/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3592290

That does tend to be an obstacle, yes. Still, better than throwing away money. If we feed them, they're dependent on us and potentially die from warlords anyway when they come to steal the food. If they feed themselves, they're independent and can start an economy... And may also be killed by warlords.

Either way, warlords are dicks, but this way things can at least potentially improve.

>>3591880

Better suggestion: Gather local farmers and give them the machinery, technical know-how, and other systems to allow them to grow crops on par with any farm in the developed world.

Bam. Self-sufficiency.

>>3588154

I'm all for people living as happy a life as they can. However, if they're not producing SOMEHOW, they're a drain on society. Now, this is okay, to an extent; children, after all, are drains, as are the elderly and disabled (to varying degrees). I'm not about to say kill them all.

I'm talking about what happens when you have millions of able-bodied people who have literally nothing to do. When competition is so fierce for even menial things, the ability for these people to support themselves is compromised.

I want people to be able to support themselves; to be able to find gainful employment and produce for the society they live in. The problem is, when you have close to seven billion people... Well, what can you do?

Six billion is too many, /sci/.

We've hit a wall where the need for people and the amount of people are incredibly out of sync. I'm not saying that we are running out of resources or people are getting dumber or what-not, those are other stories.

I'm talking about the fact that, as our society advances, the need for people decreases. One factory floor that used to employ a hundred people working to make a car now employs four; two mechanics, a programmer, and a superfluous manager. Farms can now grow food so cheaply that government subsidies are the only thing that keeps it worth doing at this pace (look how much money is spent on farming subsidies), at least in the developed world.

As the number of people increases, the number of jobs doesn't increase commensurately. Eventually, the number of people who are burdens on society (not by choice but by simple accident of being unneeded or lacking increasingly fewer opportunities) will grow and grow until you have situations like the riots in the UK.

Is there an ethical solution to this problem? How do we deal with a world where we're increasingly obsolete?

>>3580099

I don't disagree that people like this are either deluded or charlatans, typically, but I've never been one to tut at folk medicine.

Not because I believe it possesses special powers, of course, but because it's the result of accidental trial and error testing of people over the centuries. For example, at least two civilizations discovered urine was an excellent shampoo because of the ammonia it contains (with no way of knowing the latter, or even the former at first glance). Foxglove has been used to make herbal teas for ages and, it turns out, it does have medicinal properties. Aspirin was developed from chemicals found in willow bark, which had been known as a curative for headaches as far back as the ancient Greeks.

Investigating this stuff, when something testable is provided, is a worthwhile endeavour.

This stuff may be bullshit, but when it provides a test, testing it leads to benefits, either by debunking it or finding something new.

>>3580051

Even if that is the case, it'd be worth investigating. If people did indeed react in a certain way, you could test it experimentally and find what the key component(s) are. Maybe provide mankind with a benefit somewhere, if you isolate its effects chemically.

Or it could all be bullshit and the data will show as much.

>>3580032

Doesn't exist.

To create, to explore, to be happy, and live a fulfilling life. To do the first in a way I find meaningful (I.E. Being proud of what I create) satisfies the other conditions in the process nicely, for the most part.

>>3577539

.... I fucking love this. This could be awesome inspiration for a fantasy show.

Not science, though.

>>3572506

I'd support it even if they weren't. It'd be a grand experiment; a look at another line that could have taken over the world.

>>3572680

It's a so-so book, with a few funny points. I recommend reading it and then reading John R. Lott Jr's response, Freedomnomics, just for diversity.

Wouldn't recommend it over a textbook, but it's still fun to read.

>>3544864

Most any crime worth talking about by a person in power is a felony. I agree that a police officer found guilty of brutality (such as one who beats a suspect in custody) should not receive any government money. However, one who gets a speeding ticket, while due for a stiffer reprimand than a civillian, shouldn't lose their pension over it.

I'm all for this as long as it's applied to all criminals who commit felonies, and revoked if they're proven innocent with compensation for any suffering incurred in the interim.

.... Damn. I hate Seth McFarlane, the guy's an egotistical jerk, I hate his politics, and the guy's fucked up some genuinely good shows with weak humour.

But for this, I pretty much have to forgive all that...

Sometimes I think this cycle never ends
We slide from top to bottom and we turn and climb again
And it seems by the time that I have figured what it's worth
The squeaking of our skin against the steel has gotten worse

But if I move my place in line, I'll lose
And I have waited, the anticipation's got me glued

I am waiting for something to go wrong
I am waiting for familiar resolve

Sometimes it seems that I don't have the skills to recollect
The twists and turns of plots that took us from lovers to friends
I'm thinking I should take that volume back up off the shelf
And crack it's weary spine and read to help remind myself

I am waiting for something to wrong
I am waiting for familiar resolve
I am waiting for another repeat
Another diet fed by crippling defeat
And I am waiting for that sense of relief
I am waiting for you to flee the scene
As if you held in your hand the smoking gun
And on the floor lay the one you said you loved

And it's strange
They are basically the same
So I don't ask names anymore

>>3510416

As I said, what we love is transitory. Plus, my body is already pretty useless. A deformed bone structure, amongst other things, means I'm not exactly top of the fitness charts, and my family has a history of dying horribly after the 80+ mark (and I do mean horribly).

None of that matters, though. I'm here to enjoy my life. The more you worry about that shit, the less fun you have. Plus, I'm expecting stuff to be better by the time I need to worry about that; better medicine and such.

And if it isn't, well, I'll have a good life and leave it at that.

Can't bring me down, bitch!

1. Love is transitory. We lose old things, gain new things. Such is life.

2. No, they won't. They'll be better.

3. Define lasting. Still, doesn't bother me. Live for yourself and to make the lives of those around you better, and you'll be happy and fulfilled. That's what matters, not some glory-hunger.

4. Society AS WE KNOW IT won't exist. That's a good thing.

5. Says who?

6. You got proof of this? No-one knows if our universe is a part of a multiverse or not, or if there will be a big crunch instead. Not enough data.

I ain't even sad.

To be fair, it is important to keep soldiers cool in the middle of a desert.

To be equally fair, it's fucking stupid for them to be there anyway. Hell, it'd probably cheaper to buy a fuck-huge solar array and put it in the camp. No shortage on sunshine.

Well, this was stimulating, but I've gotta get to work. It's been fun.

>>3482614

0.999... equalling 1 cannot be correct in reality if the universe has discrete quanta. This is fact and does not change that 3/3 equals 1. The alternative is that the universe is an infinite recession downwards.

So, does the universe have an (impossible, by my opinion) infinite recession downwards, or does it have discrete quanta? Answer me.

>>3482589

My question has purpose. If the universe has some smallest quanta, then your example of Zeno's Paradox (infinite division) is incorrect. If the universe doesn't, it has no base since it's an infinite recession downwards to no smallest point.

So, if the universe has some smallest quanta, then physical reality refutes the paradox, no matter how many mathematical proofs you might have. You can't divide infinitely. If the universe has no smallest quanta, you're correct at the expense of insanity.

So, which is it: A universe built on an infinite recession (turtles all the way down, perhaps?), or you're wrong?

>>3482576

This is just spookily timed...

>>3482564

Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

Are you saying that the universe has no base, or are you wrong?

>>3482523

I don't have to provide anything. If there's evidence, and I'd like to think we'll find it, we follow it where it goes. I won't make an artificial statement just because an idea seems to be implausible. If you have no evidence, your guesses are about as good as anyone's.

This doesn't give approval for Creationists to say their ideas are correct. If you have no evidence, you remain agnostic. That's just how it is. Don't let some emotional desire to tell idiots they're wrong keep you from being objective.

>>3482531

No, it's unintelligent design. He thought it was a pinata, remember?

Honestly, it was a joke example to point out how ludicrous the concepts for cosmic formation could get. Don't read into it too deeply. I don't want to end up with people asking "Well, then what created Cosmic Mexico?"