reality in layers

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Radium, Oct 30, 2011.

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

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah thats a good point too. i used that dmx video for this thread really because it seems so arbitrary when you think about the rest of the universe and whats happening in it. i wanted to show how something that is so arbitrary can ultimately always be reduced back to the point of ultimate causation and i wanted to show the different kinds of things you are forced to encounter as you start to journey backwards through time and reality that way.

    for example to try to explain what dmx was doing in that video you eventually would be forced to try to explain why the technology that was used to make it exists. you would eventually have to try to explain why dmx exists too, at some point. then you would have to try to explain humanity, and earth, and physics, and so on. and to try to explain your apple, you eventually would have to do these same kinds of things again for it too. thus, dmx and your apple can ultimately be reduced back to many of the same things. as they are ultimately supported and allowed to exist by many of the same things, the two really aren't so different, and as you get increasingly near the point of ultimate causation, we start to see that the two begin to actually become the same thing.

    everything ultimately always shares the same point of ultimate causation and whats more they ultimately always share in many of the same greater systems that allow them to exist along the way too.

    for example when looking at an apple tree sir isaac newton effectively realized one of these greater systems that was allowing these things to exist: gravity.

    before newton nobody knew this existed. thus back then the ability for anyone to try to reduce any new piece of information they may have encountered back to the point of ultimate causation would have became fractured at the point that it would have been necessary to start trying to explain gravity and its effects. that might seem innocuous, but just imagine the different kinds of science and technology that can be created that ultimately have to use some kind of understanding of gravity and its effects to work. not ever knowing what gravity is would completely negate the ability for these kinds of things to ever exist.

    newton discovered gravity in an apple tree and i think that there are many more of these eternal principles secretly scattered out like gems through the universe everywhere that we look.

    man used to think that earth was vast and boundless and when he looked out at reality he would have thought to himself that the ground he was standing on just kept on stretching out forever. try to imagine what that must have been like to own a thought like that and to believe that it really was true. because these eternal principles hadnt been discovered and collected yet the universe must have seemed completely arbitrary and chaotic to man; something that is uncontrollable and thus dangerous.

    the universe seems that way even now, even w everything we know. thus it remains today as it always had: confusing and frightening. but it only seems that way to us because our knowledge of it is so flawed. but we shouldnt be blamed too harshly for our ignorance and its different effects. if we could only just create more perfect knowledge of it...

    but we only ever get to live for what are really just a few years

    yup 1000 is pretty stretched out. its probably more stretched out than it has to be but i needed that to create some head room for a kind of barrier that i think might take that long to take down.

    i guess i have to ask you the same q i asked ghet:


    you really dont have to read that jbs haldane essay if you dont want to tho. its not that long and its funny to see what they talked like back then but any exposure to some kind of not-too distant future story (like gattaca/brave new world) would be ok and probably can give you generally the same kind of effect anyway. they may even do a better job because theyre more modern but it was just really interesting because the jbs haldane essay was created so long ago
    test
  2. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    yea, i did read the paper, it was a good read. i do have some thoughts on this topic, but atm i'm waging a holy war against creationism and it's taking up most of my computer time. when i finish with that i'll post some shit in here.

    one thing about the paper that really struck me was his suggestion that nwo is likely inevitable and that the one positive after effect of all the world wars could be ushering in that new global order. i believe HG Wells made a similar prediction in a movie he wrote, though i never did see the movie. but yea, i've definitely thought about that before.
    test
  3. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    thats whats up im glad you read it. i believe in god but good luck i guess
    test
  4. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    sorry it took me so long to get back to this, been kinda lazy

    daedalus was an interesting read. it seems like to a certain extent he wrote it to shock people, but he ultimately stayed grounded in what he considered good science throughout the paper. he alludes to this approach early on when he contrasts the scientifically modest yet wildly provocative approach of hg wells in predicting things like tanks, war planes and nuclear war vs the unimaginative predictions of gk chesterton regarding the 'hansom-cab,' which he predicted would be around for another century "owing to a cessation of invention." i honestly had to look up what a hansom-cab was.

    [​IMG]

    this contrast helps illustrate the nature of haldane's paper. he knew that if you follow modern science to what seems like its logical conclusion you can make provocative claims about the future while still maintaining a good chance that these predictions are at least vaguely accurate.

    the modern future dogmas have largely the same formula; as their premise they begin with the progress in a few currently blossoming sciences. it's called NBIC. nano-bio-info-cogno.
    http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf

    from there, scientists and authors of the past decade have gone on to make a number of predictions which on the surface would sound like a science fiction novel, much like haldane's conception of lab babies must have done in his own time.

    haldane seemed to think in terms of eugenics, which has largely been replaced by bioengineering. a top-down eugenics program seems less likely in the modern context. and although you can't rule out an effect on sexual selection through bioengineering, it seems like that would play a minor secondary role to the effects of the engineering itself.

    his prediction on ectogenesis seems to be on point - of course he did get the timing wrong. we still haven't reached that point today. but what is a real game changer for this prediction is germ-line engineering. he couldn't have possibly forseen this development without the knowledge of DNA. the implications are that in the future one might not only be able to grow a baby in a lab, but also choose the characteristics of that baby. this is why it is hard to envision a real role for eugenics or even traditional natural selection in the future of humanity. it seems that selecting for traits in offspring would easily eclipse selecting for traits in a mate.

    that's actually the mild stuff. there's plenty of talk about nanobots swimming in our blood and restoring our organs or uploading our brains to some computer god. there's even a university called "singularity university" which is dedicated to just that concept.

    undoubtedly people are wrong about some of these predictions, but once again there's decent odds that the general trajectory thats been mapped out is more or less correct, even if it's not precise. think of haldane contemplating ectogenesis in the 1920's.

    now in terms of who will get the technology first, namely the stuff with military applications... i think this is a really good question. as of right now it would be the united states military. but of course that can change...

    and how will society adapt? how will human values adapt if something like this happens? well, that's actually what scientists are talking about right now even though talking about the ethics of something does not prevent it from happening. these people are publishing papers dedicated just to speculating about the possible moral ramifications in pursuing this line of technology.
    http://www.humanenhance.com/NSF_report.pdf

    and yet you have to think that if people actually had the ability to make this kinda crap right now, there's no amount of moral posturing that could possibly hold them back.
    test
  5. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    why do you say the us military is going to discover this kind of technology 1rst

    and

    post why you think they would want to share this technology w society
    test
  6. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    ok reading over my post again there's a few things i need to clear up, i definitely could've done a better job making my point.

    first, i said "as of now it would be the u.s. military" but that it could change. what i should have said was that the u.s. is in the lead right now in terms of the development of nanotechnology. nanotech is central to this conversation cause the future visions of technology, even in the other relevant fields, are highly dependent on it. for example brain-machine interfaces rely on nanotech to provide the connections between the two mediums which can be installed or removed without damage to the brain.

    in addition to this, governments across the world are funding intensive nanotech programs because they expect it to be a real game-changing sort of technology. this is cause it's presumed that once the desired progress is made, nanotech will become an industrial goldmine and will provide a notable advantage for whoever is on the forefront of its innovation. so it seemed like the best gauge to answer your question.

    now, i added the "that can change..." part cause a lot of people seem to suggest that it is changing and that china, japan and europe all have the capacity to and/or are set to surpass the u.s. in nanotech. for instance the u.s. has the most patents in nanotech but china has more current patents being made. or the u.s. puts more funding towards nanotech than any european nation but the EU collectively invests more. etc.

    now as to why would they share the breakthroughs with society? part of the reason is highlighted above: industry demands it. the real incentive in creating new designs and products is not in using them yourself but in selling them to others. that is the entire reason why the investment is being made. besides the government publicly funding this research, corporations are throwing their money in the pot as well.

    beyond this, there is the basic trend of technology to improve in quality and decrease in price. think of cell phones in the 80's vs cell phones now. or computers in the 90's vs computers now.

    biotech evangelist gregory stock uses as one of his main talking points the example of genetic mapping. biologists have only been mapping the human genome since around the year 2000. since then, the price for doing so has dropped by 5 orders of magnitude, or 100,000 times as much. this research has promise in that a better understanding of human genetics could lead to a better physiological understanding of human health, and as the technology to do so becomes cheaper it can mean better and more widespread healthcare for humans. an additional incentive to make this inclusive rather than set aside for the elite is that the more genomes they map the better the overall understanding becomes. any one human genome can only provide so much information about the species as a whole.
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i want to share a video w you. its a self assembly virus toy. i think its interesting



    it demonstrates a system that starts disorderly and increases to stability and complexity. i think the same thing is being currently executed by the universe and not just to things like this but to everything

    through its own kind of movements the universe discards disorderly states for states of increasing stability and complexity like the self assembling virus toy in that video. that is that the universe actually favors the constant achievement of these states

    the video is analogous to the big bang and the history of systems that start disorderly and then increase out to stability and complexity in the universe

    anywy

    if the universe is exerting this pattern on everything thats exists in it, then its must mean that its currently exerting it on humanity too

    so i think that humanity is just like the self assembling virus toy in that video. humanity is currently maxing out to its own kind of increasing stability and complexity in the same kind of way. for humans i think we can see this pattern happening the most sharply in the technology that we make and the way that it has been changing us

    i was thinking about the the way we communicate information. we sort of just stream it out bit by bit. i think that more advanced kinds of beings would never communicate information this way.

    the ability to communicate information represents the ability to understand and express something that is happening in reality. so when we ask a question like what color is the sky to somebody they would then say back to us that its a light blue. but we would never know why its a light blue w/o asking that question next and we would never know why we even have a sky w/o asking that and why we even have a way to look at it and why we even exist

    we would have to stream out information in incomplete bit by bit packages to fully understand what something really is.

    i think more advanced beings wouldnt communicate information as streamed out incomplete bit by bit packages but rather as large abstract images. so when they look at something in reality they wouldnt just see that thing but everything that supports it too in a large abstract image

    imagine having an ability to look out at anything and seeing the forces of gravity exerting on it or seeing the physics of atoms moving in it in a large abstract image and having an ability to then communicate that in a new image based language. imagine communicating in images of solar systems and everything moving in it or images of thousands of years of history

    looking at reality that way would be an extremely different kind of experience than the experience that we have now.

    if the universe started at a disorderly state and then favored stability and complexity to the point that it would actually have an ability to create something like human beings, it may have an ability to create more advanced beings like that too, and w our technology we might actually be currently moving towards that kind of state right now.

    if humanity is not destroyed i think that its always going to try to increase out to these kinds of highly complex states. and if humanity is destroyed, the universe shows that there is a precedent to favor the creation of this same pattern to repeat and start again somewhere in it.

    understanding that, the question becomes this

    does humanity have the right stuff to try to create these kinds of states; or is the universe going to discard it as it moves on to start to favor it again in some other part of it

    it makes you wonder just how many times this may have already happened


    i dont really know that much about nano technology but i know that it has an ability to really shake up different types of industry that exist

    so f.e. we use mostly coal to generate electricity in the us. everybody thats currently on this msg board right now is probably using a very good amount of coal right now just to even be on the internet.

    so somebody must actually have to own that coal and must be making a really good profit from it too. what happens to that person if nano technology can simply create an easily producible coal alternative?

    a problem in capitalism is that initiative is based on the ability to create a profit of some kind. if nano technology has an ability make several things obsolete (eg coal) then it actually invalidates big parts of the economy that are already making a lot of money. so its very touch and go. on the one hand it may create more industry like you say, but on the other it may actually negate a lot of industry too. thus we can reason that there might be certain agents in a society that wouldnt like it to exist and would even want it to be supressed.

    if thats true, can something like that actually ever successfully be supressed? if so can it be suppressed indefinitely?

    and what about other kinds of highly complex technology? if they interrupt with the ability for certain agents in society to manage it in a way they perceive as right and in a way create profits in it - would that technology try to be suppressed too?

    what kind of society do you think would be the most conducive to the creation of these kinds of technology?
    test
  8. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    this is an interesting description; the universe discarding 'disorderly states' in favor of complexity. i could see how that works. when you apply it to humanity it gets even more interesting. what occurs to me is that our current set up is anything but stable in the long run. or at least its not sustainable. when you think about it, the hunter gatherer way of life was much more sustainable than our current global society.

    if progress could have hypothetically been stifled, and the hunter gatherers prevented from giving rise to agriculture/civilization, we could have theoretically continued that way of life for a few million years until we inevitably went extinct through some natural cause. our current way of life is not sustainable in this way. we essentially have no choice but to continue progressing our technology. if we tried to sustain the current technology indefinitely we'd run out of resources within a few hundred years, or destroy our habitat in the process of doing so. so i'd say we're all in at this point.

    the communication scenario you laid out seems to necessitate that we engineer intelligence much greater than human beings. there are of course many hypotheticals surrounding this type of scenario, but i don't see any reason to regard it as fundamentally impossible.

    your question was whether or not we've got what it takes? i'm an optimist towards man's potential in term of sheer ability; the only question to me is whether or not our more primal motives will overthrow the effort in an act of self sabotage. one such end is that we could of course destroy ourselves through warfare, another is that our priorities might become misplaced causing us to simply fall short of our potential. an example of this type of hypothetical failure is demonstrated in ur next line of questions regarding the suppression of technology.

    i don't actually know enough to answer whether it is possible to suppress new technology in favor of the status quo, but my guess would be that while our current actions directly effect the speed in which technology progresses, ultimately such a suppression could only ever be temporary. if there's tons of money to be made in lets say alternative fuels, how could the energy companies prevent that from coming to fruition? i'm really curious if anyone can answer that question. as far as i know we can control the rate and funding of research.. but once a more profitable/effective product is developed what's to stop it from hitting the markets?

    you're right to point out that new technology can eliminate jobs and sectors of industry. but this is a trend we've been experiencing since the industrial revolution, and it hasn't been able to stop progress yet. i guess the ideal scenario would be that as traditional industries become obsolete we learn to specialize in new emerging fields that have more modern use. sort of like how now that the US manufacturing base can't compete with asia the suggestion by many is that we specialize in high tech industry instead.

    as to your question about what kind of society... i think we should hold science and technology above all as man's key to the universe. a society that values that progress as the yardstick to success is one that is more likely to embrace new ideas even when they might wipe out some of their predecessors. i don't see the ultimate wisdom in trying to maintain the obsolete.

    luckily, though capitalism does have its retarding forces (like maximizing the profit of the oil industry before working really hard to come up with an alternative), the one upside is its competitive structure, including on a global scale. so hopefully the incentive to stay ahead of other countries will motivate the continual progress that is necessary for humanity to get where it needs to go.
    test
  9. patrown

    patrown student for life

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,178
    .. the #1 place we need to go is another planet with a similar atmosphere and accessible water. Capitalism is steering us away from that. Most space exploration's now for sight seeing. The space stations occupants will eventually die off without resupply. We'll likely kill ourselves off before a pole shift occurs or the sun explodes. you're spot on about hunter gatherers, we've been doomed since we started depending on cows.
    test
  10. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    you gotta keep the broader picture in mind. i think this insight from neil tyson is pretty relevant here:

    [youtube]P_Um2VdIKmA[/youtube]
    skip to 32:00 and watch until about 45:00

    his most interesting point here is that most of the functional benefits we derive from science comes through research that was based solely on trying to get a better understanding of the universe.

    so applying this to interstellar space travel.... are we on our way into space? i would say that we very well might be. we currently don't have anywhere near the technology needed to travel the distances that will be necessary to find other planets that are fit for life. just as crucial is the fact that we don't even precisely where such planets are.

    yet in astronomy humans are building massive telescopes all over the world with built in cameras to scan and record the night's sky. these telescopes are returning so much data that we don't have nearly enough scientists to work through it all. and thats why some are setting up sites where amature astronomers can identify stars and whatnot, because there's no appropriate computer program as of yet that can properly search through it all with the same nuance as the human mind.

    and in terms of obtaining the technology necessary for the actual interstellar travel: if there is any hope of creating such technology it will likely come through insights provided by an increasing grasp of physics. so we're not yet fit to colonize space, but particle accelerators and giant telescopes might not actually be a bad start.
    test
  11. patrown

    patrown student for life

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,178
    "science was over sold to the public"

    "..there in is the intellectual link that needs to be established in an elective democracy where taxed based moneys pay for the research on the frontier."

    ^ he's on the same page I am with those comments. More accurately, I'm on one of the first lines of the book he's writing.

    We'll find a planet that can sustain life. Almost a dozen were found within the right places in the habitable zone surrounding red dwarfs in 2011. Hopefully that happens soon.

    One in five plant species faces extinction | Environment | guardian.co.uk

    ^ a link from 2010 from a credible source that estimates 22% of all plant life is at risk of extinction. We're at least 20 years behind the consequences of industrialization as far as the environment is concerned, that's common knowledge. The acceleration of environmental degradation is not in favor of trees. Grass is less fragile and will continue to thrive and produce enough oxygen for us to live.

    Since we don't fully understand the effect of temperature's change regarding photosynthesis, there is no way of knowing exactly how long it will be before we run out of oxygen. However, we know that evolution can not compensate for our environmental impact. Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts | Environment | The Guardian

    If i was better at math, honesty, I would already be a physicist and actively trying to find a renewable source of energy. We probably won't save Earth and will need more then luck to create independent colonies capable of self sustained expansion.
    test
  12. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    you make a valid point about climate change. i've always found it depressing so i'm not too well versed on the topic, so i guess i might have neglected to factor it in properly. what i found interesting in your post was this:

    can you expand on this at all? how do they measure that and what are the implications?
    test
  13. patrown

    patrown student for life

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,178
    well, this quote sums it up. it takes around four to get be removed from the air by Earth itself. and that long for the co2 to dissipate??

    "...from the atmosphere-biosphere system. About 50% of the added CO2 would be removed after about 200 years and about 80% of it would be removed after about 1000 years, but complete removal of the remaining 20% to the deep ocean and carbonate rocks would have to rely on geological processes operating over much longer time periods."
    Frequently Asked Global Change Questions

    the site isn't good at looking at the effects over periods of time.

    ozone depletion and species extinction are thick subjects to cover...a book could be written on your question.

    ..impact of rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

    these two go together..
    I'm not sure a single country has complied with the 2002 regulations.

    It is based on best-case, 'zero-emissions' scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

    ^ barely scratching the surface.. if you take into account food shortages effect's on health, we'll be starving. Also, with that many people moving around we'll have new diseases and more old ones then ever experienced in recorded history.

    conclusion : zombies.
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i talked about language because i think its analogous to that self assembling virus.

    that is language is a self assembling system too. so i wanted to think about what way that might try to max out.

    i think that language is really just this sort of strange analogy matrix that starts at 0 and then increases out indefinitely.

    the thing that prompts it to increase outwardly is new chunks of information. so say your analogy matrix starts at 0 and then you add 1 new chunk of information

    your analogy matrix has thus increased out to 1 making that the only thing that you know. say that you next add 1 new chunk of information. the two different chunks of information then sort of glom together by analogy. thus if you next added 100 new chunks of information to what you have, you would start to create a more profound analogy matrix.

    when you get asked to try to define any kind of word you find out very quickly that you can only do it by using other kinds of words that you have learned in a way that seems analogous to you to that thing

    thus what you can know about reality is always equivalent to whatever you have in your analogy matrix.

    i think this is really interesting. (something extra is that newly added chunks of information glomming together to create analogy to previously added chunks of information can create uniquely strong or weak imprints both ways. that is if a person is traumatized by something they then take that new chunk of information and glom it together w everything that was in their analogy matrix - sort of poisoning the system. every new chunk of information that they add into their analogy matrix next would then have to glom w that too; they would have that traumatizing chunk of information imprinted on any new chunks of information that they add. it would take newer chunks of information at equivalent or greater strengths to counter that kind of imprint w a newer kind of imprint. this might explain something like nostalgia too. new chunks of information come in and glom together w previous chunks of information and by process of analogy trigger up dormant imprints. maybe an analogy matrix is designed to constantly trade off imprints as a way to promote dynamism and creativity - this is why humans may feel inexplicably bad or good at times)

    anyway i was using the examples of guys like isaac newton (b4 newton it was thought that earth and the rest of the universe used two different sets of physical laws instead of sharing them - so in a way he sort of created the universe as we know it) and guys like jbs haldane and nikolai kardasehv adding new chunks of information to humanity too

    and i was using dmx as a sort of point mark to show where we are right now technologically and intellectually. i think it was important to see what he was doing.

    as we add more and more chunks of information to what we already have the question of what humanity is actually becoming gets increasingly interesting to think about eg what kind of technology are we going to have, what kind of society is going to accommodate that, what are we going to look like physiologically, what are we going to think like and communicate information like

    this is what jbs haldane was thinking about

    but whats important now is to think about how dmx is actually going to get there
    test
  15. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yup i agree.

    i don't think something like this can get suppressed absolutely too - but i do think it can get prolonged excessively by different kinds of agents eg the religiosity of the dark ages creating a 500+ year lag in the sciences

    i want to post something from this guy named buckminster fuller

    Ephemeralization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    i think ephemeralization is really just a sort of great slow down. b4 canning and refrigeration you had to always be near your food as it normally just perishes w/o these types of technology. that meant that you had to always grow or hunt your own food constantly. canning and refrigeration really transformed humanity hugely from having to work extremely hard just to eat every day to having an ability to just preserve food and save it in storage systems. we had a new ability to eat more and work less to do it. the way we eat became ephemeralized by that technology.

    i think nano technology like u were talking about has the same kind of ephemeralizing ability for things and i think 3d printing has this same ephemeralizing ability too. 3d printers are probably too big and expensive to have in your house right now but in a few years they may possibly be very easy to use and own. imagine downloading the design coordinates of something from a hobbyist blog and walking over to your shelf where your 3d printer is and printing it. you wouldnt have to drive your car to a store to buy that product from a company that produces it in bulk. nano technology is further away but it has the same ephemeralizing effect. using an amalgam of nano technology and 3d printing you might have an ability to make anything. imagine downloading a design layout for the latest phone from a tech msg board community and printing it w your nano 3d printer on your shelf.

    thus a good question to ask is what happens to the many different corporations that we once used to depend on to make these things for us? we really depended on them greatly to make the things that we had no ability to make by ourselves. they were really very necessary. in the future there is sort of a strange fate waiting for many corporations at large i think. as technology gets increasingly complex many corporations get increasingly threatened of becoming ephemeralized by this sort of creeping ephemeralizing wave

    [youtube]r4cX2EPt2zE[/youtube]

    this represents a really interesting shift in society. many corporations are directly threatened by it and may try to block this trend from realizing like religiosity had blocked the progress of science during the dark ages. i think the two events are strangely analogous.

    anyway religiosity could never permanently stop the creeping progress of science and i dont think corporations can permanently stop the creeping progress of technology. but they can definitely prolong it excessively.

    just imagine having to live through a sort of neo dark age for the next 1000 years



    so my next question is this: after this technology has effectively ephemeralized corporations by shifting the majority of the means of production over to the person, what kind of economy and society are we going to have?
    test
  16. exodus 31315

    exodus 31315 Kanaan

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    582
    this is probably the most interesting and definitely my favourite thread on here

    sorry i have nothing to contribute but just wanted to post in it so it shows up in my user cp thing and to encourage you to not forget about it
    test
  17. exodus 31315

    exodus 31315 Kanaan

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    582
    only i felt compelled to say something when i read this and it refers to something i think Reggie mentioned earlier about hunter gatherers being the most sustainable existence, sorry if i misquoted

    but basically that, what your refer to Radium, is like a shift back to that hunter gatherer existence. not on a technological level obviously. but on a subsistence level and the way i think things should be

    community and cooperation are great and necessary. but when we moved away from the simplicity of providing for ourselves and family on the basic level of sustenance, shelter and protection. we failed. you said before the advancements of, can't remember exactly, but something about preservation of food and mass supply a la supermarkets etc. it enabled/afforded us more time to do other things, but nothing of necessity. nothing that contributes to sustainability and even started the defiance of the premise of natural selection and survival of the fittest. and this brought about so many more deleterious influences, and simply stressors. yes we still have these things in the primitive existence mentioned, but not the same abundance

    i'm just rambling now, but you know when a thought comes to mind when reading something, yeh well that
    test
  18. exodus 31315

    exodus 31315 Kanaan

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    582
    somewhat pertinent and if not at least an interesting read

    synopsis:

    test
  19. exodus 31315

    exodus 31315 Kanaan

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    582
    some of the comments to this article are interesting too
    test
  20. exodus 31315

    exodus 31315 Kanaan

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    582
    when reading this i thought of Radium hypothesizing about 3d printers no longer necessitating shopping and production as it is now
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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