Ghet for Prez (Small Q&A) pt. II

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Cedric, Nov 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I'm not coming from the matrix point of view, I don't mix serious evolutionary discourse with fantasy movies. I'ma student of cosmological Darwinianism it's a Darwinian variant on the Multiverse theory. I don't think there are TRILLIONS of me elsewhere. I wouldn't rule it out, but that's not my argument here. In theory, I think there are others elsewhere. Given all I know about cosmological Darwinianism... I think some universes out survived other universes and we are just one of some by-product universes surviving today. This does not mean Trillions of me had to exist, because I wouldn't have evolved until this universe. Those other universes probabally still exist, but the planets there are most likely long dead because they weren't the fittests to survive. My reasoning is that some of those universes were unable to create a planet with a Goldilocks value of 0.0007 which is just right for yielding the richness of elements that we need for an interesting and life-supporting chemistry. Because I understand universes that have what it takes to survive and reproduce come to predominate in the multiverse. What it takes includes lasting long enough to reproduce. Because the act of reproduction takes place in blackholes, successful universes must have what it takes to make black holes. This ability entails various other properties. For Example, the tendency for matter to condense into clouds and then stars is a prerequisite to making black holes. Stars also are the precursors to the development of interesting chemistry, and hence life. So there has to have been a darwinian natural selection of unvierses in the multiverse, directly favoring the evolution of blackhole fecundity and indirectly favouring the production of life.

    Nobel prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-mann said: "that Theoretical physicist may not be wrong. Further more, The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extavagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The Multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those Universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence."
    test
  2. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    here go a pregunta para ghetWhassup with the HDD ??!?
    test
  3. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    @Ghet_for_Prez – Thanks for dissecting. You may've already covered something I'm about to mention (I don't think so though, but just in case...), feel free to re-quote past text if needed.

    /nods

    So to this day, there is no country in existence (America included) that specifically instructs their citizens [on a country-wide consensus] to dwell in Post-humanism, but rather a country-based government and religion. I can see the effects of this, because a country wouldn’t even be called a country nor have order, if such a Class was dwelled upon by sums of people large enough to span an entire country.

    This is just an instance, but there’s no telling what such a country would be capable of. I know that with a consensus this large, their feats in human-progression [through the use of technological advancements] would be ground-breaking enough that Class Complexity’s grandiose would convince populations to erase a globe’s thought-process and way of life, into a centralized Class Complexity system. Of course you’re now suggesting that that would never happen Ghet, but I see what you’re saying when you mention “funds”—funds to benefit certain procedures, but a Class Complexity system (i.e. Vincent DePaul Solutions™, circa 20--) may decide to fund a round-up party across bodies of land to influence this class, should people like you change their minds about interaction limited to needed persons carrying certain techs/crafts. This is why I asked of your intentions earlier, if you would warp populations to create unnecessary pain and suffering. Surely an amoral being would have no problem doing just that to reach their goal(s).

    Post-humanism may never be large enough to span a country [at the very least], and that there are only a select-number of individuals in the world at present that would willingly exercise Class Complexity. Maybe it’s better that it remains so, who knows… you tell me. You might also be able to tell me if it’s more or less beneficial [to mankind] that there be a cap in Class, or if Class Complexity should work towards being exclusive enough to span countries, then continents and later the globe. I can recall you mentioning a few times in the past that there needs to be spice and flavor in the globe (killings to commence, births/deaths to commence, the presence of various goods and evils), so maybe you can expand on how you believe fruition be carried out (our lifetime window mainly).

    /r.a.e.

    Elaborate.
    test
  4. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    One more thing, I apologize for this turning into a Large Q&A and intervention, you can thank 5-post johnny_spanish for setting the bug. Use your lib-cURL's if you haven't, and I commend you for playing into his question.
    test
  5. You didn't get my message?

    They were trying to charge me $2,200.

    I'm changing companies and finding something more reasonable.
    test
  6. 1.) There are multiple flavours of Posthumanism. Most are Socialist. Mine is not. I believe the Technological Singularity will be the most important gain, thus, making me a Singularitarian. But most Singularitarians are moralistic for <insert belief system here> reasons. I am amoral. I don't care about a Grey Goo scenario because one EMP pulse would wipe it clean off the map. I don't care about an army of robots because that's Hollywood talking, not science. Fear of technology is a Luddite passion, founded when a bunch of technicians refused to retrain themselves like the stubborn fucks they were. This post-Nuclear Neo-Luddite (Inspired by both Right and Left wing agendas) is totally useless bullshit that feeds off of the fear of the uneducated. So when you say Posthumanism, be careful how to use the term because it can come to mean many things. My flavour is Singularitarianism.

    2.) Marx views history as Class Struggle. I view history as Class Complexity, a collection of people of various influences doing what they can to interact with a hostile universe. -NATURE- is our enemy, not each other. Here on Earth, we have created the illusion that we have conquored Nature, but that is a misnomer fueled by our neat gadgets. 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe still has gone unobserved. We haven't mastered shit. We are still at the whims of galatic variables.

    3.) The moment something takes on the properties of a national-political entity, it takes on all of the bloating and swelling of a bureaucratic engine, with every middle man in earshot trying to find a spot to leech off of. Therefore, Class Complexity in it's current form can be utilized to create the required discoveries for the Singularity. I look at Africa, and I see a continent that you can sell weapons or faulty medicine to for funding a project. I look at Europe and I see a return of Fascism because of the current immigration problems, and I see a great way to exploit some Middle Class brat who wants to save the brown people to piss off his parents while attending art school. I look at American and I see it as the slave of the world, whose entire economy and product allows for the world to even exist. I look at Asia... oh, glorious Asia... and I see the future... as horrible as that war will be. Class Complexity suggests to simply let this system persist and direct it in a path that is beneficial to a Posthuman outcome. That is why many Posthumanists refuse to play political mobilization games and public relations campaigns. We simply don't need them. I don't care about your rights. I don't care about your security. The outcome is too important.

    A nuke in Japan saved that nation from being enslaved by Russia. The outcome justifies the means. Always.
    test
  7. test
  8. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    1) True. In the Mapping Personal Growth thread, I laid claim to mostly a Socialist view [still]. I’m pretty anxious to see the complete outlook viewed from a Singularitarianism angle, but in order to fully grasp this concept’s ideals and Post-humanism as a whole, I have to knock out the preceding nooks-and-crannies, which I’ll talk about shortly.

    2) One field of study can be chained into another (and so forth with the embedding) to create a greater understanding of the universe. I’m not sure where you’ve collected the idea that Earth has been mastered, but that is why technologies and innovations continue to garner attention, and why there will never be an end to understanding because the idea is universal—the idea of coming to a conclusion is hardly ever observed, hence the strength contained in “evolution”.

    Mankind has not been able to construct the complete array of tools and devices needed to produce life on other planets, and keeping in mind that we haven’t even set [human] foot on Mars nor mastered life on the moon, we’ve a ways to go. This involves changing atmospheric properties (since ignoring this for an oxygen apparatus or enclosure is 100x riskier), and I can see where you’re going with this when you suggest cosmology plays a large part in a Post-humanist’s observations, and why diplomacy on Earth almost always takes a backseat.

    3) The outcome of anything in vast dimensions implements “strong sacrifice”, and it stumps me that you yourself at times aren’t hesitant to how past events were carried out. I look at our differences in Mapping Personal Growth like a game of chess—we’re both eventually going to reach the point of checking the mate, but your personal concern wouldn’t be in the amount of pieces left over in the aftermath… where in mine I’m doing whatever it takes in my power to retain even the first-to-go pawns, even though each piece has pledged to be a sacrifice towards their respectable kingdom. This plays back towards politics, so I can see where a Post-humanist’s concept lies—squash the idea of nations and draw the ideas of __________ (fill that in for me, I’m asking).

    China and computer-aided sentencing… /lol… I don’t know about that one. That database has been loaded with Chinese law since 2003 by Qin Ye, and I’m wondering if America would consider buying programming-rights from him, or if we’re fine with human logic for now. There are too many hackers in the world to depend solely on a system for sentencing, which is why I’ll nod at the fact that their judges compare their personal logic to the computers for last-minute sentencing. This is how they feel about hacking:
    All-in-all, it’s evident that I need to look into some of the in-depths of Post-humanism and how it blends w/ modern society, so for that I’m going to go ahead and continue reading this book, and become one of your subscribers whenever you’re finished with yours, keep me informed. At day’s end, I still don’t agree with some of your views, but rather than blame it completely on Post-humanism, I’m glad that you’ve based it on an entirely different trend—you see things that I don’t, and vice-versa. If there are any additional articles/books you suggest I supplement (just to enhance awareness of view, not to embrace), I’m open for suggestions.
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    In the rocket science community mass equals budget. This means the less mass the less spending. Which financially means the lighter the fuel tank attached to the rocket the quicker they can go to mars. Infact, NASA has the techology and the know-how to reach Mars today. Every year Earth and Mars Orbit comes into opposition of each other as you can clearly see in this photo graph here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/picsol/marearthorb.gif this would be our only chance to launch a space exploration to mars, infact, it would only take 6 months to reach there.

    Now I know what your thinking 6 months in zero-gravity bullshit can't be done.
    Wrong, it can be done, infact it's already been accomplished by Sergei Krikalev a russian cosmonaut. Infact, He spent two years in space and returned with only a minior deduction in muscle mass and a minior deduction in brain function. His loss in muscle mass was so minuscule because he worked out religiously everyday while aboard the spacestation. Since then, scentists have figured out a way to fix the problem with deduction in brain function. The problem they cleverly found out was cosmonauts like every other human being is a social animal, in otherwords, the cosmonauts started missing everything they loved on earth and became emotionally crippled making mistakes in their judgement up on the spacestation. Thus, leading to their blunders in endurance, cognition, motivation, and empathy while aboard the spacestation. But as I said before scientists jumped on this problem and brought forth the solution which was to bring a little piece of earth's ecology up to the spacestation next time. Which they did and it solved the deduction in brain function problem for the next time a group of cosmonauts stayed in the spacestation then returned back to earth.

    Now, Landing on mars is tricky but they've done it with the mars rover without skiding across mars atomsphere right off into space. They also managed no structural damage upon landing thanks to the ingenius mer air bags design. Which is basically this: http://wanderingspace.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/rover.jpg


    And Lastly, we do have the technology and know-how to terraform mars, however, it is based on theoretical computer models. The theory goes like this... mars should become earth-like again if we can produce extravagant amounts of man-made Co2 into its atmosphere. Moreover, Underneath the Land mass of mars there is pockets of frozen ice, and if you look on earth's land mass you'll notice the same dirt lines on mars, now if you dig down enough into those lines of dirt on earth you'll discover liquid water. Thus, how the comparison was made. Here is a snap shot of the Frozen tundra beneath mars surface: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/12/MarsNASAdrip_228x450.jpg

    So they could theorically heat up mars atmosphere by utilizing what is said to be mainly responsible for Global warming here on earth. But furthermore, as the ice starts to melt on mars it will produce even more co2 into the atmosphere. Thus, fixing mars atmosphere back to what it once might have been, earth-like. And extremophiles will be able to thrive again. However, this process could take generations of earth-exodus inwhich astronauts become like cockroachs and mars becomes like a roach motel meaning astronauts check in but they don't check out. However, This idea is awesome and interesting because it's birth-like in a sense that after generations of these astronauts living on mars our human speices will evolve and adapt to the mars atompshere. Which could mean a massive brain increase in size, a muscle increase in size, the ablity to jump higher, not to mention totally alter our physical appearances as to not resemble anything remotely earth-like.

    But don't worry because in the first space exploration to mars terraforming will not be the goal. The goal will be for astronauts to make their own fuel on mars within a one year time span before Earth and Mars Orbit comes into opposition again, which will be the only chance they'll have that year to return back to earth.
    In short, we can set foot on mars right now today no problem.
    test
  10. 1.) The information and it's evolution is availible all over the Internet. Start with Ray Kurzweil. Remember Stevie Wonder? Yeah, without Kurzweil's help, he'd have no ability to read music scores.

    2.) Finite systems and viable information permutation. Information can only be recombined in so many methods without overloading the system. Yes, you can create a building whose entire weight is held up by a martini glass, but what other laws did you have to modify to achieve this? The same rules applies to mastery (or percieved mastery) of a planetary system. You want to add or remove something? The reactions will be endless and seemingly unrelated. Therefore, only certain actions can be persued.

    3.) Mankind has the tools right now this very second to colonize -any- planet. It's just very expensive and people are still mentality mobilized to "help the poor people achieve equality" like the emotional bags of shit they are. Terraformation is absolute garbage and is a straw man argument. You can send construction equipment with remote controls and AI to dig out holes on any planet and create an underground city with sealed airlocks and create controlled and contained biospheres within. It's not hard. Not at all. The bottleneck is at transportation of people and trade, not in construction. Solve that problem, and the revolution begins.

    4.) You'll die. I'll die. It's not hard. It's actually very easy. The only natural balance to this fragility is that humans are an infinitely renewable resource with, albeit primitive, but useful self-regulation mechanics to mentally overcome dramatic shifts of environment. Trust them to weave their myths of their travels and survival methods agaisnt overwhelming odds. Judging by history, such actions is all part of gradual adaptation, so it should be expressed for theraputic reasons. As long as fundamental sex drives are allowed to persist without Socialist modification, (th current approach) then humanity will be fine, no matter how many are displaced, killed, or left hopeless in the process of any change.

    I'm sure when tribal societies threw their outcasts to the wild countless times throughout history, the natives hooted and hollered with much celebration that the evil upstarts were removed... until the upstarts came back with an army, an economic policy, a new technology a new social following, a disease, or an otherwise massive force of humanity behind them to steamroll everything in their path. If you want everyone to play fair, good luck because the only solution for such useless dreaming is biomedical intervention against the core tools of aggression that evolution has provided us.
    test
  11. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    @Ghet_for_Prez & menaz – Reach Mars as-per expedition, true… but “production of life” on other planets is what’s boggling me. Both of you suggest that planetary engineering is a go, and that all tools are in disposal… but while Menaz suggests terraformation, Ghet suggests core colonization. This leaves me to ask, which does NASA have their sights and funds set on (I’ll look into it)? They might also be observing options that neither of you have suggested yet. Displaying a set of steps-and-procedures explaining the process will better conclude this.

    Which comes back to Earth’s diplomacy. Before colonization is a go, it has to be a go in the books of global powers and entities, so Earth’s diplomacy is one major factor in it’s hold-up. The fact that diplomacy has even existed for thousands of years suggests that a complete (or drastic) shift into Class Complexity may be what’s needed before this revolution receives a kick-start, and a tough one for Socialist society to accept as well. To solve this problem, displaying a set of steps-and-procedures explaining a suggested mobilization method should better conclude this.

    I’ll keep Kurzweil in mind, he’s my next target after Spanos.
    test
  12. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Terraforming is only in the theorical stage but a real possiblity according to the technology and computer models. Ghet gave you one camp. I have provided you with the other camp. Nasa wants to terraform mars, Nasa wants to core colonize the moon. Because the moon even in theory can't be terraformed. You can only terraform a planet if it has water on it or if ice still exists. In otherwords: Its elemental properties must be earth-like to some extent.

    Moreover, A Production of life on mars shouldn't boggle your mind. Mars has Ice on it. Now what happens when you heat up ice? It melts. Where does all life come from? Water. Now mars has water on it and can produce microorganisms. Meaning sources of biology. An important source of Biology includes plantlife. which means the ability to photosynthesis. Thus, providing humans with oxygen.

    The terraforming process will work like this...

    Number 1.) Add heat
    Number 2.) Build an atmosphere
    Number 3.) Build a shield protecting us from radiation

    http://www.marsnews.com/focus/terraforming/
    more steps-on-the-procedure.

    [​IMG]
    Terraforming-transitions of mars.

    No different then how I explained it the first time, except I forgot to mention we could also use artificial perfluorocarbons and Co2 as well. Whatever super greenhouse gases it would take to make the warming processes faster. Even building huge mirrors in orbit to direct sunlight onto mars surface.

    You need to understand this is about our group survival. Soon or later our sun will grow too hot and become a red star making life on earth uninhabitable. We have to get off this planet sooner or later. Furthermore, we will have to leave mars sooner or later. Which is why finding another galaxy with a goldilocks value of 0.0007 is most important if our plan is to keep surviving. People are in a dinosaur-like postion on earth they're just waiting to become extinct, especially if none of this comes into fruition.

    What is man? Man is a violent creature, however, he is also
    an explorer. Man lives to observe, conqueror, and explore unkown frontiers.
    Man was not made to be stagnant. Earth is just the beginning.
    The goal of man has always been to colonize unkown places.
    His next stop: space and beyond.

    So you see getting off earth is a complex puzzle, and we have to figure this puzzle out before the time limit is up.
    test
  13. Superman70

    Superman70 edited

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    16,116
    So who else feelin that new Sigel joint?
    test
  14. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    @menaz – Production on Mars isn’t boggling my mind, because I know that the concept has been around even before I was born. What’s boggling me are the possible diplomatic conflicts to occur for any colonization of anything, but this page opened the gateway to have all of my space-politics questions answered. In a nutshell [as per colonization], it states that there will be rivalries between national/trans-national governments (i.e. United Nations), corporations, and individual settlers should colonization conclude of even 1 uninhabited globe. It’s too early for anyone [in their professional camps] to detect the pattern of existing and/or possible treaties, which is what I was mostly hoping to find.

    This page breaks colonization of the moon down nicely w/ the pros and cons [of doing so] listed as well, and there is a suggestion that a possibility of terraforming our moon is in effect. It would look to the tune of this if completed. The method of habitation (core-colonization) that Ghet mentioned has been observed, and it states that plans for lunar bases within the moon would shield against radiation and micrometeoroids, and provide overall-stability in temperatures (construction of inner air-conditioning and insulation). There have indeed been other options observed, and it states that an easier solution would be to build a lunar base on the surface, and cover the modules with lunar soil, since this will also protect against galactic activity. If you ask me, they might as well utilize all possible methods.

    Neither your method nor Ghet’s was completely out of the question [for the moon]. We’ve set foot on the moon, but we must form permanent bases there, so far that, exploration teams will first install permanent staffing for polar-base construction. Russia and China have their own teams, but the earliest will be NASA, and they aim for a manned mission in 2019 and a polar base by 2024.
    test
  15. I'll address pending questions soon.

    Alot of money just came in at once. I need to resolve the HD issue with Soultan and get my new job in Extreme Programming (Yes, it is an actual term, look it up on Wikipedia, it's horridly complex and CPU intensive but brilliant stuff)

    Then the answers!
    test
  16. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You clearly said the production of life on other planets was what was boggling you. I just wanted to make it clear that terraforming mars not the moon is the Ideal I agree with.


    This sentence is much different from our discourse which had everything to do with the abilities/theories of terraforming and core colonization.

    As can be seen witnessed here... "Both of you suggest that planetary engineering is a go, and that all tools are in disposal… but while Menaz suggests terraformation, Ghet suggests core colonization."

    You were clearly boggled or at the very least applying the socratic method... It's not that big of a deal. I'll explain why later on in the moon portion of this discourse.

    They can suggest whatever they want, but heres how I think the future will most likely pan out. You have to understand there is a possiblity that politics won't exist in the near future. And the only thing that will is a global technology and economy sharing-surplus. This sort of change would result in a unison of humanity.
    Thus, no need for the outer space treaty meaning there will be no national/trans-national government rivalries.
    It's also important to remember as is right now, The moon treaty was never ratified by the USA, UK, RUSSIA, or CHINA, thus colonization and terraforming as is aren't impossible.

    Lunar bases are a good idea but terraforming the moon is not. Lunar bases suggest short term goals, where as terraforming suggest long term goals. Point being we have much better candidates to terraform other than the moon.

    And Correct, In science pratically no theory is completely out of question, but the rationale behind it can be absurd. e.g. terraforming the moon. There is no reason to terraform the moon when we have more earth-like possiblities with a longer life span at our disposal such as with Mars and Venus. Terraforming the moon is a waste of our resources, money, and time considering the fact that after every lunar cycle the moons gravitational pull is weakening thus sprialing further and further away from the earth each year. As a result Vice versa, the earth is loosing it's grip within the moons gravitational pull. Conclusion, Terrforming the moon is not even something rationally worth considering. However, lunar bases on the moon are worth considering for short term goals only, this will involve setting up telescopes and communications systems to talk to all of the other worlds being colonized without atmospheric interference. And the last problem I have with terraforming the moon would be the fact that meteoroids are quite often hitting the moons surface not to mention importing water, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur and lots of other elemental ingredients to such a dead rock would be futile when compared to how much more responsive our resources could be utlized on earth-like planets such as Mars and Venus. Moreover, our money and time would be better invested as well. Furthermore, planets like mars and venus due to where they orbit in our solar system would make better lauching points for future galactical space-explorations as well.
    test
  17. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    No problem and no rush, hope everything works out.
    test
  18. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    ”Production of life”...

    You quoted some of my 3rd ¶ and went on to explain:

    • the process of “terraformation”, and the science and technology behind (This isn’t really my concern—I can easily find this information if I wanted to. The more this arguement steers here, the more it steers Ghet from exposing his logic [to answer my questions])
    • the availability of tools and devices (Thanks for clearing this up)
    • the process of travel to Mars (Can find the technology behind, but not shifts in societies, if assumable)

    In my next post, I then went on to ask if NASA plans on striking for Mars first or the moon [because yourself and Ghet observed two different objectives], but I already answered my own question by looking into it like I said I would. You went on to post more info on the process of “terraformation” instead, so sorry if you misunderstood me at that point.

    The reason for my creating this thread was to discourse Ghet’s logic behind Class Complexity, and how it relates to conducting society in it’s entirety, because I disagree with some of his views on this and on morality. I only brought upon mention of “abandoning Earth” because this is what Ghet believes should happen, if he were ever in a position to have an official say. If you want to contribute to answering the questions I have, then explain:

    • Class Complexity and amorality (Anything related-to)
    • IF “colonization of Mars” and/or “colonization of (insert globe)” = “separation of mankind”, THEN (insert description of mankind’s order) IN (insert time-period)
    • a Posthumanist’s suggested “shift of society” in (insert time-period)
    test
  19. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    This is really tough for me to fathom, because of the emotions and beliefs that the human species has been known to incur and keep embedded. Surely the process has to be gradual to some extent, and if so sudden, then by what means? Artificial? I couldn’t even tell you if Ghet would agree with you here because he's a Singularitarian Posthumanist (his choice to reside “amoral” stems from other means, as he states).

    I can agree to such an outcome… but to get there, that’d mean the complete removal of preceding Classes, and I just can’t fathom that happening.

    I still say that it’s too early to say this will be turned down completely, we first have to see how rivalries go about. Class Complexity would have to only exist, and if this Class were to take the strong-hand of the situation early-on in the presence of preceding Classes, then their choice would be to (1) take only those that agree with them off of Earth, or (2) unite these rivals into their Class [to create the “unification” as you stated] and have everyone on Earth take leave. If society were to fall in the hands of preceding Classes when “abandoning Earth” reaches fruition, then these treaties will be retained, which is what I personally think will happen. Still, it’s too early for myself to clamp down on a possible outcome.

    /nods
    test
  20. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    If you'll notice In my first reply to you I didn't mention nor quote you on the moon part I only mentioned and quoted you on the Mars part.


    This is what you said and the only thing I quoted inorder to explain it further to you that such a process is possible...

    It's very simple. This portion of your thought was somewhat inaccurate and need to be explained that tools and devices and landing on mars are all modern day possiblities. That is the only reason why I came back into this thread it was to explain that resources, time, money, tools & devices, and our know-how is all there. You and ghet are having a conversation on MORALITY I care nothing about. We are not having this conversation. We can have a conversation on morality, but don't assume ghet and I have the same method to attain our goals. One thing ghet and I do agree on though is it's inevitable that humans must leave earth.


    I believe you asked this "which does NASA have their sights and funds set on." Which to my knowledge was "Nasa wants to terraform mars, and wants to colonize the moon." Ghet claimed terraforming was bullshit and brought up core colonization for everything. I suggested core colonization would be a better process praticed on the moon not mars. The moon never concerned me in this conversation for the simple reason I understand the Moon and Earths ebb and flow relationship as is. And how Altering that ebb and flow process as is by terraforming it would most-likely affect earth's oceanic activity for the worst killing off biological life forms.

    In short, I was basically trying to say the objective is to first colonize the moon, but to the best of my knowledge terraforming mars has always been the real goal. Which is why I found terraforming the moon to be a doltish rationale not worth the resources, money, effort, or time. We just had little communcation glitch between the both of us not worth two cents to the actual conversation at hand. No big deal, Fuck it.



    This is something I never got involved with in the first place yet you seem to want this whole discourse to revolve around it. That is between yourself and ghet. However, I don't disagree with Ghet when he says we must leave earth. And It seems fairly obvious to me ghet is not the type of person who cares if you disagree with his amoral stances. So the question you have to ask yourself is why am I even discussing morals with him?

    I already know your against technological advancement no matter what. So prusading you with morals would still be a waste of my time. However, On the other hand I have no problem talking to you about the know-how and scientific capabilities available which can already make these space explorations possible. My Mind-set is only interested in incorporating people who already agree with the technological advancement. All I need is a majority approval.



    There will be a technological revolution only this process will be to slowly shift society towards new technology enhancements increments at a time. e.g. nanotechnology, genetic engineering, space exploration, and terraforming. Infact, production on these technologies have already started in the 21st century.

    Understand The age of the industrial revolution has run it's course we're now evolving into the technological industrial revolution. You'll really start to notice this multidisciplinary technology by 2015. And By 2020 you'll start to notice it morph into a global-technological-revolution as they've projected.

    However, it's important to remember not all revolutions are violent. The revolution I seek is a international one based on diplomatic relationships though moral persuasion to reach a consensus agreement on uniting a global-technological-economical-humanity based under one umbrella. Thus, Disbanding the U.N.

    Ghet's amorality is not based on the original concept of Singularitarianism.
    The original concept of singularitarianism is based on morality such as making sure that this technology is guided safely and that it should benefit the whole world not just specific individuals and groups. I very much support transhumanism, posthumanism, singularitarianism, and a technophiles progress to make sure existence is possible for the future of humanity.

    Separation of mankind? Hardly. What technoplies and others alike want is a safe technological way to unite humans under a umbrella of humanity to prolong their future progression. They only want to gentically reengineer man inorder to enhance his genetic abilities so that man has a life in a future world based in other galaxies. Because the earth will not always be here and soon or later man is going to have to take that next leap foward together. I see no reason to stay technologically stagnant or reverse back to primitive times. History shows a time-line of gradual and continual technological progression. I aim to keep progressing it.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)