Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

How advanced do you hope the world will be when you are old?


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#61
FutureGuy

FutureGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts

 

 

Hm, referring to the timeline as it's an all-knowing precognitive god, eh? The mistake that everyone makes. Another problem that the community on this forum has.

Yep, simulating brain function shall create strong AI. But programmed robots won't. And it's programmed robots that will be mainstream, not ANN robots.

Also, I'm positive that am any rational person would prefer to see real people fucking than "photorealistic CGI".
Quote

 

 

Nope, I'm not referring to it as an all knowing precognitive god, I'm referring to it as what it is: a speculative timeline which most members here tend to agree with and use as a general guideline. Why wouldn't robots be able to do so too, assuming, of course, current trends remain stable long enough, due to change in architecture/materials/both? And even if they couldn't, strong AI isn't necessary to replace us at virtually any task. One could program a robot specifically for the task at hand, meaning it wouldn't "waste" energy and computing power on functions it wouldn't need. Anyway, you brought up the example, and you may never know, the internet is an interesting place, you get to know people who fap to freakin' cartoon ponies aimed at little girls, I bet you can find people who would enjoy photorealistic cgi porn, but that's beside the point, you asked how one would replace that, I came up with a possible replacement, and some futurists think acting is going to become all CGI sooner or later, so why not?

 

 

 

Capitalism is obsolete? Ok, tell me why private ownership of goods and private enterprise is obsolete. The wealth gap is not a problem of capitalism, it is a problem of shitty tax laws. The only downside to capitalism is, yes, the economic downturns. However, that's the price we pay for this system.

You studied economics? Where, the Soviet Union?

Why will humans play to rules against their nature? Avarice isn't going to go away with money. Resources cause avarice. War will continue in the future, whether or not you want it or believe it.

 

 

You might have missed the post where I said capitalism is still the best available option as long as scarcity exists. Hence we should work to achieve a post scarcity situation. 



#62
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-
I'm not going to reply until the morning so I might as well.

http://images.sodahe...at20popcorn.png

EDIT: I might as well make a reply to the argument about posting sources.

Your sources were Rationalwiki and a YouTube video with no references or bibliography.

My "Claims" included a graph from the united states bureau of labour statistics and an MIT technological review article.

I'm not going to say the obvious.

#63
Spacekitty

Spacekitty

    Dusk Cypher - Instigator of Transcendence

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationHuman Shell Unit Version 1.0

Who said I had to be a Zeitgeist or a Venusian to want a resource based economy? Who said I thought it would solve all our problems? But its gotta be better than the homeless on the streets. the people who die because they cant afford food or water in the poorest countries in the world. Us people in the 'developed world' who look down on them like trash in new york. As insignificant as an Ant. Its hight time we realised this, and  gave up the money that shackles us in all areas of science. If a scientist worried not about money for his research, then we could be in a wholeother solarsystem at this point. We dont know how lucky we are to have enough for ourselves and more. Isn't it high time we shared what we have wholely and fully so that all peoples can simply live in a world driven by individual purpose?

 

I'd share a link with you, but I cant find it at this point

 

And who said I thought you were flaming me? I said 'such flames'', not 'your flaming me stop'.


I will instigate the singularity!


#64
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

Your sources were Rationalwiki and a YouTube video with no references or bibliography.

My "Claims" included a graph from the united states bureau of labour statistics and an MIT technological review article.

I'm not going to say the obvious.

Except that your references are irrelevant in the context of this conversation. You didn't provide any evidence for the fruition of a resource based economy via automation. You simply provided a source for automation. That is like saying that the sky is blue because of magical monkey farts, and then providing a source stating that the sky is blue.

There are a lack of sources on this topic which I do apologize for, but it is not my fault. This stuff is so fringe-wacko that it is only known about by techno-masturbators. The vast majority of people don't waste their time with this garbage, and thus there are a lack of sources. However, in my AI arguments, I used the book "Physics of the Future" as a source.

Although I do admit that my sources are not top-notch, you can not dismiss them. Look at them. They trash an RBE very well.

Here is another one:
http://pathstoknowle...global-control/

I suggest you read and analyze it thoroughly and watch the videos attached.

Nope, I'm not referring to it as an all knowing precognitive god, I'm referring to it as what it is: a speculative timeline which most members here tend to agree with and use as a general guideline.

That's the problem. Large chunks of it are so illogical and full of holes that it shouldn't be used as a general guideline.

Why wouldn't robots be able to do so too, assuming, of course, current trends remain stable long enough, due to change in architecture/materials/both? And even if they couldn't, strong AI isn't necessary to replace us at virtually any task. One could program a robot specifically for the task at hand, meaning it wouldn't "waste" energy and computing power on functions it wouldn't need.

Except that you need strong AI for careers in art, science, and law.

Anyway, you brought up the example, and you may never know, the internet is an interesting place, you get to know people who fap to freakin' cartoon ponies aimed at little girls, I bet you can find people who would enjoy photorealistic cgi porn, but that's beside the point, you asked how one would replace that, I came up with a possible replacement, and some futurists think acting is going to become all CGI sooner or later, so why not?

+9000 for the clopping reference.

I'm not arguing that there won't be a niche for robo-porn, but most people would prefer to see real people going at it.

Who said I had to be a Zeitgeist or a Venusian to want a resource based economy?

Nobody.

But its gotta be better than the homeless on the streets. the people who die because they cant afford food or water in the poorest countries in the world. Us people in the 'developed world' who look down on them like trash in new york. As insignificant as an Ant.

Wealth inequality such as that between the homeless and millionaires is not due to capitalism, but due to stupid tax laws, and non-nationalization of necessities like healthcare. You blame the problems in developed countries on capitalism? How about extremely inefficient and corrupt governments?

Its hight time we realised this, and gave up the money that shackles us in all areas of science. If a scientist worried not about money for his research, then we could be in a wholeother solarsystem at this point. We dont know how lucky we are to have enough for ourselves and more. Isn't it high time we shared what we have wholely and fully so that all peoples can simply live in a world driven by individual purpose?

Money isn't the problem. Money doesn't cause greed. It's what money can buy: resources. Wars aren't over money. They are over resources.

Let's end with this:
http://en.m.wikipedi...mmunist_regimes

#65
Spacekitty

Spacekitty

    Dusk Cypher - Instigator of Transcendence

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationHuman Shell Unit Version 1.0

I never said it would end war, and you yourself are not denying the fact that without money which is really a measure of ones influence and power, we'd be able to advance scientific research significantly. People who previously wouldn't be able to could actually goto school and follow their passion in order to contribute to a society driven by purpose instead of the accrument of wealth and power. And you poorly mistake communism for resorcism. 2 different things, and while you blame corruption, I blame the suppressal of purpose in humanity by those who aspire only for power. A government is only as corrupt as the system allows it to be. And what is corrupting this system? money! what is wrong with diverting resources to where they are needed rather then where greedy aristocrats want them to be? That is communism, that i th system we have, flawed and dying though it may be. All it is is a measure of ones power over those who have nothing. Wouldn't it be better if everyone equally shared this power? Isn't that what democracy is?

 

You fail to see that a resoure based economy works in a democratic society. democracy is and always will be a system of people equal in power deciding the decisions of their nation. But how can they choose correctly if they do not hear from the political parties thats cannot AFFORD to share their message? Thats why in america you have the republicans and the liberals  and in Australia you have Liberal and Labor.  Its the same story in both countries. Two warring clans that overule the system because they have the money to broadcast their message to the country. How do you think Clive Palmer of Palmer United in Australia rose to power? Why beause he had the money to tell people to vote for him.

 

Ok, i'mdone ranting, but you get my point right?A resource based economy can be achieved in a democratic society. Its not communism, its resorcism


I will instigate the singularity!


#66
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
A resource based economy is communism. Stop denying it. Here, I'll prove it.

Here are the goals of an RBE, from http://p2pfoundation...e-Based_Economy. This list is copied straight from that website:

- common holding of land by the people
- common holding of the means of production
- common holding of the resources
- common distribution of consumables/goods/commodities and so on
- automation of the manufacturing process i.e. resources into semi-consumables and semi-consumables into consumables
- beyond the use of money, credit, barter, exchange, and all forms of interest bearing debt

Here are the goals of communism:

- abolition of private property rights and accumulation of wealth
- common distribution of resources
- centrally planned economy
- state seizure of transportation
- state seizure of communications
- state seizure of industry

Hm....sounds similar. If we look even closer we can see that an RBE also has a centrally planned economy, and wants to replace cars and planes with government-owned maglevs (state seizure of transportation)! Here is a reference: http://www.thevenusp...faq#faqnoanchor

RBE = Communism. Accept it. Or, continue to hilariously attempt to claim that something which possesses all of the goals and tenets of communism isn't communism. Your choice.

#67
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
Money is a system that represents resources. It literally did represent resources in the past: the gold standard. Remove the money and the resources remain.

#68
Jakob

Jakob

    Very Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,475 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Let's get back on topic....

 

By the time I'm old (I'll define old as 65), I hope to see these developments.

 

Space

  • Thousands of people on the moon and Mars.
  • Hundreds of people living in the asteroid belt.

  • Exploration of Jupiter's moons

  • Probes in the Kuiper Belt

  • Large-scale asteroid mining

  • A space hotel in LEO that can be reached for about what an airplane ticket costs today

  • A trip to the moon for less than $100k.

Computing and robotics

  • Supercomputers with million-yottaflops capabilities
  • Laptops with 100+-zettaflops capabilities
  • Sentient androids sophisticated and convincing enough to live among humans
  • FIVR ubiquitous
  • Programs that can tell if/when/where someone is going to commit a crime before they actually commit it

Biology and medicine

  • Anti-aging/reverse-aging therapy available for $100 to $1000
  • Medical nanobots ubiquitous
  • Successful bioprinting (or synthesis in some other manner) of a live human
  • The most common and dangerous diseases completely eradicated
  • Resurrection of extinct species being common

Transport

  • 100% autonomous cars that can safely do 200 to 300 miles per hour (actually, I expect this by the time I'm middle-aged)
  • High-hypersonic (Mach 10) passenger aircraft
  • Vactrains capable of doing 1000 to 2000 miles per hour
  • Road and rail links to every continent
  • 99 or 99.9 percent fewer vehicle-related fatalities than there are in the 2010s

Miscelaneous

  • Vertical farms ubiquitous
  • At least one mile-high building and several kilometer-high ones
  • Work week down to 30 hours

Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#69
bee14ish

bee14ish

    Psionic Reality-Warping God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 370 posts
  • LocationEarth

I never said it would end war, and you yourself are not denying the fact that without money which is really a measure of ones influence and power, we'd be able to advance scientific research significantly. People who previously wouldn't be able to could actually goto school and follow their passion in order to contribute to a society driven by purpose instead of the accrument of wealth and power. And you poorly mistake communism for resorcism. 2 different things, and while you blame corruption, I blame the suppressal of purpose in humanity by those who aspire only for power. A government is only as corrupt as the system allows it to be. And what is corrupting this system? money! what is wrong with diverting resources to where they are needed rather then where greedy aristocrats want them to be? That is communism, that i th system we have, flawed and dying though it may be. All it is is a measure of ones power over those who have nothing. Wouldn't it be better if everyone equally shared this power? Isn't that what democracy is?

 

You fail to see that a resoure based economy works in a democratic society. democracy is and always will be a system of people equal in power deciding the decisions of their nation. But how can they choose correctly if they do not hear from the political parties thats cannot AFFORD to share their message? Thats why in america you have the republicans and the liberals  and in Australia you have Liberal and Labor.  Its the same story in both countries. Two warring clans that overule the system because they have the money to broadcast their message to the country. How do you think Clive Palmer of Palmer United in Australia rose to power? Why beause he had the money to tell people to vote for him.

 

Ok, i'mdone ranting, but you get my point right?A resource based economy can be achieved in a democratic society. Its not communism, its resorcism

Am I the only one who thinks there would be a bit of anarchy, even more so than now, if we were to actually follow this? Money doesn't cause evil or corruption or all the problems society has and neither does capitalism. The people do.



#70
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-
Your sources were Rationalwiki and a YouTube video with no references or bibliography.
 
My "Claims" included a graph from the united states bureau of labour statistics and an MIT technological review article.
 
I'm not going to say the obvious.
 

 

Except that your references are irrelevant in the context of this conversation. You didn't provide any evidence for the fruition of a resource based economy via automation. You simply provided a source for automation. That is like saying that the sky is blue because of magical monkey farts, and then providing a source stating that the sky is blue.

 

 

 

 
There are a lack of sources on this topic which I do apologize for, but it is not my fault. This stuff is so fringe-wacko that it is only known about by techno-masturbators. The vast majority of people don't waste their time with this garbage, and thus there are a lack of sources. However, in my AI arguments, I used the book "Physics of the Future" as a source.
 
Although I do admit that my sources are not top-notch, you can not dismiss them. Look at them. They trash an RBE very well.
 
Here is another one:
 
I suggest you read and analyze it thoroughly and watch the videos attached.
 

 

I provided a source that was relevant. Speaking of automation and unsurely speaking of how automation will lead to either a resource based economy or corporate hell. I say unsurely because I even threw away the assumption myself. And concluded with 

 

"I don't know but money will be very hard to get if jobs are very hard to get. That's for sure."

 

That is a very relevant assumption in itself.

 

According to the source too, I said myself again that the Zeitgeist movement and The Venus Project is bullshit. A society that doesn't deal with money is not. I will admit that I'm taking some of the ideology of the Zeitgeist movement and The Venus Project in exclaiming that scarcity is now becoming obsolete. (I'll go into this later)

 

"You're mixing natural language processing (NLP) with AI general intelligence. NLP is your basic chat bot that uses algorithms to give an appropriate response. The Chinese Room thought experiment seems centered around the criticism of the Turing test which I have to say, it is a shit test to evaluate AI intelligence."
 
"It was designed to criticize the Turing Test, but it applies to all artificial intelligences.
 
Also, I'm positive that am any rational person would prefer to see real people fucking than "photorealistic CGI"."

 

And I'm very positive no one would see the difference, hence the world "photorealistic". Pornstars wouldn't risk STDs and they can resort to getting money the old fashioned way (prostitution). That was a joke

 

"Now, according to this textbook (pdf here) the main attributes of AI general intelligence are:
 
- Reasoning, strategy, solving puzzles, that sort of thing.
- Knowledge representation & Commonsense knowledge representation
- Planning
- Learning
- Natural Communication
- Ability to use skills listed above towards goals"

 

"Doesn't matter, because they have no idea what they are doing. There is no evidence presentable that they do."

 

I already said this before, knowing what you're doing is in the same boat as spouting consciousness and sapience. I think I can giver a fairly good analogy to your previous comment and I hope this goes to share my perspective of what you're saying quite well,

 

Does a parrot know what it's doing what it's saying when it replicates words? Does that mean it's not intelligent?

 

"Those are overrated traits. I'm sure AI have already accomplished them. However, the biggest one of all is understanding what they are doing. AI is programmed. It follows a set of instructions given to it. That's all. We on the other hand are not programmed. We learn through experience.

 

There are two methods of creating artificial intelligence: the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach. The top-down approach programs all of the intelligence from the beginning. Thus, the AI follows all of the programming. Since all it is doing is following instructions, it is not understanding anything in the human sense. A top-down approach AI is:
 
Input -> Data Processor -> Output
 
The bottom-up approach is a neural network, following Hebb's rule. Hebb's rule means that it changes the strength of electrical connections between neurons every time that it completes a task, constantly rewiring itself.
 
The brain is not a computer.
 
Only a neural network can understand and learn like a brain can. Thus, to make an AI actually able to compete with a human, you need reverse-engineer the brain: build an artificial neural network.
 
Robots with ANNs will not be mainstream, as firstly they need time to learn. Whereas programmed robots can just be factory equipped with all the information they need, ANN robots need to learn like a human child. This is time and cost ineffective."
 
It's funny that you mention Hebb's rule and ANN as being unique and non-programmable because that is the same way that AI learns today. You speak like it will take years for an AI to go through very advanced ANN learning to achieve a considerable level of intelligence when it would take a maximum of days.
 
Computers are very very fast in dealing with data and I think we already know this. A program can analyze 10,000 pictures in what would take days for a human, but only takes minutes to an hour or two. Analyzing audio takes seconds for Siri to turn audio to text using machine learning and giving the appropriate response. This may not be your high quality Human level responses but it's damn well impressive for our time.
 
I remember this documentary on the past present and future of computers. They did a topic on how computers and AI can learn. They had a really good example of a story that would do well in this case. Here is the story:
 
Once upon a time, the US Army wanted to use neural networks to automatically detect camouflaged enemy tanks.  The researchers trained a neural net on 50 photos of camouflaged tanks in trees, and 50 photos of trees without tanks.  Using standard techniques for supervised learning, the researchers trained the neural network to a weighting that correctly loaded the training set - output "yes" for the 50 photos of camouflaged tanks, and output "no" for the 50 photos of forest.  This did not ensure, or even imply, that new examples would be classified correctly.  The neural network might have "learned" 100 special cases that would not generalize to any new problem.  Wisely, the researchers had originally taken 200 photos, 100 photos of tanks and 100 photos of trees.  They had used only 50 of each for the training set.  The researchers ran the neural network on the remaining 100 photos, and without further training the neural network classified all remaining photos correctly.  Success confirmed!  The researchers handed the finished work to the Pentagon, which soon handed it back, complaining that in their own tests the neural network did no better than chance at discriminating photos.
 
It turned out that in the researchers' data set, photos of camouflaged tanks had been taken on cloudy days, while photos of plain forest had been taken on sunny days.  The neural network had learned to distinguish cloudy days from sunny days, instead of distinguishing camouflaged tanks from empty forest.
 
ANN is used in many applications we all know and love today, even the ones that take our jobs will most likely use ANN to learn. I suggest you read this paper on Neural networks in games (it also goes a little in the topic of other applications). link (you have to download it to view it, just a warning. It's not a virus).
 
I have to stop midway due to a real world distraction, I'll continue later.
 
Cool video.
 
 

 

 



#71
Spacekitty

Spacekitty

    Dusk Cypher - Instigator of Transcendence

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationHuman Shell Unit Version 1.0

- common holding of land by the people
- common holding of the means of production
- common holding of the resources
- common distribution of consumables/goods/commodities and so on
- automation of the manufacturing process i.e. resources into semi-consumables and semi-consumables into consumables
- beyond the use of money, credit, barter, exchange, and all forms of interest bearing debt

Here are the goals of communism:

- abolition of private property rights and accumulation of wealth
- common distribution of resources
- centrally planned economy
- state seizure of transportation
- state seizure of communications
- state seizure of industry

 

RBE isnt communism, it may sound like it but it isn't.

 

You state that communism wants to abolish private property and RBE wants the land be be owned by all people.

 

Note that RBE doesn't want to abolish private property, its still there, it just wants the LAND to be readily accessible by all people, meaning that people may do what they wish with the land they have around them as long as other people may have equal access to that land. Your house is still your house and only those you allow to enter may enter. Communism implies that all land is owned by the government, which is why communism is akin to a dictatorship and RBE is more democratic than we can possibly immagine.

 

You state that Communism is the common distribution of resources, wile an RBE is the common holding of resources.

 

In communism, the distribution of resources is being done by who? The government? Do I smell dictatorship? While an RBE is the common HOLDING of resources. Which means that all people have equal entitlement to all the planets resources. Does that sound like the government is controlling anything to you?

 

You state that both have a centrally planned economy.

 

Do you mean economy in the sense of a government controlling the distribution of resources or the sustainable management of resources? We have to make sure we dont destroy the planet somehow! and Isnt the current eonomy in america Centrallised on wall street?

 

You state that communism controlls all industry, commerce etc etc while an RBE is the common holdingof all means of production. In communism, ONE group is controlling everything. in an RBE, all of HUMANITY controlls everything.

 

To be honest an RBE is sounding a lot more like true democracy and a lot less like communism. They may sound the same, but if you look at the underlying principles of an RBE, its two polar opposites. Communism is dictatorship and controll. An RBE is the empowerment of all people in all things.

 

Now lets look at a definition of democracy

 

"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
 
seems to me like the principals of an RBE are in line with the values of democracy. But I'll allow you to figure that out.
 
Sure it wont stop wars, but it might just end poverty, and that is a win in itself

I will instigate the singularity!


#72
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

RBE isnt communism, it may sound like it but it isn't.

Yes it is.

You state that communism wants to abolish private property and RBE wants the land be be owned by all people.

....thus abolishing private property....making it public property.

Note that RBE doesn't want to abolish private property, its still there, it just wants the LAND to be readily accessible by all people, meaning that people may do what they wish with the land they have around them as long as other people may have equal access to that land. Your house is still your house and only those you allow to enter may enter.

Quote from Marx's Communist Manifesto:
"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."

Do you know what the difference is between property and possessions? You can sell property, and charge others for its use. Possessions, not so much. People in communist nations had possessions such as houses too.

Communism implies that all land is owned by the government, which is why communism is akin to a dictatorship and RBE is more democratic than we can possibly immagine.

Actually, communism implies public ownership of land. As in everyone owns it. There should be no dictators in a communist society. Everything should be by the people. However, communism is so terrible and inefficient that dictators always pop up.

You state that Communism is the common distribution of resources, wile an RBE is the common holding of resources.

In communism, the distribution of resources is being done by who? The government? Do I smell dictatorship? While an RBE is the common HOLDING of resources. Which means that all people have equal entitlement to all the planets resources. Does that sound like the government is controlling anything to you?

Communism isn't a dictatorship. Read the Communist Manifesto. One of the main tenets of communism is equality, btw.

You state that both have a centrally planned economy.

Do you mean economy in the sense of a government controlling the distribution of resources or the sustainable management of resources? We have to make sure we dont destroy the planet somehow!

Doesn't matter who is planning the economy or how. What matters is that it is a planned economy. Do you know what a planned economy is? Read this: http://en.m.wikipedi...Planned_economy and maybe you'll understand one of the most basic economic principles. Whenever industrialized economies are centrally planned, they fail.

Do you blame capitalism for destroying the environment? Because I blame greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, public disregard, unsustainable development, and unsustainable agriculture.

and Isnt the current eonomy in america Centrallised on wall street?

This is the stupidest thing anyone has ever said ever. Do you not know what a free market is? Do I really have to tell you? Read this: http://en.m.wikipedi...iki/Free_market and maybe you'll understand one of the most basic economic principles.

You state that communism controlls all industry, commerce etc etc while an RBE is the common holdingof all means of production. In communism, ONE group is controlling everything. in an RBE, all of HUMANITY controlls everything.

There is a common holding of industry in both systems. As I said earlier, communism always devolves into a dictatorship. Communism =/= dictatorship.

Now lets look at a definition of democracy

"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

True communism should be a democracy.

seems to me like the principals of an RBE are in line with the values of democracy. But I'll allow you to figure that out.

Communism sounds like a utopian democracy on paper too. Why do you think that it was so popular?

Sure it wont stop wars, but it might just end poverty, and that is a win in itself

I'm not sure why you believe that communism will end poverty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Soviet Union caused the deaths of 10 million due to poverty.

#73
KaRdAsHeV~sCaLe

KaRdAsHeV~sCaLe

    0.72 on the Kardashev scale and slowly getting more advanced

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in this universe
I don't think anyone even knows what the title of this thread is anymore.

Counting down the days until 2050: 12,499 Humanity = 0.72 on the Kardashev scale
Counting down the days until 2100: 30,761
Counting down the days until 3000: 359,479


#74
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
I will deal with CC's post when he finishes.

You might have missed the post where I said capitalism is still the best available option as long as scarcity exists. Hence we should work to achieve a post scarcity situation.

In all honesty, I did miss that post. I agree, but post scarcity isn't feasible. How will we achieve post scarcity?

The answer everyone always gives is: "replicators". There is a problem with this, however.

Replicators are an extremely efficient form of manufacturing (just like 3D printing, or the assembly line). They don't create something from nothing. Thus, they require raw materials. They also require power, maintenance, and information (required to create the desired object). Replicators also don't remove supply and demand.

#75
Spacekitty

Spacekitty

    Dusk Cypher - Instigator of Transcendence

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationHuman Shell Unit Version 1.0

OK, I'm going to start an entirely new thread where you and me can argue all we want over an RBE so this thread can go back to what it actuallly is. BTW, replicators arent the answer because they're so friekin far away. Try asteroid mining, vertical farming, maybe a few time capsules of flora and fauna in space.


I will instigate the singularity!


#76
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

BTW, replicators arent the answer because they're so friekin far away. Try asteroid mining, vertical farming, maybe a few time capsules of flora and fauna in space.

I don't know what that last one means. Asteroid mining will give us abundant resources, but not unlimited resources. Vertical farming will give us more food, but not unlimited food.

#77
Spacekitty

Spacekitty

    Dusk Cypher - Instigator of Transcendence

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationHuman Shell Unit Version 1.0

It wont be unlimited, but it will solve scarcity for now. And I meant stations in space with simulated gravity where we could provide a truly safe haven for any flora and fauna on earth going extinct. I was using my imagination...


I will instigate the singularity!


#78
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

And I meant stations in space with simulated gravity where we could provide a truly safe haven for any flora and fauna on earth going extinct. I was using my imagination...

That's a neat idea ^_^

#79
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

Repulsorlift vehicles

I applaud you for your accidental Star Wars reference.

And the word "repulsorlift" was never even used in any of the films...that's bonus points for you. http://starwars.wiki...ki/Repulsorlift

#80
Jakob

Jakob

    Very Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,475 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Can we please try to get this back on topic?


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users