/lit/ - Literature

>>2646538
Since very soon.

>>2646556
The gap is bridged by monism, which is a way of looking at the world which becomes more and more plausible when we become more and more connected. With our technology and what it will be we will at some point become so observable and therefore accountable/responsible that it is 99,99% of the time is more seflishly viable to act in the benefit of the collective. We will in a way become a single organism being under the constant scrutiny of our peers.

>>2646573
People's goals would merge in the long run.

>>2646599
Lifetimes are expanding as we speak. One could say that once we really make medical and technological progress life could be expanded for a long time, some say indefinitely. This would make the future of the world your future. It would make the future of being your future. Consequences to our actions are going to be taken much more seriously. Until now people have been able to live like if their at some strangers party. They will leave in a short while and never have to see those people again, so they act like assholes. Eternity however is a long time. Especially when everyone holds you accountable. Karma will become a real force in society.

>>2646622
Hedonism doesn't have to be of the libertine variety. One could say that Buddhism and Epicureanism are hedonisms too.

Technological development will happen anyway. The only question is if we run with it willingly (transhumanism), try to stop it (luddism/primitivism) or, the most ridiculous of all, try to somehow be conservative concerning technology and draw an imaginary line somewhere.

"Thanks doc, but living 200 years might bring all sort of complications. I think I'm going to opt out and die at 85 years old because that's the moral thing too do, since it doesn't involve technology created after 2010!"

People who /aren't/ transhumanist would have to come up with a damn good limit to technology with a reasonable explanation behind it.

>>2467642
>we can no longer see the stars as our ancestors did. We cannot into the majesty of looking up at the night sky above us. The only places where the night sky looks remotely like it did back then is in the Sahara.

And, you know, in space. Where we have shitload of material and even some people. And we have enormous telescopes. No people in the history of mankind have ever had such a great possibility to examine the stars. That's why I said your comparison was shitty.

Pic related: A modern view of the stars

>>2467647

Shit, you're probably right. Oh well.

>>1633272
nope, nothing