publicized ways and time-travelling them right as they were about to die.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Ah, ok. So it's like a going-forward thing, we wouldn't be able to just bring back Benjamin Franklin.

    Edit: Also, I want to thank you for giving me a great idea for a short story... This technology is used secretly and people are brought back to life in simulated versions of whatever afterlife they believed they were destined for.

    camo_sig2.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Ah, ok. So it's like a going-forward thing, we wouldn't be able to just bring back Benjamin Franklin.

    It's an idea which spiralled. I started thinking about doing it to people when we knew where and when they died - hence the best way to go for immortality being to die in a highly publicized way with exact GPS coordinates or something.

    But then I got thinking that strictly speaking that wouldn't be a limitation depending how good your technology was and what the laws of physics let us do in terms of reverse-predicting the flow of time.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It's a little bit inspired by the end of AI.

    We develop some technology which lets us observe the past accurately, meaning we can take accurate readings of people's brains/bodies right up to the moment of death. With this information, we recreate them in the present.

    There was also a movie from the 80's which had the same idea, only their they were kidnapping people who died in highly publicized ways and time-travelling them right as they were about to die.

    Shit, what was the name of that movie? It sounds really, really familiar and I cannot think of the title.

  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It's a little bit inspired by the end of AI.

    We develop some technology which lets us observe the past accurately, meaning we can take accurate readings of people's brains/bodies right up to the moment of death. With this information, we recreate them in the present.

    There was also a movie from the 80's which had the same idea, only their they were kidnapping people who died in highly publicized ways and time-travelling them right as they were about to die.

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST REFERENCED FREEJACK





    Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I have nothing of value to contribute here. Carry on.


    PS: That movie came out in '92.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    you're not being ambitious enough

    you must ensure that everyone human who might potentially live in the future can benefit from this utopia as well. every single possible viable combination of nucleotides must be accounted for!
    Spoiler:

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Spoiler:

    Quitter.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It's a little bit inspired by the end of AI.

    We develop some technology which lets us observe the past accurately, meaning we can take accurate readings of people's brains/bodies right up to the moment of death. With this information, we recreate them in the present.

    There was also a movie from the 80's which had the same idea, only their they were kidnapping people who died in highly publicized ways and time-travelling them right as they were about to die.
    There was an Orson Scott Card novel like this, where someone in the future was watching the past, and she decided that the past was just too horrible, so she went back in time in order to change the past and make the future much less horrible. She decided that the meeting between Columbus and the new world was where everything had gone downhill.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    I'm curious, actually, as to the assumptions you have that make this idea even possible. Like, are you going off the assumption that there is an afterlife, and we'd be bringing the dead back here from it? Or that their consciousnesses are still floating around, waiting for us to invent the technology for them to come back?

    I'm just really confused as to how that would work, even if we had real actual magic.

    I guess this gets into the old cloning/teleportation question- if you make a perfect duplicate of someone, with the exact same body, brain, and memories, is it really the same person? Or would the original person still be dead? Basically, do you believe that humans have a soul?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    So lately I've been thinking. What do we do with ourselves once we achieve a post-scarcity society?

    It doesn't sit right with me for us just to exist because we can, at least not until we've improved the lot of everyone. Which got me thinking: surely the ultimate utopia needs to provide for not only those fortunate enough to live in it, but all those who suffered before to make it possible.

    My proposal is thus that the ultimate utopia would be one where we use our technology to bring every human being that has ever lived back to life as well. We must build our own afterlife.

    Obviously this depends on technology and physics we don't have in order to accomplish it. But to me it seems like a moral imperative of a post-scarcity society for us to establish conclusively whether or not it can be done. Even then - it would be a huge undertaking - dealing with the mental health and specific requirements of so many billions of people. But to me, it seems like we would have a moral imperative - if it could be done - to do such a thing.

    You make me even more confident in the conclusion of the simulation argument.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    what I don't get about that problem is that greek dude's boat thingie

    Theseus? Yeah, that guy. What's so special about uninterrupted existence when your consciousness is already interrupted to an extent by sleeping/getting knocked out/comas. My current thinking on it is that you're alive, then you die for however long it takes to get there, then you're alive again. The teleported/time travel recreated you is just as much 'you' as the you from 5/10/20 years/minutes/seconds ago is 'you'.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    what I don't get about that problem is that greek dude's boat thingie

    Theseus? Yeah, that guy. What's so special about uninterrupted existence when your consciousness is already interrupted to an extent by sleeping/getting knocked out/comas. My current thinking on it is that you're alive, then you die for however long it takes to get there, then you're alive again. The teleported/time travel recreated you is just as much 'you' as the you from 5/10/20 years/minutes/seconds ago is 'you'.

    if you take the position that humans have no soul, then I'd agree with this. But if you do have a soul, well, sleeping is a natural thing whereas teleportation really isn't.

  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    ugh 'natural' has so many conflicting definitions that it doesn't really deserve to be used in remotely serious debate without being explicitly defined first.

    But yeah, as much as I know my philosophical stance I'm a physicalist or something like that.
    So lately I've been thinking. What do we do with ourselves once we achieve a post-scarcity society?

    It doesn't sit right with me for us just to exist because we can, at least not until we've improved the lot of everyone. Which got me thinking: surely the ultimate utopia needs to provide for not only those fortunate enough to live in it, but all those who suffered before to make it possible.

    My proposal is thus that the ultimate utopia would be one where we use our technology to bring every human being that has ever lived back to life as well. We must build our own afterlife.

    Obviously this depends on technology and physics we don't have in order to accomplish it. But to me it seems like a moral imperative of a post-scarcity society for us to establish conclusively whether or not it can be done. Even then - it would be a huge undertaking - dealing with the mental health and specific requirements of so many billions of people. But to me, it seems like we would have a moral imperative - if it could be done - to do such a thing.

    You make me even more confident in the conclusion of the simulation argument.

    If it's a moral imperative to have everyone in a post-scarcity utopia and we are in a simulation, then the simulators are dicks. Problem of evil and all that.

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited March 2010
    It's a little bit inspired by the end of AI.

    We develop some technology which lets us observe the past accurately, meaning we can take accurate readings of people's brains/bodies right up to the moment of death. With this information, we recreate them in the present.

    There was also a movie from the 80's which had the same idea, only their they were kidnapping people who died in highly publicized ways and time-travelling them right as they were about to die.

    Ah yes, Freejack. I have fond childhood memories of that movie.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    ugh 'natural' has so many conflicting definitions that it doesn't really deserve to be used in remotely serious debate without being explicitly defined first.

    But yeah, as much as I know my philosophical stance I'm a physicalist or something like that.
    So lately I've been thinking. What do we do with ourselves once we achieve a post-scarcity society?

    It doesn't sit right with me for us just to exist because we can, at least not until we've improved the lot of everyone. Which got me thinking: surely the ultimate utopia needs to provide for not only those fortunate enough to live in it, but all those who suffered before to make it possible.

    My proposal is thus that the ultimate utopia would be one where we use our technology to bring every human being that has ever lived back to life as well. We must build our own afterlife.

    Obviously this depends on technology and physics we don't have in order to accomplish it. But to me it seems like a moral imperative of a post-scarcity society for us to establish conclusively whether or not it can be done. Even then - it would be a huge undertaking - dealing with the mental health and specific requirements of so many billions of people. But to me, it seems like we would have a moral imperative - if it could be done - to do such a thing.

    You make me even more confident in the conclusion of the simulation argument.

    If it's a moral imperative to have everyone in a post-scarcity utopia and we are in a simulation, then the simulators are dicks. Problem of evil and all that.

    Not really, if you control all the factors and you can add happiness later (as in an afterlife or something similar), it's pretty easy to justify short term suffering for long term gain.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    what I don't get about that problem is that greek dude's boat thingie

    Theseus? Yeah, that guy. What's so special about uninterrupted existence when your consciousness is already interrupted to an extent by sleeping/getting knocked out/comas. My current thinking on it is that you're alive, then you die for however long it takes to get there, then you're alive again. The teleported/time travel recreated you is just as much 'you' as the you from 5/10/20 years/minutes/seconds ago is 'you'.

    You are doing strange things with the word "consciousness"

    Having consciousness in the sense that I think you want to use it isn't simply being awake.

    Like, we become beings devoid of a consciousness when we fall asleep or are knocked out. I mean, where does it go? How do we get it back?

    While there is a legit meaning of "conscious" as "being awake or aware" when you talk about "consciousness" generally something else is being referenced.

    So transporting one's consciousness is not simply a matter of transferring a wakeful and alert state.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Our present technology has basically eliminated information scarcity, and rather than take advantage of this we've done everything in our power to try to go on pretending that we still print music on vinyl and employ monks to transcribe our books.

    I'm not terribly optimistic that we will achieve utopia simply by virtue of eliminating materials and energy scarcity.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    what I don't get about that problem is that greek dude's boat thingie

    Theseus? Yeah, that guy. What's so special about uninterrupted existence when your consciousness is already interrupted to an extent by sleeping/getting knocked out/comas. My current thinking on it is that you're alive, then you die for however long it takes to get there, then you're alive again. The teleported/time travel recreated you is just as much 'you' as the you from 5/10/20 years/minutes/seconds ago is 'you'.

    You are doing strange things with the word "consciousness"

    Having consciousness in the sense that I think you want to use it isn't simply being awake.

    Like, we become beings devoid of a consciousness when we fall asleep or are knocked out. I mean, where does it go? How do we get it back?

    While there is a legit meaning of "conscious" as "being awake or aware" when you talk about "consciousness" generally something else is being referenced.

    So transporting one's consciousness is not simply a matter of transferring a wakeful and alert state.

    That actually helps my stance of teleportation doing nothing special to consciousness, though.

    And I would say that consciousness is purely a function of brain activity, although it's obviously difficult if not impossible to test that scientifically.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Our present technology has basically eliminated information scarcity, and rather than take advantage of this we've done everything in our power to try to go on pretending that we still print music on vinyl and employ monks to transcribe our books.

    I'm not terribly optimistic that we will achieve utopia simply by virtue of eliminating materials and energy scarcity.
    Yeah. The biggest obstacle to any utopia is that power holders in the current society work against any change.

    But I don't think cheating death is a desirable part of a utopia. A perfect society, to me, would make life as fulfilling and happy for everyone as possible, but wouldn't artificially prolong life far beyond our natural lifespans. Death is not a bad thing.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    what I don't get about that problem is that greek dude's boat thingie

    Theseus? Yeah, that guy. What's so special about uninterrupted existence when your consciousness is already interrupted to an extent by sleeping/getting knocked out/comas. My current thinking on it is that you're alive, then you die for however long it takes to get there, then you're alive again. The teleported/time travel recreated you is just as much 'you' as the you from 5/10/20 years/minutes/seconds ago is 'you'.

    You are doing strange things with the word "consciousness"

    Having consciousness in the sense that I think you want to use it isn't simply being awake.

    Like, we become beings devoid of a consciousness when we fall asleep or are knocked out. I mean, where does it go? How do we get it back?

    While there is a legit meaning of "conscious" as "being awake or aware" when you talk about "consciousness" generally something else is being referenced.

    So transporting one's consciousness is not simply a matter of transferring a wakeful and alert state.

    That actually helps my stance of teleportation doing nothing special to consciousness, though.

    And I would say that consciousness is purely a function of brain activity, although it's obviously difficult if not impossible to test that scientifically.

    I had no intention of weighing in on what teleportation might "do" to one's consciousness. All I wanted to do was get your terminology sorted out.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Our present technology has basically eliminated information scarcity, and rather than take advantage of this we've done everything in our power to try to go on pretending that we still print music on vinyl and employ monks to transcribe our books.

    I'm not terribly optimistic that we will achieve utopia simply by virtue of eliminating materials and energy scarcity.
    Yeah. The biggest obstacle to any utopia is that power holders in the current society work against any change.

    But I don't think cheating death is a desirable part of a utopia. A perfect society, to me, would make life as fulfilling and happy for everyone as possible, but wouldn't artificially prolong life far beyond our natural lifespans. Death is not a bad thing.

    Again someone is using 'natural' ambiguously. What is our 'natural' lifespan? What it was in hunter-gatherer societies? Early agricultural ones? The working class during the industrial revolution?

    'Natural lifespan' is a meaningless term, the only close to reasonable definition I can think of is 'how long you last without medical intervention' which is still pretty silly.
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    what I don't get about that problem is that greek dude's boat thingie

    Theseus? Yeah, that guy. What's so special about uninterrupted existence when your consciousness is already interrupted to an extent by sleeping/getting knocked out/comas. My current thinking on it is that you're alive, then you die for however long it takes to get there, then you're alive again. The teleported/time travel recreated you is just as much 'you' as the you from 5/10/20 years/minutes/seconds ago is 'you'.

    You are doing strange things with the word "consciousness"

    Having consciousness in the sense that I think you want to use it isn't simply being awake.

    Like, we become beings devoid of a consciousness when we fall asleep or are knocked out. I mean, where does it go? How do we get it back?

    While there is a legit meaning of "conscious" as "being awake or aware" when you talk about "consciousness" generally something else is being referenced.

    So transporting one's consciousness is not simply a matter of transferring a wakeful and alert state.

    That actually helps my stance of teleportation doing nothing special to consciousness, though.

    And I would say that consciousness is purely a function of brain activity, although it's obviously difficult if not impossible to test that scientifically.

    I had no intention of weighing in on what teleportation might "do" to one's consciousness. All I wanted to do was get your terminology sorted out.

    Well I'm pretty sure this is the first time a philosophy-oriented person has corrected me in a conversation without having an ulterior motive.

  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Is it really a utopia if people who don't want to be a part of it (because it clashes with their culture / religion) are made to be?

    I envision cities in the sky, and those who want nothing to do with it can walk the earth, live their tribal lives out. After many generations, we will have civilized humans and feral humans. Civilized humans will occasionally send hunting parties down to the surface for exotic foods or resources, well armed to defend from attacks from their feral cousins. Among the land-walkers will be those who wanted some middleground, maintaining a society, fending off the feral and civilized, but occasionally trading with those who live among the clouds.

    ... <_<

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Our present technology has basically eliminated information scarcity, and rather than take advantage of this we've done everything in our power to try to go on pretending that we still print music on vinyl and employ monks to transcribe our books.

    I'm not terribly optimistic that we will achieve utopia simply by virtue of eliminating materials and energy scarcity.
    Yeah. The biggest obstacle to any utopia is that power holders in the current society work against any change.

    But I don't think cheating death is a desirable part of a utopia. A perfect society, to me, would make life as fulfilling and happy for everyone as possible, but wouldn't artificially prolong life far beyond our natural lifespans. Death is not a bad thing.

    I think you're way too romantic and if we ever met we'd probably have to fight to the death.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    man, did none of you read The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect?

    eternal life ain't cool beans AT ALL

    lost_sig2.png
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    There are severe constraints on the human body regarding age. Fixing this seems to me much harder (and if it can be done, much more costly and invasive) then achieving energy abundance, though a hard road lies ahead there as well. All forms of proposed energy I know of are limited in some way, including fusion, for which we don't have that much fuel on the planet. Add to that the impending metal scarcity (Dozens of metals will be nearly running out somewhere near 2050), and all of this seems quite far away.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It is my hope that by 2150 we could be mining asteroids.

    steam_sig.png
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Yeah, regarding fusion all the estimates I see talk about using fuel x and it lasting y years in theory, but it's pretty obvious that the more power we have available the more people are going to use. Having a gigantic excess of power just means we'll be lazier and more wasteful with our usage.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    When we get post scarcity, we'll do dwarf fortress style crazy mega projects just because.

    If any individual human has nearly limitless power, the cosmos will be filled with planet sized wangs

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I typed 2150 when I meant 2050. Much shorter timescale unfortunately. (I'll edit my post)

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    So you want to construct a utopia of infinite technological power, and use it to resurrect Hitler?!

    Good to know where you stand philosophically.
    Spoiler:

  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I think the perfect utopia would have their work cut out for them in ensuring that the future keeps looking bright: they'd have the heat death of the universe to worry about.

    MSL59.jpg
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    SanderJK wrote: »
    There are severe constraints on the human body regarding age. Fixing this seems to me much harder (and if it can be done, much more costly and invasive) then achieving energy abundance, though a hard road lies ahead there as well. All forms of proposed energy I know of are limited in some way, including fusion, for which we don't have that much fuel on the planet. Add to that the impending metal scarcity (Dozens of metals will be nearly running out somewhere near 2050), and all of this seems quite far away.

    Don't we have a fuckton of fusion fuel on the Moon though?

    MSL59.jpg
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    .01 parts per million in the regolith (surface rock). There's a bunch there, but it's difficult to get a reasonable amount out.

  • GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    There are severe constraints on the human body regarding age. Fixing this seems to me much harder (and if it can be done, much more costly and invasive) then achieving energy abundance, though a hard road lies ahead there as well. All forms of proposed energy I know of are limited in some way, including fusion, for which we don't have that much fuel on the planet. Add to that the impending metal scarcity (Dozens of metals will be nearly running out somewhere near 2050), and all of this seems quite far away.

    Don't we have a fuckton of fusion fuel on the Moon though?

    In looking this up, I discovered the best-named wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law

    Anyway: not really. There's hydrogen on the moon (what with all that water), but we've kind of got a lot of that already. Lithium is what we'd be short on (maybe... there are other means of fusion, but lithium+tritium is the most promising)

    [edit] Where'd you get that number from, L|ama? I did find [a href=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1971LPSC....2.1217C]this[/a], which actually gives around 6.6 ppm for moon rocks and 18 ppm for moon soil, for lithium. However, I don't think that there's any particular advantage to going all the way to the fucking moon for some goddamned rocks.

    Pony_Sig.png
  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    man, did none of you read The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect?

    eternal life ain't cool beans AT ALL

    Like anyone knows from experience!

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    It's a little bit inspired by the end of AI.

    We develop some technology which lets us observe the past accurately, meaning we can take accurate readings of people's brains/bodies right up to the moment of death. With this information, we recreate them in the present.

    There was also a movie from the 80's which had the same idea, only their they were kidnapping people who died in highly publicized ways and time-travelling them right as they were about to die.

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST REFERENCED FREEJACK





    Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I have nothing of value to contribute here. Carry on.


    PS: That movie came out in '92.

    He meant Millennium (1989). Or he should have meant Millennium, if he didn't. It was a better movie.

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Al_wat wrote: »
    So you want to construct a utopia of infinite technological power, and use it to resurrect Hitler?!

    Good to know where you stand philosophically.
    Spoiler:

    lol, this was a very artful Godwin.

  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    SanderJK wrote: »
    I typed 2150 when I meant 2050. Much shorter timescale unfortunately. (I'll edit my post)
    2050? We're screwed, then.

    steam_sig.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    On the note of eternal life and being/not being a part of society: the idea is not that we would force you to continue living, only give you the choice to do so. Hell you could opt to be put in cold storage till certain parameters were met (like interesting things happening) or the like. You could probably opt to end your life permanently again - with clear guidelines not to be brought back.

    The idea of a utopia (or more importantly: any effort to get us as close as possible to one as we can) would be to maximize individual freedoms and the like.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.