/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10749656
hey, it's a good idea. Taking advantage of a well mantained infrastructure + generating energy

>>10749661
>it's a good idea

>>10749656
>Solar panels that degrade faster than normal.
>Road surfaces that cost much more than normal.
It's the best of both worlds.

Why not something that also absorbs energy from pressure from cars going by?

>>10749656
Could work if the roadways are designed correctly. Just need a clear, recyclable plate over the solar panels so they aren't damaged

>>10749656
>>10749661
Thunderf00t debunked this retarded concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4

>>10749702
>Why not something that also absorbs energy from pressure from cars going by?
R.I.P. Miles per gallon.

>>10749656
I remember when i thought this would be an epic idea, it was partially implemented on some road in china and was a failure

Bad idea because asphalt is already some of the best, most durable stuff we can make for roads but even that gets torn up from the thousands of cars that drive over it, a transparent material ain't gonna be better. That's on top of other concerns like traction, the fact that it'd have to be washed regularly and simple heat in some areas

>covered in dirt and sand

useless

I think roadways should be utilized as an energy resource, but not necessarily like this. For example, you could cycle a working fluid through the roads to collect thermal energy in the summer and use that working fluid to cool powerplants and melt snow in winter.

A better idea would be solar thermal (pipes filled with salt water, connected to turbines). It's compatible with asphalt roads.

>>10749694
For years i've wondered what it is in the boomer psyche that makes them think this is a "good idea". I think because "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" so, because they've seen roads, and heard of solar panels, but have no further experience of engineering or science or economics, they see a complementarity that doesn't exist. The trick though is that there's something deep seated about it that makes the vision of these things together absolutely true in their mind - instinctively it's something that makes so much sense to them they cannot be dissuaded of it.
I've mentioned it to both my dad and mother and they each went "oh that's a great idea". As soon as i said no the criteria for a good road surface and for a good solar collector are opposite they can instantly accept oh yeah no ok. but i forgot to ask "why do you think it's so great". I mean because even to a boomer there's obviously land you know, next to the road - or - near the city and not related to roads? i guess they forget the sun also falls in paddocks because everything's bright there so they don't see the contrasting black

>>10749656
Nothing wrong with solar driveways for big mansions that don't want to ruin their lawns with a industrial looking solar pannel farm. Getting one tenth the output is an acceptable price for AESTHETIC. Fedoras and poorfags will never understand.

>>10749859
Might as well make something that looks cooler then like a good plated roadway

>>10749832
That's an overly negative view, imo. A cheap, clear, durable, high-friction road surface isn't impossible. The main issue is the cost of maintenance and the high initial cost. That's why solar thermal is a better alternative to solar panel roads.

Won't the wheels slide on that when it's wet?

>>10749656
Put them above the traffic not under the traffic.

>>10749710
He's a fucktard. Don't listen to anything he says, even if he might be 9% correct about any one thing.

>>10749729
Covered in traffic too, bet they never thought of that.

This would turn the road into an oven

>>10749859
They make panels now that are disguised as normal roof. You'd not know that since they are above your price range.

>>10749656
It'll take one bogan less than a week to cost tens of thousands of dollars in damages

>>10749906
Asphalt is already black and hot as fuck. You can't make it hotter. The tiles will actually make it a tiny % cooler due to higher albedo.

>>10749900
Tunnels Elon?

>>10749895

>>10749936
I'm not a boomer and don't curse sir, it's rude.

>>10749656
The asphalt leading up to that solar road is 90% recyclable. The solar roadway not so much. I notice that there is a lot of dirt on the road, leading to less efficiency. Roads also get hot, leading to less efficiency. Seems like a terrible idea that costs a lot.

>>10749702
Because you are generating electricity from the fuel that the cars use. You don't get anything from nothing.

>>10749656
>>10749702
what do we use currently to power roads?

HOLY SHIT MAN

>>10749970
Nearly as bad desu, keep solar farms away from roads unless you're very restricted on space

>>10749908
The efficiency is terrible, and the total price is around $385/sq. meter.

hippie boomers don't know about things like incident angle

>>10749832
this applies to nearly every social/economic policy decision ever. it's why when you show the general government spending for example people mostly go "oh yeah we should cut that" but then you go line by line on each program and they want 90% of it imcreased

>>10749970
It takes one drunk idiot to revert the money made

>>10750010
No it doesn't.

THOSE ARE LOAD-BEARING SOLAR ROADWAYS, JERRY

Alternative energy that is viable would just be called energy.

>>10749744
This.

>>10749656
Why not just...put a roof over the road with solar panels on that? It’d shelter the road and pedestrians while generating energy.

>>10749978
If they last 10 years its alright

>>10749978
>poorfag cope

>>10749656
>Let's put them in the most damage-prone locations possible despite having plenty of other places to put them that don't require efficiency-killing armor

>>10750105
and you can put solar powered lights under it so people can still see where they're going! Nigger. Answer this: why do the panels have to be in or over a road?

>>10749895
>>10749762
>>10749762
you are just as stupid as the boomers. This is almost as bad in terms of combining things whose optimal conditions are completely different, for no fucking reason.
When you run fluid you have to pump it against friction. So you want the collecting *area* to be covered by the least pipe length (i.e., roughly, perimeter). As you know the maximum area for a given perimeter is a circle but a square is pretty good. the *minimum* area you can cover with a given perimeter is a fucking long, thin shape i.e. a road. The worst possible case.
You might think that the pumping friction is small but guess what the amount of energy incipient on a bit of road is fucking minute and, if you're doing your solar, is in a barely usable form that isn't going to be able to be worked up into concentrated enough form to power the fucking pump.

conversation about this always goes the same way. it's like if they'd said, why don't we combine our exercise bikes with our fridges
>That's a good idea
says any person. and you say to them, okay, but you'd.. have to have the bike in the kitchen, which means you can't work out in conditions you have control of, unless you shut everyone out of the kitchen, and.. since you won't always want to work out at the time the fridge is getting too warm, the mains power will still have to be used almost all of the time so that the impact of your pedalling will end up being negligible so.. there's no actual saving, no gain.
They will always say this
>Oh yeah i mean, i suppose. but it is a good idea though
If these are good ideas, what is a bad idea?

>>10749710
>thundernigger
Literally who

>>10750250
some youtube autist who debunks crowdfunding frauds

>>10749908
Not enough, you obviously don't know about the electricity requirements to fast charge 3 Teslas

>>10749900
How's he wrong about solar roadways?

>>10749656
man what a bad concept, euros are pretty stupid huh

>>10750191
Okay here's my response.

Off the bat
>combining things whose optimal conditions are completely different, for no fucking reason
No it isn't no reason, if you think about it for a little bit the point is leveraging real estate in a useful way without paying for more real estate. But that's pretty obvious so I'll just chalk that up to your attitude.

On to the point,

>When you run fluid you have to pump it against friction.
Yes, as is the case for all solar thermal plants. The fluid is normally pumped through long, thin tubes.

>So you want the collecting *area* to be covered by the least pipe length (i.e., roughly, perimeter)
That isn't a concern for solar thermal. Pipes are extremely inexpensive and have negligible cost and produce as much power as solar panels, so the shape of the road isn't a problem at all.

>the amount of energy incipient on a bit of road is fucking minute
Not true, there is a lot of surface area for long, wide freeways. For example there is 10 miles of freeway from my house to the next city. That's a surface area what, comparable to the surface area of a whole solar thermal plant. The amount of energy is substantial. It's more than enough energy to power the pump. So there goes your cynical argument.

>>10749656
Solar powered penis

>>10750286
He's not, just that he's never in his life said anything you couldn't find out from a less annoying source.

>>10750364
What’s annoying about him? He covers science topics reasonably well, but don’t be the kind of retard that watches anti-SJW videos.

>>10750391
disagree, his anti-SJW stuff are as good as his science videos. It's actually refreshing to see someone debunk nonsense from both sides instead of going full Nye and buying into 'gender science'.

>>10750396
>disagree, his anti-SJW stuff are as good as his science videos.

Uh........no. Lying about the positions of irrelevant feminist women isn’t very good quality content.

>It's actually refreshing to see someone debunk nonsense from both sides instead of going full Nye and buying into 'gender science'.

That’s being anti-science, not “debunking” anything. Gender is a thing, get over it.

>>10750406
Did you just assume gender is a thing? Did you stop to consider that gender could identify as a non-thing?

>>10750412
>A 2016 meme

Go back.

>>10750406
>He covers science topics reasonably well
>except when it triggers me
based Thunder, how does he keep doing it?

>>10750406
>Gender is a thing
it's a social construct honey

Shut up about youtubers retards

>>10750417
>He covers science topics reasonably well

Yep.

>except when it triggers me

That he covers science topics reasonably well doesn’t mean he couldn’t be wrong about some things. I don’t even know his views on the topic, so if he does think “gender” isn’t real, I’ll happily revise my statement to “He covers physics topics reasonably well but holds inaccurate views on cultural anthropology, on which he isn’t actually educated.”

>>10750420
>it's a social construct honey

No shit, moron. Social constructs exist.

>>10750430
>on which he isn’t actually educated.”
But that he feels like he's an authority on.

>>10749656
Wouldn't that be dangerous for animals and people that step on it?
Not to mention wouldn't it also damage tires?
How would this even work?

>>10750517
Oh wait they use a protective glass.
In my defense I know nothing of solar panels and this idea is so fucking stupid I have to assume its all around fucking stupid.

>>10749656
>>10749707
>>10749895
This is now a Troll Science thread

>>10750481
he never feels like he's an authority on 'cultural anthropology' (complete meme study btw). He just gets ticked off when der SJW projects their worldview into science and say things like 'there is no such thing as sexual dimorphism'. Again his anti-SJW videos are as good as his science videos, he isn't some 'alt-right youtube philosopher' shitposting for kicks.

>>10750434
>Social constructs exist

>>10750406
>sophomoric woke politics masquerading as science
>>10750603
>point-scoring closeted homosexual youtube eceleb

>>10749656
its the future

>>10750639
>fat, ugly neet posting cringe /pol/ memes

>>10749900
That would be very hot.

>>10750607
Yes, yes they do. Do you think “marriage” doesn’t exist because it’s a social construct?

>>10750603
>he never feels like he's an authority on “cultural anthropology”

Then why would he make claims about gender?
Keep in mind, no he has even demonstrated he holds a position on the existence of Gender. Please do so.

>He just gets ticked off when der SJW

I’m sorry but you’re going to have to grow out of this “SJW” thing. They don’t exist outside of like five people on Tumlr with schizophrenia. It’s a dead topic that does nothing but introduce susceptible young people into far right reactionary shit.

>and say things like 'there is no such thing as sexual dimorphism'.

I’m sure you’ll give some examples of people actually saying that. Are they a significant force in the world? How many of them are there? Are you representing their views properly? Is he?

>Again his anti-SJW videos are as good as his science videos

No they aren’t because he demonstrably lies in them.

>>10750707
>Then why would he make claims about gender?
because he's refuting some anti-science claims

>I’m sorry but you’re going to have to grow out of this “SJW” thing
We're talking about his anti-SJW video. Call it what you want.

>I’m sure you’ll give some examples of people actually saying that
https://youtu.be/CPZtjJY6QfQ?t=7m58s

>Are they a significant force in the world? How many of them are there? Are you representing their views properly? Is he?
They read journal articles in sociology about sex and gender (for example: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1536504217696082 Intersex and the Social Construction of Sex). So yes there is a significant portion of your side that think sexual dimorphism is problem science.

>No they aren’t because he demonstrably lies in them.
he doesn't

>>10750651
Sorry muffin you don't GET to uglyshame. This is a safe space for transhandsome folks and if that bothers you, well, why don't you crawl back into whatever foul, sticky hole you came out of and wait patiently for a natural death?

what if we used a lot of solar cells
but place them in an environment where they constantly get dirty, have to sustain the pressure of thousands of cars driving on them, can't easily get cleaned and require billions of additional infrastructure investments.
sounds good

>>10750406
>>10750420
>>10750430
>>10750707
Gender is the same thing as biological sex, and social sciences aren't science.

>>10749656

I'll one up you brainlet!

PIEZOCERAMIC. FREAKING. ROADWAYS.

>>10750773
>because he's refuting some anti-science claims

Which ones? What’s “””anti-science””” about the existence of gender?

>I’m sure you’ll give some examples of people actually saying that

Oh shit, one unsourced video of a person saying biological sex is a social construct. Can you please link THEIR video so we can actually evaluate their claims? Thunderfoot sure doesn’t.

“Intersex and the Social Construction of Sex”

Exactly what statements made in this paper do you disagree with?

“Sex is far more diverse than we acknowledge when we ask whether a baby is male or female. It cannot be neatly defined by our genitalia, hormone levels, reproductive structures, or brain structure. And as people with intersex traits make exceptionally clear, even chromosomes are a poor guide. People with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, for instance, have XY chromosomes (typically associated with males) but an outward female appearance, including breasts and a vagina and minimal, if any, ability to develop male secondary sex characteristics, such as prominent facial hair.”

Is it this? Because nothing said here conflicts with modern medicine and biology whatsoever. Intersex people exist.

Did you even read it?

>So yes there is a significant portion of your side that think sexual dimorphism is problem science.

Not once does the author claim that “sexual dimorphism” doesn’t exist or is “problem science.” You’re starting to lie like Daddy Thunderclot or just outright can’t read.

>he doesn't

He does quite a lot in one video, actually.

https://youtu.be/7bVqfQvXP2o

I’ll even give you a time stamp. 8:00

>>10750822
>Gender is the same thing as biological sex

Nope. Gender has multiple definitions, with one being a synonym for sex while another refers to the social and cultural roles assigned to certain sexes. One’s leniency towards some culturally relative platonic ideal of “masculinity” or “femininity”.

>>10750827
and there we go, the feminist women reveals herself

>>10750830
Was it too much effort to actually try and make an argument? I’m not a woman, as fun as that would be for maybe eight hours.

>>10750829
Everything you said after "nope" is consistent with gender referring to the two sexes, male and female.

>solar power is not a sca-

Trannies are mentally ill

Why not make a system that makes energy out of the friction between asphalt and tyre?

>>10750840
Yes, humans only have a bimodal sexual distribution, with those in the middle being more “androgynous” or “hermaphroditic”. We can say people are more “feminine” or more “masculine” but there isn’t a third option like “qloopy”. That’d be trimodal.

Photovotaic cells are incredibly polluting.

>>10750827
>Which ones? What’s “””anti-science””” about the existence of gender?
Thunderf00t's main beef is with anti-science feminists (of which a significant portion exist loud and proud). I'm sure you and him both agree that gender exists and that biological sex is binary.

>Oh shit, one unsourced video of a person saying biological sex is a social construct. Can you please link THEIR video so we can actually evaluate their claims? Thunderfoot sure doesn’t.
chill dude, don't need to get so uppity about something you don't care deeply about.

>Is it this? Because nothing said here conflicts with modern medicine and biology whatsoever. Intersex people exist.
>"Gender is a social construct often based on the assumption of a biological binary, but even the best lab tests cannot–and perhaps, need not–accurately divide all people into “male” or “female” sexes."

gee I wonder where these 'sex is a social construct' talking points even come from.
https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc?t=11m21s

>You’re starting to lie like Daddy Thunderclot or just outright can’t read.
ok now you're just sperging out

>He does quite a lot in one video, actually.
Let's assume he does. This doesn't mean the person he's refuting is right, you know that?

>>10750857
Yeah, all that horrible sand is poisoning our waterways. In all seriousness, only silicon tetrachloride is a problem, and it can and should be reprocessed, but some companies in China don't because reprocessing requires specialized equipment.

>gender is a social construct

>>10750861
>Thunderf00t's main beef is with anti-science feminists (of which a significant portion exist loud and proud).

Survey, please.

>I'm sure you and him both agree that gender exists and that biological sex is binary.

Gender exists and biological sex is bimodal rather than binary. It has two peaks but there is nevertheless a valley in between.

>"Gender is a social construct often based on the assumption of a biological binary, but even the best lab tests cannot–and perhaps, need not–accurately divide all people into “male” or “female” sexes."

Why do you disagree with this?
What sex does someone with Swyer Syndrome have and why? What about someone with pseudohermaphroditism or true hermaphroditism?

>Let's assume he does. This doesn't mean the person he's refuting is right, you know that?

Correct, and?

>>10750851
>>10750872
In rare cases that are genetic or developmental disorders, individuals may have sex characteristics of both of the sexes. That does not disprove the rule for the vast majority of cases, that humans are almost always either male or female. It also doesn't validate any notion that individuals can "choose their gender," at least in any way that is relevant to the natural sciences or medicine.

>>10750872
>Survey, please.
common knowledge at this point

>Gender exists and biological sex is bimodal rather than binary
which I'm sure thunderf00t agrees with?

>w-what about this syndrome and that syndrome what about what about
lmao

>Correct, and?
and why are you rabidly defending them and slamming him?

>>10750872
>Swyer Syndrome
>hermaphroditism
Social constructs.

>>10749832
I think it's the world in which they grew up. 60's maybe upto 80's was the time of rapid change. There was always something completely new that never existed before. They saw the emergence of the modern airplane, space program, wealth of new home appliances, TV, recorded audio coming from gramophone, to cassetes, to CD's. Computers. Modern cinema. All the appliances that have been replaced by smart TV's and cellphones - VHS, DVD, photo and video cameras, digital watches, and whatever else. Cars turning from clunky boxes that needed constant repair into modern standard. etc. The everyday things could be in such a flow as AI is today. This left them expecting always something new, with no intuiton about what is or isn't practical.

The technology has mostly settled now, somebody in their 30's may remember getting the internet, TV's turning flat and smartphones, but otherwise most other things remain the same. This allows people to develop better sense of what makes sense and what doesn't. Boomers never could, because there was always something that changed everything around the corner.

>>10750877
>In rare cases that are genetic or developmental disorders, individuals may have sex characteristics of both of the sexes. That does not disprove the rule for the vast majority of cases, that humans are almost always either male or female.

That exceptions to the rule exist demonstrates that sex is not a binary relation, no matter how minuscule the population of those that fall between are.

>It also doesn't validate any notion that individuals can "choose their gender,"

That intersex people exist demonstrates by itself that gender can be chosen, because many of them are unaware that they’re intersex or have chosen to “present” as one of female or male gender, depending on what their upbringers decided or they themselves reckon. I’m not of the mind that transgenders “pick their gender”, though, because I believe that predilections towards “feminine” or “masculine” behavior are ultimately neurological in nature.

>>10750884
Nope. Those are biological conditions that exist regardless of cultural and social relativism.

>>10750894
>That intersex people exist demonstrates by itself that gender can be chosen
No it doesn't when it comes to the 99.9% of people with no genetic or developmental disorders related to sexual characteristics.

>>10750904
That’s awesome, my dude. You conceded the point I wanted you to concede.

>99.9% of people with no genetic or developmental disorders related to sexual characteristics.

Can you source that statistic, by the way?

>>10750908
>Can you source that statistic, by the way?
currently the estimates of intersex range from 0.05% - 1% depending on the publication (according to some it may be half a percent higher due to temporal effects)

>>10750908
>link? source? citation please citations!

>>10750930
Neither of those agrees with “99.9% of people with no genetic or developmental disorders related to sexual characteristics.”

>>10750932
Oh shit people want sources on the science board! REEEEEEE

>>10750935
wow he was wrong to the first decimal place congratulation anon, you 'owned' him.

>>10750938
>I WANT SOURCES
>what me? o-of course I have my s-sources... *leaves*

>>10750944
Thanks! The difference between 0.01 percent of the population and 0.10 is a 1000% increase in quantity and millions of humans. Much more if you go with the less conservative estimations, so it’s an important distinction when discussing something as large as the human population.

>>10750947
What source would you like for what claim? I’m happy to provide.

>>10750950
cool, a few million people are dickless. Now lets see how many billions aren't.

>>10749722
>was a failure
that sucks.. why?

>>10750952
>What source would you like for what claim?
source all your claims you've made thus far.

>>10750953
>cool, a few million people are dickless

No, intersex conditions are much more varied than that.

>Now lets see how many billions aren't.

A bit over 7,400,000,000 with an estimation of the population of intersex people being 1%.

You are aware that sex wouldn’t be binary even if there were only one intersex person alive, yes?

>>10750957
>source all your claims you've made thus far.

Which ones? Give me a list.

>>10750960
all of it hun

>>10750958
>You are aware that sex wouldn’t be binary even if there were only one intersex person alive, yes?
false

>>10750961
I can’t be bothered to read every post I made here, sorry. Just list a few for me, or you unfortunately won’t get any.

>>10749656
The biggest issue with roads is their maintenance. What do you think would happen if you multiply that maintenance of the already-expensive roads?
Modern society is simply not ready for something like this even if it's technologically possible. Every time you think of similar projects that involve a great portion of politics, think of whether the local administration can handle them or not instead of thinking whether we have the technology to build them, because we also have the technology to start building orbital habitats right now, do you see our administration doing anything about it?

>>10750963
>false

Nope, entirely true. The distribution is either bimodal or binary. It can’t be binary if even a single data point lands in between.

>>10750406
>Gender is a thing
what you mean is "personality"

>>10750967
exceptions don't prove the rule

>>10750965
>I can’t be bothered
baka can't even source your own claims...

>>10750337
you didn't understand my point at all
>When you run fluid you have to pump it against friction.
>Pipes are extremely inexpensive
so you don't even get that pumping through twice as long pipe uses twice as much energy?

moreover regarding real estate the cost of land outside cities - to the government especially - is negligible relative to building the thing.

>>10750827
>It cannot be neatly defined by our genitalia, hormone levels, reproductive structures, or brain structure
it can. For 99.9% (number arbitrary but high) sex is the same as gender
>but outliers exist
yes, a really small minority of people have actual genetical defects and fucked up hormonal systems where they are hard to categorize. You want to give up the working definition of male/female by XY/XX for the vast majority of humanity because it doesn‘t fit with a tiny fraction of people with defects? Might aswell get rid of the word "liver" because some people have abnormalities and what they have can‘t be defined as one.

>>10749656
>give government a financial incentive to keep trafic jam to a minimum.
Yup seems fine to me.
Pretty based actually

>>10750847
it‘s really hard and probably inefficient to capture the low amounts of heat. The sun has likely magnitudes higher of a contribution, and we use that in solar panels

>>10750958
>1% of people have a chromosome or developmental problem causing intersexness
Maybe if your town got sprayed down with thalidomide or something? How could you possibly believe this?

>>10750894
>depending on what their upbringers decided or they themselves reckon
wasnt there a few cases where they tried to treat girls as boys and vice versa with little to no effect on "gender" like preference of toys etc?

>>10750958
>A bit over 7,400,000,000 with an estimation of the population of intersex people being 1%.
Do you have a source for that? I agree with the larger point your making about bimodality, but 1% is larger than anything I can recall seeing.

>>10749656
Pic very related

>>10751008
>Maybe if your town got sprayed down with thalidomide or something? How could you possibly believe this?

I dunno it’s not my estimate. Ask them.

>>10750958
>You are aware that sex wouldn’t be binary even if there were only one intersex person alive, yes?
Congenital defects don’t count, much like how we say our people are born with 5 fingers, 2 arms, 2 legs etc, despite the fact that people are born with congenital defects.
You can’t even say that people born with intersex conditions are inherently healthy or normal, since they usually require surgery to remove their malformed or underdeveloped gonads, which otherwise pose a massive risk of developing cancer.

>>10751010
>wasnt there a few cases where they tried to treat girls as boys and vice versa with little to no effect on "gender" like preference of toys etc?

Yes, which is why I believe that predilections towards behaving feminine or masculine are ultimately neurological. Whether this is due to hormone levels in the womb or later in life or some other mechanism, I don’t know. My idea would be to track a large population of humans from the womb to adulthood, measuring their hormone exposure in the uterus and then measuring their sex hormone levels, performing brain scans, and measuring their disposition towards “feminine” or “masculine” behaviors every few years or so, and seeing how many turn out transgender, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, etc, at the conclusion. Compare their brain scans to averaged brain scans of either sex as well as hormone levels and see what correlates. I’m predicting that sex hormone levels play a major part in “feminization” or “masculinization” of the brain and this creates predispositions to certain behaviors.

>>10751011
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/intersex.pdf

>>10750930
I was going off what this guy said. There’s apparently little data on it, and it’d vary due to what’s defined as intersex and would be vulnerable to underreporting since some conditions may never be noticed. What’s most noticeable are infants born with genitals that fall somewhere on the Quigley scale.

>>10751022
>Congenital defects don’t count

Yes they don’t count because you say so and it’d make you wrong if you didn’t.

>much like how we say our people are born with 5 fingers, 2 arms, 2 legs etc

I wouldn’t say that because it is false as you admit.

>>10750997
>it can. For 99.9% (number arbitrary but high) sex is the same as gender

Yet this rule falters with some, and these abnormalities make us ask the question of what specific traits determine what sex one is. I don’t think any individually really do, and it’s instead possessing multiple certain traits that determine sex.

>yes, a really small minority of people have actual genetical defects and fucked up hormonal systems where they are hard to categorize. You want to give up the working definition of male/female by XY/XX for the vast majority of humanity because it doesn‘t fit with a tiny fraction of people with defects?

I agree that said definition complies accurately with most humans but it is nevertheless ultimately inaccurate. If we want to play with percentages, then it’s more accurate to say “animal species don’t have written language” than it is to say that “human sex is determined by XX/XY chromosomes”, because even if we assume that the percentage of people with abnormal chromosomes is 0.01%, this percentage is much higher than the percentage of animal species that have written language, which is one out of over seven million. It just seems absurd to say that because YOU’RE the one animal species with written language.

>>10749832
The guilt they feel for flaying the Earth, so that there is a very real possibility that their vainglorious need to emulate Tom Selleck, or some other has-been, with their gas-guzzling, hedgehog crushing speedster, will render the Earth uninhabitable within a few generations at most?

>>10751095
>0.01% of people are 100% gay so everyone else must be 0.01% gay

>>10751054
Also this
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6300%28200003/04%2912%3A2%3C151%3A%3AAID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO%3B2-F

But again there’s very little data

>>10751107
Doesn’t follow from anything I said.

>>10749710
>thunderf**t
stopped reading there

>>10751095
when u think about it, the ship of Theseus doesn't really exist, because ships are a social construct. after all what is a ship but a floating tree?

>>10751121
>when u think about it, the ship of Theseus doesn't really exist

It exists in the sense thought experiments do.

>because ships are a social construct

No they aren’t. Ships exist regardless of social or cultural relativism.

>after all what is a ship but a floating tree?

Only true for dugout canoes.

What are you even talking about?

>talking about metaphysics to retards interested in solar roadways
JUST

>>10750991
He understood your point, it was just retarded. That's like saying that if you use a cord that's twice as long it will take twice as long to charge your phone, on the surface it seems like a non-moronic statement, but the resistance is very low so doubling the length is not the same as doubling the charge time.

Moreover, maintenance is the largest expense with roads and in places with heavy snowfall much of that maintenance is necessitated by damage from snowplows and freeze-thaw cycles. If you heat the roads in winter to melt snow as it falls that cost all but disappears. Finally, to heat your working fluid you can cool industrial processes such as power generation which raises the efficiency of said process and is therefore basically free energy.

Solar roadways are for redditors.

>solar - good
>fossil fuel - neutral
>nuclear - bad

If you argue against this you deserve jail.

>>10751442
Nuclear power has the potential to be good, but the the current nuclear industry is a non-stop clusterfuck.

>>10751144
>poster is clearly just making fun of you
>respond to each point individually
>finish by asking what he's talking about

>>10750679
Just turn on the air conditioner

>>10751455
That’s how I deal with sarcasm, silly. I take it literally.

It amuses me for some reason.

>>10749960
best post itt

we should build engines that are fueled by anger
I alone could power the entirety of the US

>>10751775
Are you okay

>>10749656
His critisms of Elon Musk is kinda autistic. Yeah those ideas put forth by Musk are a total pitch. That's just the cult of start ups, many things fail before they suceed. Say what you will about Musk, but the dude has made a pretty neat car.

>>10751144
>No they aren’t. Ships exist regardless of social or cultural relativism.
The argument isn't about its existence, the argument is what constitutes a ship. Which is arbitrary and socially constructed. There is no ship that exists without humans to define it, nothing in nature tells us what we should consider a ship, it is human society.

We can change what are important and less important features, what size, does it need to float and is the colour or materials important, does it need a sail? These are all physical features that are not argued about, but if we will call it ship or not is still up to us.

>>10749656
slippery when wet

>>10751942
Just build a roof over it then.

>>10749656
DUDE
SOLAR CLOTHING
WE'LL GENERATE ENERGY ALL DAY AND THEN STORE IT WHEN WE GO HOME

>>10751975
solar cows. cows are a large contributor to CO2 emissions. we'll make the cows carry their fair share of the burden by putting shells of solar panels on them. someone call AOC.

>>10750991
Given that your estimate of pump energy was unrealistically large, do you even know how much real estate costs?

>>10749656
sidewalks that convert heat to electricity would be good too. some school teacher years ago tried to find a usage for carbon nano tubes and dumped them in some polymer and made a cell that converted body heat to electricity for leds on clothing. a gimmick but you could put slabs of that shit in side walk concrete and in the summer cook a egg on the side walk and then power a mini fridge for beer to go with said egg

>>10751100
Nigga.. when they were "flaying" the earth there weren't 7 billion people to compete for resources with. Everyone could drive a tank if there were only a few million of us, solar panels (and even roads) be damned.
Honestly though you need to get outside more and enjoy this Earth you feel like protecting so much. The only think holding you back from enjoying 500hp throwing you back in your seat is your own misguided guilt. Godamn, I get it. What's the point in saving any of this if you can't enjoy it. Just to toil away safely at a desk job your whole life? Nigga please.

>>10752006
You want to use carbon nano tubes within roads to convert heat into electricity? We dont need nano tubes to convert heat to electricity you know?

I used to live near one in La Défense (Paris) and there was a panel near by that shows the accumulated energy (/day and /year) when I did a quick computation I found out that the capacity factor was less than 1%, for this area that is not frequented by cars. This idea Just doesnt make sense in a dense city, maybe in big roads and still there are all the maintenance costs... Etc

>>10750894
Do disorders really strip it of the binary status? The fact that some people are born with different numbers of fingers wouldn't lead any scientist or reasonable person to say "there are some different kinds of hands that have alternate finger numbers". Rather, you would say, "this individual has a condition that causes them to have an abnormal finger number".
Your claim about intersex people choosing a gender applies to very few cases, most of them are "close" to one or the other and naturally favor that one. Same applies to the various genetic disorders that cause non-XX/XY chromosome combinations.
Aside from that, the overlap between them and trans people is very small. Bringing it up at all strikes me as an inane excuse to cast doubt on the duality of gender.

>>10751953
Are you serious? That would increase the cost significantly and would make the panels generate less energy.

>>10752151
Yes, I want to build roads made of solar panels covered by a roof. Or we can just build them in
already existing tunnels, then we don't have to build the solar roadway roof.

>>10749960
kek

>>10752166
That's a niche idea, it could only be used where there are tunnels and tunnels are short enough that there wouldn't be enough surface area.

>>10752110
Do we either have 5 fingers on no fingers? Generally we determine gender based on features. Some people have a mix of these features and landing more in the middle of the genders. Its mostly binary, but there exists overlap.
This whole discussion is really a misdirection though, its not what most trans people care about. They want to be recognized and treated as the gender they identify as in society.

>>10751985
Solar cows wouldn't be the worst idea. There's an animal that takes up chlorophyll from the plants it eats in order to make use of it. Maybe a cow could be genetically engineered with clear fur and the same ability. It would increase the solar energy stored in the meat which would decrease the area needed to raise them.

>>10752203
>recognized as the gender they identify as in society
The problem is that if you force people to call transgender people "ma'am" or "sir", those words describe a person's sex. So if you force them to use gender pronouns then you're forcing them to lie about their sex. That's morally objectionable.

>>10752226
We already do that today all the time.

How would you know you are referring to the wrong sex when talking to someone unless you see their genitals or whatever else you want to determine it by? You should take a trip to Thailand, Its not always as easy as the ones that are very clearly trans.

Its polite and its no big deal, even you would do it if it was someone you cared about.

>>10749832
The Rick and Morty fans loved it too. Just more evidence that the "I fucking love science!" mouth breathers don't know very much about science or even engineering .

>>10752246
We don't lie about people's sex, what you're referring to is mistakenly attributing the wrong sex to someone. Your post is illogical and isn't a valid counterargument. It's morally wrong to *force people to lie* about someone's sex.

>>10749959
>>10749714
have you never heard of waste???
second law really got to ur head bros

>>10752246
We don't lie about people's sex, what you're referring to is mistakenly attributing the wrong sex to someone. Your post is illogical and isn't a valid counterargument. It's morally wrong to *force people to lie* about someone's sex, not to mistake someone's sex for another sex.

>>10750396
He's never actually debunked anything properly. You have to be full hardon popsci to think otherwise.

>>10752284
So you are saying that If I were to call someone like Contrapoints she, then I'm lying about her sex? Why dont we just accept that its okay and decent to call trans people by their preferred pronoun? Its not like gender, sex or pronouns were given to us by god. We made it up.

Society forces us to do a lot of things, its kinda necessary for living together.

>>10752295
>>10752284
Can you fags take this somewhere else?

>>10752302
no.

>>10752295
>So you are saying that If I were to call someone like Contrapoints she, then I'm lying about her sex?
If their sex is male, yes you're lying about their sex. Not about their subjective gender identity.

>Why dont we just accept that its okay and decent to call trans people by their preferred pronoun?
Sure, if it [math]was[/math] okay and decent, but wanting it to be okay and decent doesn't make it okay or decent.

>>10752310
Why not? This is a math and science board and you're in a thread about better utilizing infrastructure. Social constructs, even as they relate to biological are not science or math and have nothing to do with infrastructure.

In short, go be a faggot somewhere else.

>>10752336
>biological
Biology*

>>10752314
>If their sex is male, yes you're lying about their sex. Not about their subjective gender identity.
Why?

>Sure, if it was okay and decent, but wanting it to be okay and decent doesn't make it okay or decent.
Its generally frowned upon in most developed countries to misgender trans people.

>>10752348
>Why?
I just told you why gender pronouns refer to their sex, not their subjective gender.

>Its generally frowned upon in most developed countries to misgender trans people.
In Nazi Germany Jews were frowned upon but that didn't justify killing them.

The fact that you want people to accommodate you doesn't mean they have to.

>>10752362
>I just told you why gender pronouns refer to their sex, not their subjective gender.
Where? When?

>In Nazi Germany Jews were frowned upon but that didn't justify killing them.
I thought you were appealing to society, what exactly is your argument for it not being decent then?

>The fact that you want people to accommodate you doesn't mean they have to.
Well, you kinda do have to wear clothes though. And you can't give your boss a head scratch, there is a lot of accommodation we have to do when we are out in society.

>>10752377
>Where? When?
Gender pronouns refer to people's sex. If you're going to ignore that, then you're not debating, you're arguing. So there's no need to address the rest.

>>10752389
>Gender pronouns refer to people's sex.
Why not the gender they prefer?

And you said:
>I just told you why gender pronouns refer to their sex,
Clearly you didn't, if you now switched to "You have to accept this or I wont have an argument about this". Don't be so sensitive.

>>10752397
>Why not the gender they prefer?
Because you'd be redefining gender pronouns. They've always referred to sex. A guy isn't a girl just because they want to be. "Girl" refers to the female sex.

>thread about popsci topic
>reddit spacing discord tranny is responsible for half of all the replies
Imagine my shock

>>10752412
>Because you'd be redefining gender pronouns.
No, society would be. And we have been doing this for a while now, just not universally.

>They've always referred to sex.
So pronouns all through history across all of culture has always referred to sex? Cool. Its still not a good argument for keeping it that way. Language changes.

>>10752430
>No, society would be.
The LGBT community is proposing to redefine pronouns by force. That isn't a natural evolution of language, it's an artificial one and it has consequences, including forcing people to lie about other people's sex.

>>10752203
I suppose that's true. But how do you really define gender then? It certainly isn't based on features alone or you would call a feminine looking man a woman - I guess you could do that accidentally but your probably wouldn't on purpose unless he wanted you to.

>>10752226
>you're forcing them to lie about their sex
who gives a shit you fucking faggot?

>>10752454
>who gives a shit you fucking faggot?
Forcing billions of people to lie on a regular basis has big consequences.

>>10752466
like what, cultural backlash? normalizing cognitive dissonance?

>>10752451
>The LGBT community is proposing to redefine pronouns by force
Of course they want it, that doesn't make it wrong. Its not any different from people not wanting you to use slurs, or using certain words as insults(or even using words as slurs is changing their meaning). This isn't new, or somehow dangerous.

>including forcing people to lie about other people's sex.
You are begging the question here. We are arguing whether this use of pronouns is lying about their sex. You can't use it as an argument for why we should stick with traditional way.

>>10752454
>But how do you really define gender then
whether you like it or not, it is socially defined. If you grew up in a society where short people could not be called men then you would simply accept that and maybe arguing about it on the internet.

>>10752473
If you can't see how that's bad then this discussion is a lost cause.

If you forced everyone to lie on a regular basis it would cause all kinds of degeneracy. It would make lying socially normative, which would encourage other types of antisocial behavior and would reduce interpersonal trust, which would have economic consequences.

>>10752483
>Of course they want it, that doesn't make it wrong.
I didn't say that and that wasn't my argument.

>Its not any different from people not wanting you to use slurs, or using certain words as insults(or even using words as slurs is changing their meaning). This isn't new, or somehow dangerous.
Redefining pronouns by force is much different from not wanting people to use existing slurs.

>>10752497
>Redefining pronouns by force is much different from not wanting people to use existing slurs.
Is it? Black people used to be called niggers(not black people), now after its been more or less forced to change, we generally stopped using it, and it is considered a slur. Its seems to been a pretty good thing even, in my opinion.

>>10752510
Do you notice a difference there? It isn't and has never been illegal to call black people niggers. People just stopped using the word because it's derogatory. If that was equivalent to reassigning gender pronouns then you wouldn't need to enforce them by law.

>>10751458
Makes the "outside" more hot. Part of why our earth is burning up is because we use air conditioners. Stop using them and stop being a pussy.

>>10752483
Is that the heart of the issue though? Just social definition? It seems to me that if a gender is defined by society then a person cannot identify as one or the other, the identify would be given to them by others.

>>10752493
Sounds kindof like the world we live in currently

>>10751975
>>10751985
These are jokes but the future will have shit like this

>>10752528
>Sounds kindof like the world we live in currently
So let's be clear, you want to live in that kind of world?

>>10752522
woah hold up who ever said anything about the law?

>>10752493
>which would have economic consequences.
You forgot to add that this will literally lead to people dying of starvation. Dying!

Think about next time you don't gender by genitals. Murderer.

>>10752532
They're arguing for enforced gender pronouns.

>>10752533
That's a strawman. The consequences occur when billions of people do it, not when one person does it.

Do you have a good argument yet?

>>10752006
Wow, actually, converting thermal/kinetic/wind/solar(photonic) energy into electricity would be awesome, if only we had the species wide drive to redesign our cities and infrastructure to match our current and possible future needs instead of the needs of the past couple thousand years smattered all over the glob in different city-style "time capsules". Things need to be updated or we will die out within the century.

>>10752528
>It seems to me that if a gender is defined by society then a person cannot identify as one or the other, the identify would be given to them by others.
This is true, being a gender is not just identifying as it, society must contribute too. This is why trans people want to be accepted though. They want it to change, because its not just them self that define their gender.

>>10752545
>Gender doesn't mean what I want it to mean, so I'll force people to change their definition

>>10752531
Well that's what is regardless of what I want. Everyone walks around playing their character and only says what they really think behind closed doors. Do your coworkers or extended family know about all your offensive opinions? How's it different calling a man in a dress "her" just to make him happy?

>>10752493
>If you forced everyone to lie on a regular basis it would cause all kinds of degeneracy. It would make lying socially normative, which would encourage other types of antisocial behavior and would reduce interpersonal trust, which would have economic consequences.

Wow, good thing you described the entire history of the world after money was invented.

>>10749702
We need pressure plates, we can hook them up to our grid with redstone.

>>10752522
What? There are not laws that force you to use pronouns either then. Black people are a protected class. And "trans laws" have as far as I know(In Canada and NY) been about bringing in the same protections for trans people.

>>10752551
Words can have multiple definitions.

>>10752539
I was just making fun of your ridicules conjecture, don't worry.

>>10752551
Its more about their gender dysphoria, but kinda yea.

>>10752545
So you really assert that the definition comes from society and not their own identity? I mean that's logically consistent at least but I don't think most would agree with you.

>>10752536
I saw "forced" while skimming the thread but I assumed it meant forced like "contrived", not enforced legally

>>10752552
You're moving the goalpost.
The question was really if you want the world to be more antisocial and less trustworthy. That's what would happen if you enforce gender pronouns by law.

>>10752557
>Black people are a protected class.

This is like having a giant 20 gallon hat with a neon sign that says "DON'T LOOK AT ME OR I'LL BE UPSET!". I don't agree with hating on blacks or anyone else, I don't see a reason to personally, but think of it like a schoolyard, or any other social situation: if you beg and plead the other kids or people not to make fun of you, they are more likely to make fun of you, either intentionally or unintentionally (babying someone is a form of insult imho).

Why can't we all just get a bong?

>>10752557
The LGBT community *wants* enforced pronouns, that's what the discussion is about.

>>10752569
>So you really assert that the definition comes from society and not their own identity? I mean that's logically consistent at least but I don't think most would agree with you.
I mean, if you speak to random people that don't really think about this stuff then maybe. Gender is socially constructed, its incredibly hard to argue otherwise.

>>10752575
Since when? Seems a bit strawman'y to me. I haven't seen many advocate for this? On Tumblr maybe?

>>10752561
So you want to force people to add another definition to their vocabulary. It's the same thing.

>>10752577
I don't know for sure but it seems like the general idea is just that gender is just a big ball of wibbly-wobbly gender stuff and you can be whatever you want to be.

>>10752574
You should probably read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
No worry though.

>>10752571
>>10752575
I really don't think anyone other than you is saying that my man. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe everyone here would agree that enforcing it by law would be bad. The argument is whether or not you *should* use their preferred pronouns.

>>10752600
Okay, well that argument is pointless and I don't care if someone's feelings get hurt based on what pronouns I use.

>>10752563
Oh no, not my ridicules conjecture.

>>10752592
I think the perception can be that when you don't understand the underlying arguments(especially around here). Generally its people advocating for being accepted into society as the gender they identify as. It can get pretty muddled though, as there are a lot of dumb arguments going around on both sides.

>>10752588
Why are you crying over nothing? Words have gained new definitions all throughout history, language is always evolving, are you trying to stop the endless march of memetics because your feeling are hurt? Get over yourself and and put yourself in the other's shoes.

>>10752599
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
I agree with all of this, but you'd have to be dense not to see how much babying "POC" races and "noncis" people are given these days by the media. Look, I'm not even screaming about "degeneracy" because I could give less of a shit about how other people live their lives but it's just not conducive to a healthy society to be doing what they do: can't they see the hypocracy in turning around and saying "NO! BLACKS AREN'T THE BAD GUYS! IT'S THE WHITES!" Are they out for some kind of revenge, a "it's your turn" kind of thing? Shouldn't we be above that sort of thing, it's the goddamn 21st century, a new millennium, we deserve to be better to each other and forgive each other for our trespasses, and start anew. We will have to anyways when society collapses after the ecosystem does the same, so why not get ahead of the game a bit?

>>10752637
The argument was about forcing gender pronouns by law, sir, so my argument was valid.

>>10752680
In regards to that argument, I agree with you that no one should be forced by law to say or not allowed legally to say something. That's thought policing, no bueno. In all other cases though, it's not worth your time to try and hold back the tide with a broom. Unless you are a janitor named Moses or something.

>>10752680
You don't mind trans people as long as they don't try to get use of their pronouns written into law then?

>>10752692
I mind them, but not as much as the other option.

>>10752692
It's disgustingly sick proposition. Can't think of law that obligates to speak and write in certain way anywhere ever.

>>10752637
It's not nothing. The survival of our species up to this point has been dependent upon the biological process of procreation. The societies which exist today built up around this process, organizing behavior and relationships to not only protect this process, but to protect the fruit of this process, and to protect the society as well. Masculinity and femininity are fundamental social concepts, and in their most abstract form are the foundation of everything else in society. A society which does not have a concept of masculinity and femininity in any sense will not be able to reliably pro-create biologically. While words and culture can change, most of what we call culture is like .css; it's not really changing what's happening on a functional level, but is just a change in the appearance to make it more appealing or recognizable. However, as much as the actualization of gender is rather high-level, the actual gender construct is a root construct. If you delete it or alter it too much, the entire program--the entire society--will cease to function. Gender is the representation of biological sex in the social sphere; it is essential to our biological survival that we have a social understanding of this innate biology. That gender is a social structure does not make it any less important or vital to survival as any biological structure. The mere pleasure of an individual cannot be placed above the survival of the group. The only alternative path to rejecting transgender theory is to embrace abiological reproduction; we have no idea at this time what new threats that might bring to humanity. Embarking on such a venture would also destroy the very concept of humanity; it would be a new species of life. Such a grave undertaking should not be done by force, and should not be done without due consideration. This is a far cry from feelings being hurt. While it may seem to you like mere fun and games, taken any further will lead us either to death, or worse.

>>10752714
Jesus

>>10752714
There's a lot of pretty words here, but it's mostly baseless biologically, you obviously come from a coding background, but I grew up studying biology, as a bobby but still, and there are many different ways for "sex" to show itsself biologically, even on Earth. Certain alien worlds may even have sexes for certain species that number in the dozens, such a thing is certainly possible, and an alien civilization developing under those conditions would obviously have a very different modalities of living, but I don't think bringing themselves into civilization would be any more difficult than it was for us, given otherwise similar circumstances.

You also seem to attribute too much of our society to these sexual dimorphisms our species has. A society where we gengineered new sexes, such as fertile hermaphodites, true neuts (people with no sexual features), among others would simply be a new and updated society, not our death. You are obviously traditionalist, which is fine, but people with your mindset aren't going to be the ones pushing for innovation, you are going to be holding the reigns so the people with the horsepower don't drive into a wall, so, keep doing your job, keep the chariot going steady and safely, but don't get under the false impression that your views are "good" and the progressives are "bad", they are both equally important in the grand scheme of things, and both equally necessary for us to continue evolving as a species and as a civilization.

>>10752714
>argument to lofty principles
Reminder these people literally ruin their bodies with drugs against all medical advice, then travel to third-world jungle shithole to have Dr Phruongkenstein yank their nuts out by the root, convolesce for a week under a roof of banana leaves and corrugated tin, get kicked to the dusty curb with instructions on how to keep the wound open, come back, put on a dress, and in most cases kill themselves within five years. These are sick, twisted individuals to whom very basic civic and personal duties are meaningless, much less abstract things like "survival of the species".

>>10752770
Alex, what is a "hyperbole"?

>>10752774
Not hyperbole. The "doctor" quite literally yanks their nuts out, by the root. Other chunky pieces such as the prostate come along for the ride. There are webms available, but everyone actually familiar with the procedure already knows this.

>>10752751
I don't come from a coding background; that's just the easiest way to express social theory to the unimaginative and masturbatory chimps who fucking love science and don't understand "the humanities." Second, if a species undergoes a change in their process or reproduction, it cannot be considered the same species; if the change is large enough, it could hardly be considered the same kingdom. You seem to think that a pursuit of pleasure and a purely functional relationship to procreation would lead to new sexes, rather than the obvious result of sexless reproduction. If sex is held for pleasure and not for procreation, why would these two things not be separated? Why create fertile hermaphrodites instead of artificial wombs? After that point, who knows what changes might be made? Gender is the expression of sex through the cultural frame; A culture which confuses gender will confuse sex. If sex is confused, the culture will die. Either the material of the culture will be absorbed by another culture, or a new culture will be formed out of the waste. What's more, the ability to make moral statements is the first line of ideological defense. You seem to already be damaged, so you might not understand the importance of this; if you dislike any practice done by any other culture, you require the ability to make moral statements, or else that practice will be instituted in your own culture. If you do not like female genital mutilation, then you must be able to make moral statements, or else those who do make moral statements will decide your morals for you.

>>10752770
I'm not making an argument to lofty principles. I have no consideration of changing their minds with this. They are largely useless idiots. Rather, my hope is to try and help the philosophically illiterate understand the horrific consequences of ideological warfare.

>>10752787
That whole post is a hyperbolic generalizing caricature of trans people, don't act dense. Some have safe procedures and live happy lives, others are dumb or unlucky and do it unsafely, pretty simple.

>>10752800
Yeah, I get all of that, but I think you misinterpret what I'm talking about:

https://orionsarm.com/eg-topic/45b1774e4ba77

I'm all for gengineering entirely new species and even "kingdoms" of organisms, biodiversity is how lifeforms thrive, by bouncing off adaptations from each other and evolving. It may not always be "logical" to create new lifeforms, but life itself isn't "logical", so why do we always need to be? I think once we have started colonizing parts of our galaxy, we will see untold riches in the form of new life and new modalities of living. If for no other reason than time will make us all bored of what we've already done a thousand times. Just like history has always shown us.

>>10750698
Marriage isn't a social construct. It's a product of monogamy. inb4 monogamy is a social construct.

>>10752865
Do you mean "human-social" or "social" like how all organisms use societies of other organisms in some way?

>>10752834
You just don't recognize the scope of things. Evolution up to this point has been a passive process. Whether or not you want to give credit to a supernatural author, humanity was created. All life as we know it was created, at least in as much as it could only respond in limited ways to its environment. To move beyond the passively experienced process of evolution to a species wide stance of active revolution, of active reorganization of being, in completely without precedence. This would be like a fish consciously growing legs, and having the very existence of all life depend on it(, keep in mind that we are at a stage of development where our actions impact all other life on earth, at the very least). To continue that anology, we have no idea what's out there. We have no possible way to predict what new dangers there might be past the point of no return. With a different analogy, if we really are just ants on the side of a superhighway, how careful should we be in moving the whole colony?

>>10752874
>>10752865
Not him, but the issue is not on the social component. Marriage and monogamy are obviously social. The problem is with the idea that it's a construct.

>>10752821
>Some have safe procedures and live happy lives, others are dumb or unlucky and do it unsafely, pretty simple.
There is no "safe" way to have your cock and balls replaced with a gaping wound, chief, though there are more intricate, coldly horrific, David Cronenberg bells and whistles available, such as turning the left-over ballsack into makeshift roast beef curtains. As for "happy" I think the suicide rates speak for themselves.

Pretty simple.

>>10752880
No, I do recognize it, we don't just force the whole colony to move across the highway, in fact, you won't be able to anyway. Of course there will be luddites who want to not be a part of transhumanism, let them be amish, they can even stay on earth and bring it back to pre-human ecological standards like they should be, or move to their own planets or habs or star systems, do whatever. And plus, the argument you are making against transhumanity doesn't really hold up in terms of what we know with crop and pet gengineering the past several thousand years. Yes! we are learning now that some breeds are prone to certain diseases or even have maladapative traits, but what if you could fine tune the genes even more than just through selective breeding? You could probably overcome a lot of those imbalances with enough knowledge and skill applied. And hell, even I realize there will be obstacles and hangups with that too, but do you honestly think, that if we survive the current climate catastrophe, that humanity will hunker down into some kind of "purist" state for the rest of time? It's highly unlikely frankly. It's much more honest with yourself to just admit that people, given the technological freedom and ability to do and make what they want, will do and make what they want. That's a tale as old as time my friend, for better or for worse.

>>10752906
I mean, if I was going to change my "gender", I probably wouldn't get rid of my dick, or if I was a girl get some ass-meat log sewn to my groin, but in the future people will just be able to grow a dick or a pussy with some genetic tweaks. Won't be without initial problems but what new technology doesn't have kinks to work out.

For now, it seems pretty bleak for someone who feels trapped in the wrong body and feels grossed out by their genitals. Do you want to chemically lobotomize them. "Reeducate" them forecfully to accept their bodies? Meditation would probably do these people some good as far as accepting themselves for who they are, but if someone honestly wants to be a fucking girl, let em. The suicide rates are pretty sad to think about, maybe it would help if a certain online community didn't push out hateful memetics regarding people's life choices like "dilate" just so they could feel like a bad-boy anti-hero who's "winning bigly" against the globalists by dumbing down their own brain matter by endlessly repeating phrases they read on a maskless inuit flyfishing expedition.

Can we please talking about unfucking our infrastructure instead of /pol/ bullshit?

>how would you utilize and reengineer our roadways and inf to better utilize the latent global energy available
>what would be the hardest parts of this process
>can it be done before we succumb to environmental collapse in the next 10-100 years?
>What will have to be changed socially, culturally, economically for these changes to make a lasting impact on our world for the better

>>10752272
I officially invite you to go fuck yourself.

>>10752920
Again, you do not recognize the scope. You cannot maintain a society between people who rely on gender and people who do not. You are completely blind to the reality of ideology and culture. Consider poor eye-sight; it used to be that it was a natural mutation which caused most people to die before procreating; now, although the biological function only results in limited abilities to see, the phenotypal expression of the genes in most cultures is now glass or contacts; if you marry someone with glasses, there is a high likelihood your children will require glasses; the mimetic cultural programming has a real material effect, and the cultural meaning of that material effect in turn affects the biological development of the culture. What's more, cultures behave and are structured like simple organisms. Cultures, via mimetic structures, acquire resources, defend resources, interact with other cultures especially around the use and exchange of resources; there are some mimetic structures which organize the rest of the culture, certain patterns and behaviors which are central to self-defense of the culture, or to the homeostasis of the culture, or the the rigidity/flexibility of the culture, etc. You keep talking as though the biological changes are the only concern; the danger lies in the ideological realm. Biological engineering requires vast resources, and can only exist in an (at this point) extremely advanced society. Even if only a few people wish to engage in it, it requires a large body of scientific knowledge, advanced medical facilities, cultural support, ordinary infrastructure, and all the attendant social structures to support all these material organizations. What happens when the people who grow the food no longer feel like they are part of the same culture of the people who cannot grow food? The acceptance of these radical notions of gender will either collapse our current society, or require complete adoption.

>>10752980
Again, you think I have not thought of all of this. And to answer your question: The people who cannot grow food will have to learn how to grow food, or move to a place where they can grow food, or they will die out. Or some third party will have to help them grow food, or teach the first culture to give a shit about their unlucky brethren.

We will have to learn to adapt to new modalities of living, or we will perish, yes, so be adaptive: that's the first rule of evolution anyways.

>>10752952
>Do you want to chemically lobotomize them. "Reeducate" them forecfully to accept their bodies?
Stringent punishment for the freakshow gay activists who groomed the idea into their head in the first place. Shut down their forums, arrest the worst offenders, publicly air their trial together with an explanation of why it was necessary, generally make an example. This nonsense has gone on long enough and ruined far too many lives.

>>10753003
That won't stop people from being gay. You might as well behead everyone who likes whatever TV show you don't like.

>>10753017
Get lost, you freak. The topic was trannies.

>>10752992
You answer these questions like a high-school economics student. Thinking through these problems means more than regurgitating banal platitudes. I guarantee you, every ethic or principle you believe in now will be violated by the future you seem to accept so blithely.

>>10753021
The topic was solar freaking roadways dipshit.

>>10753017
>That won't stop people from being gay
[citation needed]

>You might as well behead everyone who likes whatever TV show you don't like.
Strawman. There are consequences for popularizing homosexuality, not for liking TV shows.

>>10752017
Stop typing like a nigger if you want anyone to listen to your coping.

mfw the guy who wrote:
>>10753017
immediately turned around and wrote:
>>10753023

>>10753032
No. I wrote>>10753023
and >>10752980
but not>>10753017
Follow the conversation.

>>10753023
I know this, and I don't care, because I know that my own ethics I already hold dear piss others off, such as yourself, and that in the end who gives a fucking shit. We'll all be dust in the wind, so you might as well stop bitching about nothing and enjoy it while you're here. In fact, I'm glad that "every ethic or principle will be violated", because that means that if there will be untold horrors then there will equally be untold miracles of technology and civilization. Why see the glass as half empty or half full when it has precisely 50% of the possible water capacity, be a little realistic instead of ending every post saying "this future will be the death of us" you sound like a broken record chill out

>>10753025
>There are consequences for popularizing homosexuality
[citation needed]

>>10753032
>Makes baseless accusation incorrectly.
Ok...

>>10753051
>[citation needed]
Not gonna look one up. Homosexuality spreads from homosexuals.

>>10753045
>why should I care about anyone but myself
>if there are untold horrors, there will also be untold miracles
That's bad logic. What reason do you have for thinking that if things get worse, they will also get better?

>>10753058
And what are the consequences of "popularizing homosexuality".

Try not to use buzzwords like "degeneracy".

>>10753066
>And what are the consequences of "popularizing homosexuality".
>Try not to use buzzwords like "degeneracy".
More LGBT, which causes degeneracy and high suicide rates.

>>10753063
Because things won't just get worse, things will also get better that the same time.

Think about it like this:

>Dinosaurs are alive
>mammals are vermin
>asteroid comes
>dinosaurs die
>mamamls evlve, become main megafauna
>man evolves
>nature: "cool"
>man gets greedy
>almost destroys planet
>nature: "oh fuck"
>man might die out, might just leave, might save planet
>in all cases life adapts to the changes and new lifeforms evolve

I'm already fine with the idea of transhumanism, that humans are just one step in a great cosmic cycle of evolution, and that bthere are far greater things that can come from us, whether we adapt with them or are the ground for them to grow in. Will you see this truth, as I have before seen yours, that the world is a fuck and everything is doomed? It's all gonna be fine, whether we're here to tell about it or not.

>>10753072
You technically failed the pop quiz, but I'll give you a 50 for

>More LGBT, which causes high suicide rates

OK, the second half is a good point to start with, but can you define "more LGBT"?

>>10753080
Thanks for the arbitrary 50. Is it not obvious what more LGBT means? More gays, lesbians, etc.

>>10753073
You have now regressed to a kindergarten explanation. Wonderful. I assume your understanding of "cosmic" is Guardians of the Galaxy-tier. If nothing matters, why change?

>>10749656
does it profit or just a hippie idiocracy?

>>10749656
>Roads made of literal glass
>Expected to last forever when road made of concrete or asphalt literally cracks every few months
>Costs quadrillions of dollars to make

Is it the worst idea ever?

>>10753092
Because change is fun, and everything is changing anyway. To not change is to swim against the current of time, and get pulled by it anyways, facing the wrong way. You might hit a rock or something. Case in point if the whole world was full of Amish people they could never detect an asteroid about to hit the Earth.

>>10753085
What's wrong with more gays and lesbians, etc.?

>>10753111
I just said.
>>10753072

>>10753116
So increasing gays and lesbians increases suicide rates? Why?

>>10753116
So, discounting the buzzword "degeneracy", unless you feel like explaining that some more, which would bet better, you don't like that they are killing themselves. Ok, why not instead of blaming their sexual and identifier preferences, you put the blame and responsibility on themselves to gain a stronger mindset so they don't feel the need to hurt themselves. If maybe they learned to accept themselves fully, as theya re, and also the people that hate them for who they are, maybe they will stop getting caught up on what other people who's opinions don't matter and just live their lives happily? That would be a net gain, wouldn't you say? less suicides, more happy people who live lives where they can meaningfully give back to the community at large.

>>10753110
Of course change itself is inevitable. But we are not deciding between some change and no change. The choice is between one direction of change, versus almost every other direction of change. If it doesn't particularly matter to you, then why change this specific thing?

>>10753124
In b4 he doesn't want suicides because the bible says they should be stoned to death instead.

>>10753128
What is the "one direction of change" you are referencing?

>>10753124
Not that anon, but it is obviously a bad idea to get rid of the regulating influence of other people's opinions. I agree they should learn to accept themselves as they are--which is the gender they were born into. It's sick and perverse in their confusion they are preyed upon by those in search of power. It is not good for them, and it is not good for society. What better secular motivation could you have? And I'm sure you agree there are at least SOME behavior that should be discouraged; if there is some behavior that should be discouraged, then we should maintain the social function of shame. Why would you get rid of essential social processes so that a small selection of people should be comfortable behaving in ways other than they naturally are?

>>10753145
>there are at least SOME behavior that should be discouraged
Like what exactly?

>>10753136
Abolishing gender. Wtf, man. If you can't follow the conversation, what are you doing?

>>10753123
Obvious and known fact, doesn't need to be explained.

>>10753124
So we should just let gays be gay and if they kill themselves then it's their problem. That's fine for existing gays, but gay activism causes kids to be gay who wouldn't have otherwise been gay, and as a result, kids who wouldn't have otherwise killed themselves would then kill themselves, along with the consequences of that. So having more gays causes higher suicide rates for everyone else too.

>>10753153
>Obvious and known fact, doesn't need to be explained.
This is what people that don't know what they are talking about say when they can't back up their opinions with actual facts.

>>10752203
Trannies are mentally ill faggots. Their delusions should not be reinforced by the rest of society pretending they are something they aren't. You can dress up like a girl, but you can't change those XY sex chromosomes or bear children, and therefore aren't a woman.

>>10753158
It's also what people know know that it's obvious do so that they don't spend all their time explaining obvious things and address other more important counterarguments

>>10753161
Their brain chemistry is closer to that of the sex they identify with.

>>10753148
Murder, to be a little hyperbolic. Ignoring traffic laws a little less so. Covering your mouth when you cough, or washing your hands after the restroom--these seem like they'd be pretty easy to agree on; they're things I'm sure you would admit would be good for everyone to do, but which are unreasonable to enforce by law.

>>10753158
It's also what people who know that it's obvious do so that they don't spend all their time explaining obvious things and address other more important counterarguments instead..

>>10753164
>other more important counterarguments
Strange that you don't have any of these either.

>>10753164
>>10753168
>deletes posts to fix minor errors
Are you well?

>>10753170
>Strange that you don't have any of these either.
You read that wrong. And nice hyperbole, I have plenty of them.

>>10753165
No it isn't. Neuroscience doesn't support "you can choose your gender and your body will magically change" crap. Go on, cite your meme study that doesn't prove anything.

>>10753174
Case 1: It's a minor error. Then your reading comprehension is bad.

Case 2: It's not a minor error. Then you were wrong and committed an ad hominem attack.

Which one?

>>10753149
I just wanted you to define your terms, we've been talking about a lot of shit. I'm not even that guy, I don;t care about abolishing gender, whatever that means, unless you mean abolishing "traditionalist" (which tbf, "straightness" isn't asubiquitous in the wild as we are taught to think) yin and yang type genders, just male and female. This hasn't been the case for most of human history either, it was just supressed in the last few centuries. I'm all for many genders, whatever, variety is the spice of life, "abolishing [traditionalist] genders" isn't my shtick, it's just one drop in the ocean of what's most likely to be our future. I'm not trying to hold the hide with a broom, I just see what's most likely and try and adapt to it, maybe make my own mark if I can, it's all we can really do anyways.

If you REALLY want to live in a socety where there's only male and female, here's my honest advice: invest in space manufacturing, or something like that when it comes around. Colonization. Terraforming. Orbital habs. Find people who think like you and go with them and make your own society, there's nothing wrong with that. Tbh the Earth is going through some shit environmentally and I'm pretty sure all of this molehill-mountain idendity shitflinging (from both sides ind you) will come to halt pretty soon as we realize we need to focus on not driving our ecosystems into oblivion. So, have a hissy fit about how people want to live their lives for now, you probably won't have time for it in the next few decades. I figure people are collectively getting it out of their systems anyways before shtf. Unless we really get ourselves together that is and stop squabbling long enough to save our own skins.

>>10753184
Go read a book.

>>10753182
Lets find out.
>>10753164
>It's also what people know know that it's obvious do so that they don't spend all their time explaining obvious things and address other more important counterarguments
>>10753168
>It's also what people who know that it's obvious do so that they don't spend all their time explaining obvious things and address other more important counterarguments instead..

You added instead and two periods to the end of a sentence that could have finished with a single period and no instead.

>>10753145
Because who they want to be is also part of who they are. Change is ok, and so is desiring change.

Of course I din;t mean totally disregarding societal norms like covering your mouth when you cough, but caring about people's opinion's who don't even know you personally and who attack your worldview: why bother?

>>10753193
Oh i missed the who for the know. Probably because who contains many of the same shapes as know and I just skipped the error out of habit.

>>10753193
This is pedantic. And not correct.

>>10753191
How bout you address some of my talking points instead of calling me a "brainlet" with a few more words like it's some pithy verbal finishing move?

>>10753202
>This is pedantic. And not correct.
Sorry, I'll delete my post and try again.

>>10753204
Pedantic and rude. Not relevant to the debate.

>>10753209
You could have just left your post up and this would have never happened. Spelling and grammar errors are a normal part of life. True pedantry would be for me to complain about the errors in the post you deleted unprompted.

>>10753203
I address arguments, not talking points. If you go for rhetoric, I'll go for the throat.

>>10753218
Sure, but you misread my post so your charge has no grounds.

>>10753223
>but you misread my post
I misread your post in your favor.

>>10753224
I'm not looking for any favor.

>>10753228
You came to /sci/ and posted about unrelated topics in a Solar roadways thread.

>>10753231
And?

>>10753219
>"MOM, I FINISHED HIM!"

Ok, well, I did make some arguments: Straightness isn't even ubiquitous in the wild, so it's not "more natural" (appeal to nature anyway).

I also gave you or someone advice to go make a society where only male and female is allowed to exist, I'm sure tons of people would join it. It's honest advice, far from rhetoric, I'm just speaking colloquially because I feel like I've been in this thread for about 500 centuries now.

And you're right, this isn't a discussion, because you're not giving me anything, just calling me stupid and not exchanging ideas of any sort.

>>10752865
>Marriage isn't a social construct.

Yes it is.

>It's a product of monogamy.

Wrong. Monogamy does not imply marriage and marriage doesn’t imply monogamy. Marriages could be polygynous, polyandrous, or some other kind of group marriage.

>inb4 monogamy is a social construct.

Partially. Humans were polygamous for most of our evolutionary history. Monogamy is a recent invention and most people don’t actually like it, since they cheat and remarry.

>>10751336
study fluid dynamics before you blurt nonsense
pumping loss through those skinny ass pipes is on the order of the energy gained by shitty insolation and pressure drop is proportionate to length. the energy is little and so low grade thatif you fuck your configuration up you're going to get no net energy.
>buhh you're crazy
oh of course that's why there are solar thermal everywhere!