Discussion in 'Overtime: Off-Topic Discussion' started by reznick, Apr 22, 2011.
wow that wasnt funny...
I think once people toss out this idea that life is magical or mystical, it will be easier for them to agree.
Life is science, not magic.
Embryo Frozen for 20 Years Is Now a Bouncing Baby Boy | Singularity Hub
things are moving fast, faster than ever. i know in this thread we're discussing one technology (like the car analogy) but in terms of the concept of singularity, isn't that a completely different concept? the whole point of the concept of singularity is that its something that we can't really even fathom or compare to, so to me the example of the advancement of one single kind of technology implemented over a century+ (yet as you said is STILL one of the leading causes of death), compared to singularity which is single event that will change the qualitative future. isnt that the whole point of singularity, advancement in technology that you just cant even compare to anything before? while i see what you mean about the car, i do not think you can compare it to singularity.
as you said, life is scientific, not magic. the first thing they taught me in the bachelor of science program that i'm enrolled in is that science is a way of thinking and living life (this is a good read- Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). the way of the scientist is viewing the world from an analytical and most importantly skeptical point of view. as i said in my initial posts- im largely in favor of technological advancement yet i am very skeptical and cautious.
keep in mind nature evolved on planet earth over BILLIONS of years and through chaos emerged control, it took billions of years for everything on our planet to reach exactly where it is, and everything on earth is so incredibly and intricately interconnected with each other that people claim to have found examples of irreducible complexity. now how fucking crazy is that. this is the exact reason why nature is so fucking stable...evolution needs TIME.
You have a lot more faith in humanity than I do.
And I don't consider life to be magical, I just don't feel that science provides any evidence that being alive is worthwhile.
I just want to live long enough to get on the USS Enterprise
Your right, the analogy only goes so far. I used it as a way to see how its easy to speculate chaos with new technologies, and how we as a human race usually find a way to handle it. Car accidents are the single leading cause of death for young people, correct. But almost all of those accidents happen due to human error, and soon, that margin of error will no longer exist, if the driverless cars become the future. And then there will be a new leading cause of death. The actual leading cause of deaths in history is religion.
We have nuclear bombs on Earth. Many countries have them. So through technology we do have the power to end the human race right now as we speak. Can it REALLY get anymore dangerous or vulnerable than this? Perhaps, but how much worse can it get? And are the possible implicated downsides worth the halt of the technology? How can we halt the technology? Do Americans stop, and Muslim terrorist continue? Do we even have the POWER to halt technology? I know as someone studying science it may be hard to buy into this theory, but what if this technological growth is all part of the 'process'? What if this IS nature? I mean... isnt it?
Haven't we already tampered with the evolutionary process the moment we as a species began using medicine? By using medicine we are taking what would have been a certain genetic code to our offspring, and exchanging it with new code 'artificially' inserted into us, right? Everything seems normal.
In fact, theres a high level scientist who inserted a chip into his wrist, that controls a robotic hand. He controlled the hand using his mind, and did it from a different continent from where the robotic arm was. He said when the hand picked something up, he had pulses sent to his brain indicating that he was holding something. How strange is that? He said when they removed the chip about a year later, the tissue in his body had begun to grow around the chip, setting it in place. The body naturally meshed with the chip, like it was natural. It's things like these, that help me believe that this technological growth is going to work out.
One thing is for sure. There will be polarized views on the advancement of technology. It may even start a war. And that war will probably be the shortest war ever
Its interesting though MattPORTLAND
Lets say the technology was present to cure all sickness. What would you do. Set a timer for 70 years from now, and say "no matter what, I will die then"? We are already manipulating our lifespan. Our DNA is built for a 25 year life span.
How do they work?
why would you want to die? i could go on about this forever (no pun) but i guess it comes down to your own preference.
for me, id rather have my fate in my own hands and decide when i go out, not die to a disease or old age or anything along thoes lines. Thats why i'm definetly embracing this; hopefully something is developed quick, however it just sounds impossible for now.
I hear you boss. And with the future technologies of virtual reality worlds and all types of stuff to explore, we will wonder how we were content with 80-100 year lives.
Hopes for artificial brain after cell is made in lab - The Times of India
Human hearts created in lab | The Australian
Artificial lungs grown in lab | COSMOS magazine
Oh Maple, you should hear what this guy has to say too it's very interesting. He believes Moore's law (Kurzweils exponential theory) will collapse in 20 years, and that we will move to a quantitative computer age.
This guy may be more logical for people who expect a much more conservative growth in the future than Kurzweil.
I also like his idea about turning the robots off as soon as the thoughts of takeover begin. Makes sense
Do you think for $20 Billion we could provide.....
Clean drinking water for the entire world?
you could do it a fuck of a lot cheaper than that....
are we talking sustained? what are the upkeep costs? there is no such thing as permanent clean drinking water.
you also havto define clean.. are we talking US standard? UK? or just "you can drink this without getting sick"? theres a big difference.
are we talking 20B total or 20B in addition to what is already being spent to provide water to those with it?
i don't think it could be sustained indefinately with 20 bill but i could very well be wrong!
this. who even knows if theres truly enough to go around
Water crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You seen these before?
What do you think? There are other factors to replacements and lost bottles and such. But for $20 Billion, every person can have access to the technology.
We can also tell them to shove those pipelines they wanna build on Lake Michigan up their asses !
yea i saw this a couple years back when it came out on TED.. if this is the same dude with the big "gascan" type filters anyway(i cant watch the video im on a CC).
its interesting, but not very viable. installed sources are the answer and most likely cheaper in the long term.
there are around 7 billion ppl on the planet,i am sure the technology would cost more thn atleast $3 per piece.
and even thn if they have access to the technology i doubt there would be enough water(even dirty)for everyone on the planet.add in transportation of the bottles etc,and i am startin to think tht it isn't possible.not sure though.
edit-i meant i doubt there will be enough localized sources of water.
i remember my geography teacher said if there was gna be a war tha next 1 would b over water or sum shit
Separate names with a comma.