/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12148581
too many distractions

>>12148586
the internet was made to bring knowledge to the people, and look what it has done to the cattle. no one would have predicted that

why did gangstalking, rape, and sexual torture increase 1000 fold in 2020?

>>12148581
Niggers

>>12148588
That's every powerful technology ever.
Fire - Few tried to used it to cook and to fight wolves, many used it just burning people and things
Blades and pointy stuff - Few used it to cut hard stuff, many used it to stab people and scratch things
Wheel - Few used it to move stuff, many used it to smash into people and things at higher speed
Nuclear fission - Few tried to produce "unlimited" energy, many used it in that other way
Interned - For every person trying to put it at good use, there are x100 millions of assholes who use it to shitpost, spread fake news and propagate scat fetish videos
TL;DR : In case you didn't notice, most people are too stupid for technology. The more powerful the tech, the stupider the misuse

>>12148606
I agree with most of the points except the wheel part is a stretch.

>>12148581
All the pre WW2 scientists died out, and post WW2 intellectualism is dominated by sociologists.

>>12148581
It only moved from the US/Europe to China.

Medical science and nanofabrication is waaaaay fucking better nowadays. The '00s is considered a medical decade, because that's where the money was.
Also the fact that you say QM is a joke while using a machine constructed with millions of transistors tells me you're a fucking joke. Get a fucking clue dude, read a book.

>>12148581
It hasn't, it's just the easily profitable options have largely halted which is why to normals it seems like it's just recycling old stuff, like with phones and computers and such.
This is what our mode of production incentivices. Under another mode we wouldn't have this.

>>12148606
>TL;DR : In case you didn't notice, most people are too stupid for technology.
It's because of sex.
When people fight each other, it's usually for sex, because unlike hunger, thirst, etc, sexual competition is a zero sum game.
Success in sexual competition isn't based on a fixed bar, but on what you have relative to what others have, and the result is continuously escalating competition with no upper bound.
You don't magically become thinner if other people start eating more than you, but you do become less attractive, lower status, etc if other people overtake you in attractiveness, status, etc, creating a dynamic where everyone needs to keep up with everyone else.
This is also why all successful societies independently evolved sexual taboos - the internal division created by unregulated sexual competition means the society either needs to keep conquering neighbors to maintain a positive influx of women, or the society stagnates due to internal competition, until another more internally unified (ie more monogamous) society eventually conquers it.

>>12149649
>This is what our mode of production incentivices. Under another mode we wouldn't have this.
Yet nobody has ever been able to experimentally verify the stability of other modes on the production side.
The system in effect in China, even under Mao, was officially capitalism, as was that in the USSR under Stalin, hence the "not real communism" meme.

What has been proven to exist, and has been proven to regulate excess consumption, are alternative modes of consumption.
Consumerism is profitable because demand side limiters have been deconstructed, largely by the same people claiming to oppose "capitalism".
Most of what we call "social conservatism is really just anti consumerism.
Traditional family structures exist to limit demand, via high trust sharing, and via inheritance. Deconstructing them means more consumption.
Redistribution takes from savers (low consumption) and gives to spenders (high consumption) increasing consumption.
Casual sex creates boundless competition, tying reproduction to competitive consumption.
Etc, etc.

Regulating production has only ever turned capitalism into state capitalism = a later stage version of the same mode of production.
Regulating demand is what meaningfully changes the economic landscape, and is how all societies independently evolved to deal with scarcity.

The entire reason societies historically evolved family structures, borders, sexual taboos, property laws, etc during times of scarcity is because these limit consumption.

>>12149680
This is an interesting take but I think you're lacking in your theoretical education.
Consumption is an important part of the equation but it is secondary and limited by production. Production is the base of society, and this leads necessarily to class analysis.
China and whatever other socialist experiment wasn't "not real socialism" nor was it "state capitalism": materialist philosophy doesn't have room for that sort of thinking anon. These degenerated workers states came from certain material conditions; when you combine a huge peasantry with a tiny working class and an even tinier educated working class, as you had in every example of a socialist experiment to date, you get the outcome of China, the USSR, etc. You get unbelievably incredible progress, surely, but not without political issues as these are the natural extension of the class basis you started with.
As these class conditions have completely flipped we have no reason to assume a socialist Canada or America or wherever would be anything like the USSR or China at any point of its development.
The best way to go is changing the mode of production.

>>12149652
I don't think about any of that weird shit you just typed out incel and don't put much effort into looking for women, but I still have sex.

>>12149680
Which book do you read that in? One of Houellebecqs?

>>12150081
Not even Marxists take classical Marxism seriously anymore. The base, superstructure, ideas are completely unfalsifiable as well.

Monogamy not being as popular isn't the reason you are not having sex. If you are a virgin honestly you shouldnt ever mention anything about sex in any discourse you write because you will just make a fool out of yourself.

capitalism rotting out academia, forcing researchers to write 100 inconsequential meme papers a year to stay employed, and incentivizing them to leave all that BS behind to make bank writing fart apps in silicon valley instead of doing meaningful research.

>>12150104
>Not even Marxists take classical Marxism seriously anymore.
Source? The only Marxists I can think of who don't are Harvey and Wolff.
The ideas of "classical Marxism" are rapidly growing -- in my country, Canada, the best of the parties and organizations which were previously outlawed have been doubling in size yearly.
>The base, superstructure, ideas are completely unfalsifiable as well.
Welcome to philosophy of history. We have to go with what makes the most sense and Marx's ideas are the ones -- unless you have a better alternative you'd like to pitch.

>>12150191
>Welcome to philosophy of history. We have to go with what makes the most sense and Marx's ideas are the ones -- unless you have a better alternative you'd like to pitch.
The current one, with a full end to non-white migration and forced deportations.

>>12150196
>The current one

>>12150203
What's wrong with the current one? I can't recall there ever being a better system, and I for sure don't want to tear it down for some unscientific ideological babble, whose practical application from theory to practice has failed miserably in comparison. The best system is the one that is the least ideological. That's liberalism, but as it stands it's being subverted in key cultural insitutions by what are best described as Gramscian radicals.

>>12148581
because you were born in the 90s and have to actually wait through all the boring parts instead of just skipping through a book and only looking ta the big breakthroughs

>>12150196
So much this.

Maybe each iteration increases in difficulty, and the current level of difficulty to make an advancement simply does take lifetimes of work. This can be offset by increased access to knowledge, but I think the increase in difficulty has created a seemingly insurmountable precipice.

Hell, it takes years of schooling just to get you started in mathematics and science and catch you up to enlightenment era shit. Then it requires years of further education just to uncover all the modern era has done.

>>12150214
I was asking which philosophy of history you would propose we go with for our analysis anon, not preferred system.
Capitalism is definitely the best we've had by-and-large, but if you don't think the USSR aproved the effectiveness of socialism I think you should educate yourself. The USSR went from the most backward country in Europe to the global #2 and first nation in space over mere decades. Read the first couple chapters of Revolution Betrayed by Trotsky, he gives a rundown of the numbers. Don't get me wrong, the USSR was awful in its own regard, but surely you can abstract the power of socialism, especially when implemented with different starting conditions, yes?
Even though the experiments of history were doomed to fall to bureaucracy by their starting conditions they still won in terms of scientific progression and quality of life despite being huge underdogs. That's gotta say something.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
It's also worth noting that security you have in capitalism is crumbling rapidly due to its own intrinsic contradictions.

>>12150191
>We have to go with what makes the most sense and Marx's ideas are the ones
whatever, retard

>>12150234
*by in large the best in terms of historical epochs -- it shits on slavery and feudalism is what im saying

>>12150234
>Trotsky
>Listen to these numbers conveyed by this trustful individual who happens to be jewish

ok noob

>>12150234
I'm a big Soviet buff in terms of their scientific and engineering achievements, but none of that is down to communism specifically. If you get a bunch of scientists together and throw money at them, maybe threaten them with severe repurcussions, then you'll get something done. But this also has downsides as all research is decided by central authorities within the poltical system. This is why the USSR was so far behind in computing, the Soviet leaders didn't fully understand its importance. They had the research for it in the 50/60s but it fell under the rug. Same thing happened with stealth technology. Soviets had the research for that in the 60s, but the leadership didn't see its value and it got published into a non-classified journal. The Americans took, translated it into English, and gave it Lockheed. They used it for their stealth fighter/bomber programs. Much of the early factory output that trotsky references was funded by Western and American capitalists, something which Trotsky ommits. The ingenuity of soviet communism only lasted a few decades and got drowned out in complacency and corruption. That's because for a communist system to work people need to believe in it ideologically. What happened was that by the late 1970s nobody believed in it, but people went along with it because that's what you did. Meanwhile corruption and thievery were the norm. You wanted to see your doctor? You bring him a gift if you want to see him quicker. Want your child to get better grades? You bring gifts to your child's teacher. Entire underground economies rose up with factory managers chopping numbers from the production sheet and selling the rest for personal profit. It was a mess by the end. My family lived through it in one of the better, higher achieving Soviet satalite states

>>12148581
other than physics this is an unbelievably stupid take. hop off of /pol/ and keep up with current research

Just look up breakthroughs and discoveries since the 90s. Jesus Christ. I'm not going to do your research for you. But yes, lots of things have changed.

>>12150291
>keep up with current research
there is none, thats the point
throwing as much shit on the wall as possible, to see what sticks isnt refined enough to deserve the name research

>>12148581
Everything since 1998 has been a simulation.

>>12150657
what's the beef that you have to call the experiments being done "throwing shit at the wall"

>>12150274
>>12148581
Both the soviet union and western science, as well as many other things suffered psychopath takeover.
There are restrictions in place intended to make things work. Psychopaths don't care. A few far inbetween get punished. But in growing numbers, they start coperatimg against the honest people. Eventually, psychopaths start dictating what is right and what is wrong, people who inform others about their wrongdoings get called snitches, and "nobody believes" the original thing. (Even though the honest people are still in the clear majority, but psychopaths only associate with other psychopaths, so they live in their psychopath little bubble)
Over time, psychopaths take over officially, they become the authority and everything starts turning into shit, whatever was taken over becomes worthless and is abandoned as always having been useless, people must have been stupid to believe in such a thing.

The chinese figured out about two millenia ago how to avoid this problem but I guess the idea is too controversial even for 4chan.

>>12148588
>and look what it has done to the cattle. no one would have predicted that
lol

>>12151574
>The chinese figured out about two millenia ago how to avoid this problem but I guess the idea is too controversial even for 4chan.
?

>>12148588
>the cattle
Says the grazing cow.

>>12151713
Killing in vengeance is not a crime. Most psychopaths got themselves killed, because they couldn't care less about harming others. Was AFAIK the law in China all the time from Han to Qing dynasty.

>>12148581
The jews took control of the west.
Once liars control adademia, nothing of substance can be produced anymore.

>>12150274
They also abolished genetics research because they feared it would lead people to question marxism. Ironically, doing this was a major contributor to the famines that people now use to reject marxist economics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>12148581
More athiests. Athiests can't be inspired by god. Therefore there is less innovation.

>>12152271
Game theory supports communism.

>>12152358
No it doesn't lmao. If it was a Nash equilibrium it wouldn't have crashed and burned like the flaming pile of shit that it was.
All you faggots arguing over abstract theories of government and philosophy are wasting your time. These retarded political frameworks can't even start off correctly because their axioms about human nature are fucked up. None if them take genetics and evolutionary stable stragies into account. None of them understand power laws in production and markets. All these old frameworks need to die and stay dead because they're used by verbally fluent propagandists to manipulate you retards into believing nonsense. We need a new theory, not a shit rehash of something made for people with average IQ of 80. Kill nigs lmao.

>>12148588
why do you think knowledge was kept from the common man for so long? the ancients knew

>>12148589
>gangstalking

Bake your bread

Why do think that technology should continually be progressed? Have you not considered that itsblikely that we have gotten close to what we are able to achieve and that is why it is slowing down? Stop reading too many sci fi books. There is no promise that it will be possible to continue technological progress at the same pace we saw in the 20th century.

>>12152421
Tot for tat is the best known strategy and it is communism. It assumes no nature and genetics, those with other than tit for tat genetics get weeded out. Exactly as game theory confirms, the main problem of other strategies, like capitalusm/individualism is that they incur massive costs for internal conflicts unless there are eniugh tit for tats to exploit. So TTT(communism) always wins in the end.

>>12152421
Tit for tat is the best known strategy and it is communism. It assumes no nature and genetics, those with other than tit for tat nature or genetics get weeded out. Exactly as game theory confirms, the main problem of other strategies, like capitalism/individualism is that they incur massive costs for internal conflicts unless there are enough tit for tats to exploit. So TTT(communism) always wins in the end.

>>12152421
Tit for tat is the best known strategy and it is communism. It assumes no nature and genetics, those with other than tit for tat nature or genetics get weeded out. Exactly as game theory confirms, the main problem of other strategies, like capitalism/individualism is that they incur massive costs for internal conflicts unless there are enough non tit for tats to exploit. (Such as the foolish "turn the other cheek" "golden rule" introduced by christianity) So TTT(communism) always wins in the end.