/sci/ - Science & Math

Death penalty for small crimes like running a red light, we're too many people so might as well get rid of all the stupid ones.
Kill the lawbreakers and harvest all their organs, let nothing go to waste.

>the un makes a bold move to combat overpopulation
>making babby is now illegal
>every couple that wants one must first go through a background check
>genetics, iq, job situation, economics, etc.
>if they can't make a better than average human it's a no go
>high iq people and athletes gets a free babby making ticket
>rich people may buy a ticket

I think the universe is filled with simple life, it's intelligent life that is crazy rare.
And the problem is the size and age of the universe. An intelligent race may be around for a million year or so, only to die out and then a new race evolves half a billion years later.

>sending man to the moon in the 1960s
>holy shit this is the greatest endeavor in human history
>we will have to invent shit that never existed before
>we will have to hire all the brightest minds in the country
>it will be difficult, it will be expensive, but with determination we will succeed

>sending man to the moon in the 2020s
>dude just buy a ticket from elon musk lmao

>we need to stop global warming
>also recycle more and eat less meat
>okay how do we do that?
>we need to reduce of quality of living and-
>yeah no fuck that

>>9171541
This, someone needs to go full hitler/stalin and begin to kill off people but no one has the balls to do so.

Of course it's a terrible thing to even think but we really need less people and more green technology to save our species and environment.

There is simple life everywhere in the universe, it will form where it can.
Intelligent life is a whole other question, not sure how rare that is. Maybe one race per galaxy.

How much further scientific and technological would we be if religion and intoxicating drugs/drinks were never a thing?

>>7241315
People think they're deep for being self aware enough to not be constantly stuffing their faces with food or fucking everything in sight (a desire ones body can not often live up to without resorting to great expenditure) in some environments. They avoid thinking about themselves, their actions and the consequences, at all costs unless it's necessary for their career. They do not try to comprehend their emotions, which cannot be handled with a "how?" question.

Information on chemical pathways will not help someone dissect complex and powerful emotions like jealousy, shame, rage, injustice, etc in their own life. Maybe someone could, but it's an ill fitting tool.

Asking "why?" will lead to more useful outcomes if you spend the time to understand how humans, and you yourself, think. Our brains and their instinctual logic make our thoughts far more similar than one might like to assume. It's much easier to interact with others when you never need to feel lost or confused by someone's actions, for they are hardly original. Place yourself in their circumstances, and understand their pain, and wow it's like magic! Instead of being confused by the actions of others, you understand your own emotions enough to be in a compassionate mindset.

I'd go so far as to say that this level of empathy is the natural progression of the "why?" question when applied to human thought. Unless you can show me a different outcome? I'm going to assume it will be more self serving than taking the time to understand others so that they might understand you.