My hope for he future is quite limited. Some day the Sun will swallow the Earth.
Don't you find that horribly depressing?
I used to... but it's good to be humbled. Some day we will be extinct. We shouldn't be naive about our place in the universe.
Uh, by the time swallows the earth we'll be across the galaxy. We're like cockroaches, the only thing I can see ending humanity after we start setting up home on new planets is the universe imploding. If by that time we haven't found anyway to stop that.
My hope for he future is quite limited. Some day the Sun will swallow the Earth.
Don't you find that horribly depressing?
I used to... but it's good to be humbled. Some day we will be extinct. We shouldn't be naive about our place in the universe.
Uh, by the time swallows the earth we'll be across the galaxy. We're like cockroaches, the only thing I can see ending humanity after we start setting up home on new planets is the universe imploding. If by that time we haven't found anyway to stop that.
My hope for he future is quite limited. Some day the Sun will swallow the Earth.
Don't you find that horribly depressing?
I used to... but it's good to be humbled. Some day we will be extinct. We shouldn't be naive about our place in the universe.
Uh, by the time swallows the earth we'll be across the galaxy. We're like cockroaches, the only thing I can see ending humanity after we start setting up home on new planets is the universe imploding. If by that time we haven't found anyway to stop that.
Time being infinite, our demise is inevitable.
You forget that other infinite thing: Human stupidity.
Not quite. Time being infinite vastly increases the chance of our extinction. It doesn't guarantee we will die out.
Eventually one of us will make it to Godhood and will go back in time and give us a purpose. If that's already happened then that guy is a fucking failure. I don't feel like I have a purpose at all.
My hope for he future is quite limited. Some day the Sun will swallow the Earth.
Don't you find that horribly depressing?
I used to... but it's good to be humbled. Some day we will be extinct. We shouldn't be naive about our place in the universe.
Uh, by the time swallows the earth we'll be across the galaxy. We're like cockroaches, the only thing I can see ending humanity after we start setting up home on new planets is the universe imploding. If by that time we haven't found anyway to stop that.
Time being infinite, our demise is inevitable.
Which is why dreading the future, or being hopeful of it is pointless. You should really only care about issues which you believe will effect your level happiness in your own life time. Because eventually, just like you will be gone, so will the human race.
Which is why dreading the future, or being hopeful of it is pointless. You should really only care about issues which you believe will effect your level happiness in your own life time. Because eventually, just like you will be gone, so will the human race.
Which is why dreading the future, or being hopeful of it is pointless. You should really only care about issues which you believe will effect your level happiness in your own life time. Because eventually, just like you will be gone, so will the human race.
Because other peoples happiness doesn't matter?
The funny thing about the "think of the children!" motif is that, really, people need to start thinking about the goddamn children already.
Which is why dreading the future, or being hopeful of it is pointless. You should really only care about issues which you believe will effect your level happiness in your own life time. Because eventually, just like you will be gone, so will the human race.
Because other peoples happiness doesn't matter?
It only matters if seeing/making others happy makes you feel good.
Unless you can find a way to cheat death somehow, you will eventually die and be forever gone. The way I see it is, you might as well make the most of your time; exploiting or helping others towards reaching that goal is irrelevant. I cannot be happy doing the former, but neither approach is invalid.
Streltsy on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Which is why dreading the future, or being hopeful of it is pointless. You should really only care about issues which you believe will effect your level happiness in your own life time. Because eventually, just like you will be gone, so will the human race.
Because other peoples happiness doesn't matter?
The funny thing about the "think of the children!" motif is that, really, people need to start thinking about the goddamn children already.
I think of the children. Specifically, my children. They don't exist yet, but the thought of their lives being good makes me feel good.
I guess it's really more self serving than it is altruistic.
I think I figured out why people are always so damn mopey. They all think too much. The same thing that separates us from the animals is what drives people to jump off bridges. The solution to this is to shut off your brains for a while and go look at the stars or something.
I think I figured out why people are always so damn mopey. They all think too much. The same thing that separates us from the animals is what drives people to jump off bridges. The solution to this is to shut off your brains for a while and go look at the stars or something.
I think more when I look at the stars. It's fun.
Or in other words: I think your solution is ridiculous and covers no ground not already addressed.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Clearly World War III will break out when the A.I. super computers that manage our nukes get bored and start a nuclear war which devastates world civilization utterly. The lucky will be in underground shelters, or vaults. The unlucky that survive on the surface will be irradiated and turned into ghouls or mutants and walk the wasteland in need of survival.
I'd disagree simply because it's not true. All actions are based on incentives that are suppposed to be self serving, that is why they evolved from natural selection, but far from all charitable actions are selfish. Perhaps the most typical one would be willingness to die for your kin and friends. which is hardly selfish.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I'd disagree simply because it's not true. All actions are based on incentives that are suppposed to be self serving, that is why they evolved from natural selection, but far from all charitable actions are selfish. Perhaps the most typical one would be willingness to die for your kin and friends. which is hardly selfish.
If you dying keeps your kin alive, then you have increased the survival chances of your own DNA.
The expansion of the universe is gradually slowing down, it will eventually collapse inwardly on itself when, according to the laws of entropy, all of its primary thermal and mechanical functions fail, thus rendering all human endeavour ultimately pointless...
It doesn't matter what we achieve as a species, as we are inescapably destined to be forgotten...
DARK ENERGY SHAZAM
Don't get me wrong, I don't think dark energy is an arguable topic whatsoever, but it's nice to think it's God's Deus Ex Machina for the universe's collapse or something.
I'd disagree simply because it's not true. All actions are based on incentives that are suppposed to be self serving, that is why they evolved from natural selection, but far from all charitable actions are selfish. Perhaps the most typical one would be willingness to die for your kin and friends. which is hardly selfish.
If you dying keeps your kin alive, then you have increased the survival chances of your own DNA.
Is this sarcasm, or are you really using this argument?
I'd disagree simply because it's not true. All actions are based on incentives that are suppposed to be self serving, that is why they evolved from natural selection, but far from all charitable actions are selfish. Perhaps the most typical one would be willingness to die for your kin and friends. which is hardly selfish.
I'd disagree simply because it's not true. All actions are based on incentives that are suppposed to be self serving, that is why they evolved from natural selection, but far from all charitable actions are selfish. Perhaps the most typical one would be willingness to die for your kin and friends. which is hardly selfish.
If you dying keeps your kin alive, then you have increased the survival chances of your own DNA.
Selfish self-sacrificing bastards!
Yes, but that is because the gene is selfish, not you.
Animals partake in altruism even though they themselves, as individuals, pay the whole cost and gain zero benefit. You are right, the point of altruism is to increase the chances of your genes surviving and being passed on, but if the "self" we are talking about is the individual, then the statement "all actions are selfish" is wrong.
Im generally a very negative person. Partly, because if you expect the worst bad shit probably wont surprise you very much. Also, because there arent many things in the world to be glad about. Racism, war, destruction of the very planet on which we live on a daily basis, the callous disregard for those suffering in this country and many others, and leaders whose greed, corruption, and lust for power stagnate any progress we could make. All in all, not a very bright future for humanity.
The selfishness thing really is its own topic, folks. Selfishness is too unpopular a word to be explained without a derail.
--
I wouldn't blame the news so much. The news makes people more -fearful- of what -is- out there, but is relatively rare, such as kidnappings and plane crashes, but humans are assholes whether or not you have a news report on them.
I'm very pessimistic about the next 100 years (or less, depends) for a few reasons:
The big one: the end of US hegemony, or the collapse of the US itself. Due to diminishing oil reserves and growing powers elsewhere, I think the US will continue to overextend itself militarily and economically. The two are very much tied, if the US is unable to protect/enforce/intimidate its interests or enemies around the world then there will be economic consequences, just as diminishing resources or a poor economy will have influence on the ability of the US to project its influence across the world. The big problem with this is that the economy of the entire planet is very much dependent on the US. A massive crash in the US would have enormously destructive results across the world. Just as a weakening military will result in a huge number of small (or big) wars as nations become able to challenge the US directly. Basically severe economic depression and war.
Climate change. I'm not so much worried about this individually, as in the long run its a self healing problem. It would be a large problem though since as it could result in economic and military issues due to the change in distribution of food and water. See above.
Artificial Intelligence: A bit of a wild card, who knows when it will occur, and what the results will be. Has the potential to cause incredibly large changes however.
Genetic Engineering: I see genetic engineering going the way of computers. Namely easier, cheaper, and more accessible. Now this will result in untold advances in medicine, and more controversially, in food production. But it will revolutionize, well, everything. In the 60s, if you operated a computer, you were probably a computer scientist, with many years of advanced training. Now everyone and their dog has easy access to vast amount of computing power, which can be hugely useful. Now imagine if genetic engineering goes the same way. Hobbyists, do it yourself kits, small, independent labs being set up. Now the results of this are largely speculative, since we really dont know a lot about this. The old designer baby debate will continue, many will try to ban such things, but there will always be places that dont, and more accessible tech means backroom deals for that kind of thing. Much like with computing, I think it will be these smaller entities that will do most of the innovating, whether its legal or not. Engineer a bacteria to give your eyes a different colour. Modify coca to make it even more potent. Create a virus from easily available components which kills cancer cells... or one which kills members of an ethnic minority. In the 90s it was possible for a single teenager to orchestrate a hacking attack which could bring down the biggest of the big websites, causing billions of dollars in damage. Imagine what could happen if this same sort of thing occurred with genetic engineering.
And most of the big changes will be ones that we dont forsee. It will be like the computer revolution, only it will involve our bodies and the organisms we live with. Potential for bad and good, but a genetic virus is scarier than a computer virus.
I'm very pessimistic about the next 100 years (or less, depends) for a few reasons:
The big one: the end of US hegemony....
I'm not exactly sure if that is a bad thing.
Nor am I, I despise the amount of control the US exerts over the world. But as a result, so much of the world is built around the US. If it were to collapse, bad, bad things would happen.
Yes, but that is because the gene is selfish, not you.
Animals partake in altruism even though they themselves, as individuals, pay the whole cost and gain zero benefit. You are right, the point of altruism is to increase the chances of your genes surviving and being passed on, but if the "self" we are talking about is the individual, then the statement "all actions are selfish" is wrong.
So basically this explains why we are naturally inclined to sacrifice ourselves to protect the children we already have instead of going 'fuck it, I can just go make some new ones'.
Anyways, you still have a choice, but it is also still a self-serving sacrifice. What would the consequence be if you did not let the gene win out? You would live your life in regret and misery.
Also the gene is part of you, so you can't detach it from the individual. It's like saying I am not a pessimist, only a portion of my brain is.
Yes, but that is because the gene is selfish, not you.
Animals partake in altruism even though they themselves, as individuals, pay the whole cost and gain zero benefit. You are right, the point of altruism is to increase the chances of your genes surviving and being passed on, but if the "self" we are talking about is the individual, then the statement "all actions are selfish" is wrong.
So basically this explains why we are naturally inclined to sacrifice ourselves to protect the children we already have instead of going 'fuck it, I can just go make some new ones'.
Anyways, you still have a choice, but it is also still a self-serving sacrifice. What would the consequence be if you did not let the gene win out? You would live your life in regret and misery. Also the gene is part of you, so you can't detach it from the individual. It's like saying I am not a pessimist, only a portion of my brain is.
No, the point is that you have to ask yourself on what level in the biological hierarchy the target of selection is for altruism. And the answer is, on the level of the gene, not on the level of the individual or the group.
Posts
In the late 90s, I heard about an oral vaccine for the bacteria that rot one's teeth.
I still haven't heard a second word of it.
It's not government blowjobs, so it isn't news.
I used to... but it's good to be humbled. Some day we will be extinct. We shouldn't be naive about our place in the universe.
I'm pretty much depending on this.
I can't be one of the last people quoted at the end of humanity if humanity doesn't croak.
Go sun go!
Uh, by the time swallows the earth we'll be across the galaxy. We're like cockroaches, the only thing I can see ending humanity after we start setting up home on new planets is the universe imploding. If by that time we haven't found anyway to stop that.
Time being infinite, our demise is inevitable.
You forget that other infinite thing: Human stupidity.
Which is why dreading the future, or being hopeful of it is pointless. You should really only care about issues which you believe will effect your level happiness in your own life time. Because eventually, just like you will be gone, so will the human race.
Because other peoples happiness doesn't matter?
The funny thing about the "think of the children!" motif is that, really, people need to start thinking about the goddamn children already.
It only matters if seeing/making others happy makes you feel good.
Unless you can find a way to cheat death somehow, you will eventually die and be forever gone. The way I see it is, you might as well make the most of your time; exploiting or helping others towards reaching that goal is irrelevant. I cannot be happy doing the former, but neither approach is invalid.
I think of the children. Specifically, my children. They don't exist yet, but the thought of their lives being good makes me feel good.
I guess it's really more self serving than it is altruistic.
It's just whether you are a selfish okay person or a selfish dick.
I do not agree with this statement.
Because you don't want to, being selfish.
Or in other words: I think your solution is ridiculous and covers no ground not already addressed.
- H. G. Wells
oh wait
I'd disagree simply because it's not true. All actions are based on incentives that are suppposed to be self serving, that is why they evolved from natural selection, but far from all charitable actions are selfish. Perhaps the most typical one would be willingness to die for your kin and friends. which is hardly selfish.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
If you dying keeps your kin alive, then you have increased the survival chances of your own DNA.
Selfish self-sacrificing bastards!
DARK ENERGY SHAZAM
Is this sarcasm, or are you really using this argument?
Exactly. Altruism.
Yes, but that is because the gene is selfish, not you.
Animals partake in altruism even though they themselves, as individuals, pay the whole cost and gain zero benefit. You are right, the point of altruism is to increase the chances of your genes surviving and being passed on, but if the "self" we are talking about is the individual, then the statement "all actions are selfish" is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton#Hamilton.27s_rule
--
I wouldn't blame the news so much. The news makes people more -fearful- of what -is- out there, but is relatively rare, such as kidnappings and plane crashes, but humans are assholes whether or not you have a news report on them.
Bit of both. :P
It depends on how pedantic people want to be with their definition of selfish e.g. givng to charity makes you feel good therefore it's selfish.
Mainly sarcasm though.
[/Pet Peeve]
The big one: the end of US hegemony, or the collapse of the US itself. Due to diminishing oil reserves and growing powers elsewhere, I think the US will continue to overextend itself militarily and economically. The two are very much tied, if the US is unable to protect/enforce/intimidate its interests or enemies around the world then there will be economic consequences, just as diminishing resources or a poor economy will have influence on the ability of the US to project its influence across the world. The big problem with this is that the economy of the entire planet is very much dependent on the US. A massive crash in the US would have enormously destructive results across the world. Just as a weakening military will result in a huge number of small (or big) wars as nations become able to challenge the US directly. Basically severe economic depression and war.
Climate change. I'm not so much worried about this individually, as in the long run its a self healing problem. It would be a large problem though since as it could result in economic and military issues due to the change in distribution of food and water. See above.
Artificial Intelligence: A bit of a wild card, who knows when it will occur, and what the results will be. Has the potential to cause incredibly large changes however.
Genetic Engineering: I see genetic engineering going the way of computers. Namely easier, cheaper, and more accessible. Now this will result in untold advances in medicine, and more controversially, in food production. But it will revolutionize, well, everything. In the 60s, if you operated a computer, you were probably a computer scientist, with many years of advanced training. Now everyone and their dog has easy access to vast amount of computing power, which can be hugely useful. Now imagine if genetic engineering goes the same way. Hobbyists, do it yourself kits, small, independent labs being set up. Now the results of this are largely speculative, since we really dont know a lot about this. The old designer baby debate will continue, many will try to ban such things, but there will always be places that dont, and more accessible tech means backroom deals for that kind of thing. Much like with computing, I think it will be these smaller entities that will do most of the innovating, whether its legal or not. Engineer a bacteria to give your eyes a different colour. Modify coca to make it even more potent. Create a virus from easily available components which kills cancer cells... or one which kills members of an ethnic minority. In the 90s it was possible for a single teenager to orchestrate a hacking attack which could bring down the biggest of the big websites, causing billions of dollars in damage. Imagine what could happen if this same sort of thing occurred with genetic engineering.
And most of the big changes will be ones that we dont forsee. It will be like the computer revolution, only it will involve our bodies and the organisms we live with. Potential for bad and good, but a genetic virus is scarier than a computer virus.
I'm not exactly sure if that is a bad thing.
Nor am I, I despise the amount of control the US exerts over the world. But as a result, so much of the world is built around the US. If it were to collapse, bad, bad things would happen.
So basically this explains why we are naturally inclined to sacrifice ourselves to protect the children we already have instead of going 'fuck it, I can just go make some new ones'.
Anyways, you still have a choice, but it is also still a self-serving sacrifice. What would the consequence be if you did not let the gene win out? You would live your life in regret and misery.
Also the gene is part of you, so you can't detach it from the individual. It's like saying I am not a pessimist, only a portion of my brain is.
No, the point is that you have to ask yourself on what level in the biological hierarchy the target of selection is for altruism. And the answer is, on the level of the gene, not on the level of the individual or the group.
Anyone find it really ironic that the name of that website is 'wired'?