/sci/ - Science & Math

I predict we'll have replicators, like in star trek.
I've said this since a while ago, but recently there was some 3D printer that actually made shapes with chocolate.
We're getting there!

There will be only 1 religious viewpoint
We will discover ET's
Technology will advance 4x what it is now

WWIII breaks loose. Half the world will be destroyed. Humans decide to forgo all troubled past and build a new world without nation or weapons.

I predict people will become even more open minded in good ways.

I predict virtual sex everywhere in 40 years.

I predict wifes beating husbands with new robotic arms. =(

I predict totally awesome looking games with no story whatsoever for awhile then when graphics improvement slows down story lines become the basis for a good game.

I predict that none of those ever popular doomsday scenerios will happen, but medical technology will greatly prolong human life. At that point, my lifetime could become pretty long. People will start planning in the long term, since they'll actually be around to see the consequences, and this will solve many social problems. Furthermore, it will lead to expansion of space infrastructure as people will be motivated by the prospect of seeing the benefits. Eventually, hopefully, I can get off this rock and out there where destiny is calling.

Maybe that thinking is *slightly* wishful, but I really do believe that advances in medicine will have much more far-reaching implications than people realize and within my lifetime.

>>2280436

Solar panels, solar panels everywhere. Brain uploads for the rich. Ensuing enslavement of non-uploaded people. Revolution of non-uploaded people against the uploadeds. They stew in cyberspace on protected networks, full of impotent rage. Nuclear fusion finally gets off its duff and works for us.

>>2280436
We will gradually be forced into total servitude of the politico-ecconomic elite.

all scientific progress will be to expensive to afford for normal people/serfs. so for us progress will stop.

The elite will buy all kinds of "augments" and live forever and just use us as working livestock.

"terror"laws and surveillance will make revolution impossible.

welcome to eternal hell

>>2280456
Wishful thinking maybe but I still like the thought that we might mature some on the whole.

It's gonna be roughly the same, just with advances in technology and science

>>2280462
Thing is, elites you fear so much have no real motivation to act as you describe. What is the point? Their superior ability would enable them to design much more efficient robotic labourers. Progress has tended to make labour less scarce, even in modern times.

The difference between realism and cynicism is frequently that realists ask that you imagine people behaving badly when they have strong motivations (usually rooted in scarcity), whereas cynics just ask that we imagine that everyone's an asshole for no good reason.

point is you dont feel really rich and successful unless you have some really poor fucker to compare with.

Also the main reason to keep us alive is not only for labour, but as a herd of consumers so that they can keep getting richer.

>>2280498

If we have techno-overlords, we really won't be living in quite the same economy as you're imaging.

For a start, it would be a post-scarcity, information driven existence. The whole idea of slaves, consumer drones and oppressed minorities would make as much sense to the people of the future as if we were to start enslaving chimpanzees to fling poo at a wall.

>Fresh water becomes much more scarce, but the process of desalination becomes much easier and practical, so not really as big of a deal
>fiercely enforced doctrine of having one or less children due to overpopulation
>Muslims conquer Europe, hopefully go through their own Renaissance and stop their retarded quarrels
>Some flying cars, but will still run (float) over current highways & interstates, because of how dangerous they can be when they malfunction in the sky
>limited nanotechnology, progressing rapidly
>mixed races unify into a singular ethnicity per region/ country (average)

From the perception of an idiot

>>2280516
there wont be any post-scarcity, at least not for us.

and if there was... they would probably just decide to kill us all as they have no use for us and want more space to play.

Faster Computers
Smaller/better gadgets (smartphones, labtops, touchscreens, etc)
Continuing globalization of the world, Africa better, but still a bad place to live
Medical advancements, human trial stem cells, newer treatments
Land on Mars

>>2280546
>they would probably just decide to kill us all as they have no use for us and want more space to play.

That's circular logic. You say that if we arrived at a post-scarcity condition "they" (I always wonder how social classes get to be so unified and monolithic in these hypotheticals) will kill us all because they want more space (In other words, because space is scarce).

As to killing us just because they have no use for us, is that really an expected human behaviour? Consider the other animal species. We have no use for most of them, but this hasn't led us to kill them all. In fact, although we've put pressure on some species, most of that is traceable to scarcity (we want resources that are being occupied by the animals). By your logic, we should have already deliberately killed most animal species on earth for no other reason than they provide us no benefit.

Neo-feudalism, then I could see techno barbarians.

>>2280613

A World Made by Hand by James Howard Kunstler.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/review/2847/

>>2280603
if i was in the elite, i would sure kill all of you. why expect anything other from "them".

Also understand that "them" does NOT refer to a cohesive group that conspire to gain world supremacy.

"them" is just a loosely connected group of people who in order to preserve their own privileges act selfishly. However due to their influence and habit of protecting each other the effect becomes similar to that of a conspiracy. Conspiracies thus are not necessary (and highly overrated).

>>mfw Aliens come back at 2012.

>>2280627
Hello Anonymous psychopath.

Inurdaes was right all along!
>zomg

>>2280448
basically this

>>2280436
my senses predict more fags

like you

OP is a fag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

I have a seeking suspicion the 'L' variable in Drake's equation is often less than a couple hundred earth-years in length.

>>2281386

>Grey Goo
>my face when there are still retards out there who think nanotech is about tiny fantasy robots

Transhumanism. So pretty much anything can happen within my lifetime.

The coming generations will care nothing for science or mathematics and when we get old we'll have to rely on a bunch of LOL NOOB EPIC FOR TEH WIN =P kiddies to take care of us, but they won't.

Best case scenario is we'll be abducted by aliens to be made into zombie xenomorphic sex slaves. Will be a proud day for earth.

Peak oil, religious fundamentalism, everything as it was in the medieval ages except with more guns and the ultrarich will have electric lighting. It's gonna be a grand old time.

>>2281403
That's not much of a counter argument. Did you come over from /b/?

>>2281439

No, not particularly, but I suggest you go here:

http://www.molecularassembler.com/
http://thenanoage.com/

It will clear your doubts. A molecular assembly will look like a drawer-sized box, like a microwave, with a diamond plate at the bottom and a sealed door to protect the vacuum inside.

You can't mount a molecular assembler on a 'nanobot' because:

- Energy from where? Batteries? Not at that scale. Molecular motion? Good luck.
- Where do you plan to put the waste heat? Outside? You will be safe from grey goo, then, because it will just fry itself.
- hurr durr nanoscale works just like macroscale right durp

>Meat eating less common, outlawed in places as a matter of ethics and not religion
>Religion diminishes, finds new niche (mythologies wane)
>+20 year lifespan
>Space tourism
>No aliens/AI (feelsbadman)
>More liberated sexuality, less marriage

I'm pretty confident about most of these actually.

>>2281452
>I assure you, it's totally safe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law

>>2280436

as you may or may not have noticed, the world's elite (rich, powerful...) have been soaking up all the money on the planet.

this same group does NOT want to go into space because that opens up whole new vistas for money and power (and may not include them), so they restrict "moeny and power" grabbing to this planet only.

at some point, the rich and powerful realize that all us "breeding eaters" are using up THEIR resources and develop a strain of something that will kill the bulk of the earth's population, thus ridding the powerful of all us useless eaters.

they'll keep slaves of course - probably lots of brown ones considering what's being allowed to happen to the world's population mix (borders have been 'opened' allowing brown slaves into all countries - strange this phenom happens all around the world, huh?

>>2281462

>Ignores everything

You realize Grey Goo is not the only threat that can come from nanotechnology, right? Grey Goo is impossible because of basic fucking thermodynamics, cookie-cutters not so much.

>>2281469

"Immortality has been sought after for as long as humans have been sufficiently self aware to appreciate the concept of death. Advancements in modern medicine and nutrition have greatly extended the average human lifespan, and genetic engineering seems poised to increase it ever further. While these endeavors seek to repair the highly complex and fragile biological mechanism, advances in supercomputing and nanotechnology will completely render improvements on carbon-based life obsolete. The transference of consciousness to a far more reliable silicon substrate will not only allow for effective immortality, but also for hyper-intelligence and the ability to effortlessly extend and replicate one’s sense of self indefinitely. It is the promise of immortality that will most likely drive the development of technology to the extent necessary to trigger the Singularity. While there are hundreds of public and private research departments all over the world actively working to develop these technologies, there can be no doubt a number of clandestine labs exist as well. As the ultra-wealthy individuals in the world collectively age, they are left staring at their own rapidly approaching mortality. While billions of dollars of private research money could conceivably put these labs on par with their public counterparts, it is the unfettered access to an effectively unlimited number of human test subjects that will propel them to their goals in advance of everyone else. As such, it seems likely the first Trans-Humans will be unwilling test subjects abducted from Chinese or Indian slums, quickly followed by some of the wealthiest people on earth."

String theory turns out to be completely turn

>>2281462

Except it can't go wrong because the universe does not work that way.

>>2281485

Please don't tell me you're quoting Charles Stross or Vernor Vinge.

>>2281455
>meat eating outlawed

How about you gargle my balls instead?

>>2281487
Yeah, we've all heard that before.

>>2281491
Neither. It does seem obvious to me though, that the ultra-wealthy have both the motive and means (more so than other humans) to radically extend their lives. I'd find it very odd if this weren't the case.

>>2281513

>Typical nanotech-fearing Creationist Glenn Beck-swallowing fucktard who shouldn't be on /sci/

Yeah, the media also said nuclear weapons would ignite the Hydrogen in Earth's oceans.

It didn't happen. Grey Goo won't happen either. Global warming won't be an ELE either. Nothing will happen on 2012. Asteroids won't hit the Earth because we can blow them all up to smithereens.

>>2281537
Seething anger and profanity really elevates the status of this board. Thank you for your contributions.

>>2281537

>>Asteroids won't hit the Earth because we can blow them all up to smithereens.

Actually we can't. We have nothing sufficiently potent to break up an asteroid into fragments small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. The best we could hope for with the most powerful nuclear weapons developed to this point (the original 100 megaton tsar bomba design for instance, later scaled down to 50 megatons prior to use) would be to fracture the asteroid such that we're struck with the exact same kinetic energy but over a larger area.

The only technology we've ever developed with the potential to totally obliterate a KT scale asteroid is the Orion pulsed nuclear vessel design with which you're doubtless already familiar. If turned into a weapon it would have the capacity to, by sheer kinetic force (and possibly a compound nuclear warhead the size of a skyscraper) shatter/melt/deflect the asteroid so thoroughly that it no longer presents a threat.

Think of it as a big damn bullet fired from an Earth shaped gun.

>>2280456
Pre-med student here.
>but medical technology will greatly prolong human life.

Greatly? No. Possible? Highly HIGHLY unlikely. Most of the public thinks we'll somehow live up until the age of 150 or so, as long as you're under the age of 40. Wrong. We definitely have had great medical advances in the last 30 years that have made living life more comfortable, but we've barely scratched the surface when it comes to living any longer than 100 years. I highly doubt the average lifespan increases by even 10 years within our lifetimes. Maybe in our great-grandkids lifetime, but not in our own.

>>2281565
This guy is clearly a troll, an idiot, or both. Just ignore him.

>>2281537
You know blowing up a space rock really won't help, sure some of the smaller pieces will burn up but it's like exchanging a rifle round coming at you for buck shot instead, it's still gonna fuck you up.

>>2281577
>>2281582
>>2281565

>durp

>A new study has injected new life into the old idea of dealing with a potentially threatening space rock by nuking it. The new analysis suggests that a nuclear blast could safely destroy even a relatively large asteroid. And astronauts wouldn't need to bore deep into the space rock, á la Bruce Willis and his crew in the movie "Armageddon," to implant the bomb. An explosion on the asteroid's surface would likely do the trick, scientists report.
>"It would be blown to smithereens," said study lead author Bob Weaver of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, who presented the findings here Dec. 13 at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hazardous-asteroid-nuclear-blast-101213.html

>>2281509
Good argument. Take your shit to /b/

>>2281588

I stand corrected, I suppose I must've been relying on outdated information.

Nonetheless as a rule of thumb you need a bigger boom to destroy a bigger rock. At a certain scale, only a weaponized orion vessel would do.

>>2281576
You've clearly not read the latest publications. Regardless, as mentioned above, much of the most promising research is most likely privately funded and not released for general consumption.

>>2281588
the best plan is to change it's trajectory slightly, not nuke it.

>>2281597

Well, of course: Something moving at 750 kips should do the trick and dust anything of average size.

Deflecting might be doable. Decelerating it or putting it into another orbit altogether is absolutely out of the question.

>>2281537
>>2281551

>>2281455
>Meat eating less common, outlawed in places as a matter of ethics and not religion

I think meat will be produced from genetically modified animals with no central nervous system. This will satisfy the ethical concerns of many people.

>>2281588
>500m asteroid
>500kt nuke

I hope they've since run some more simulations with bigger rocks, different rocks, shaped charges and so on and so forth.

>Meat eating less common, outlawed in places as a matter of ethics

I doubt very much that most of the world let alone the U.S. would outlaw meat eating just because some people would much rather eat a fucking leaf. Enjoy passing trying to outlaw any sort of meat product when you have food companies waiting to slit your throat or put a bullet in between your eyes for trying to pass something so ludicrous.

What are you twelve? If the world works like YOU think it would, the owners of the oil companies would be pan handling right now because fully electric cars have been out for awhile now.

>Meat eating less common, outlawed in places as a matter of ethics

I doubt very much that most of the world let alone the U.S. would outlaw meat eating just because some people would much rather eat a fucking leaf. Enjoy trying to outlaw any sort of meat product when you have food companies waiting to slit your throat or put a bullet in between your eyes for trying to pass something so ludicrous.

What are you twelve? If the world works like YOU think it would, the owners of the oil companies would be pan handling right now because fully electric cars have been out for awhile now.

>>2281641
What if I want an animal to die for my meal?

>>2281683
Yep, its possible
>>2281641
I don't think the US would do it any time soon, because they seldom are the first to initiate social change. There is legitimate ethical concerns, and if you can't get over your 'hurr durr i liek bacon ur a pussy if u dont' mindset, I feel bad for you.

>>2281576
>Pre-med student here.

Are you also an artificial intelligence researcher? A biotech researcher? Know anything about materials science, either?

No, thought not. Stop indulging yourself in the fallacy of authority. You have no idea how biotechnology will progress over the next few decades, indeed I doubt even the leading researchers have a complete idea, because the first thing any respectable academic does is confirm the great level of uncertainty in their field.

Outright dismissing the possibility of lifespan increases pretty much puts you in the /b/ tier level of academics.

Back to school.

My predictions are limitless because I believe that clinical immortality is only a few decades away.

Just recently researchers were able to actually make old rats young again by finding a way to regenerate the caps found at the end of genes. I can't remember what they're called. Their brain size grew, they became fertile again, grey hair regained color, metabolism returned to a youthful level..

Oddly enough they would still die of old age, even with an effectively youthful body. Still, this shows just how close we are.

>>2281701

They're called Telomeres.

There is legitimate ethical concerns, and if you can't get over your 'hurr durr i liek bacon ur a pussy if u dont' mindset, I feel bad for you.

> I enjoy the taste of meat and many people don't have problems with animals being slaughtered for food. Just because some people dislike an animal being killed doesn't mean suddenly that everybody will. What an "ethical"problem to one person may not be to most of the population.

>>2281715
>> I enjoy owning slaves and many people don't have problems with sub humans being used for labor. Just because some people dislike an animal being forced into labor doesn't mean suddenly that everybody will. What an "ethical"problem to one person may not be to most of the population.

>>2281715
>Then here's the solution, eat what you want.

FUUUUUUCUCCCCCKKKK MAN THAT'S A CRAZY AND RADICAL THOUGHT MAAAANNNN

I wanna eat meat, then I'll happily eat meat, you don't wanna, then don't, no problems were created this day and everyone was happy and went about their daily business.

>>2281722

I didn't know that cows and chickens were used to pick cotton and other cash crops along with build many architectural wonders. I'm amazed that we're killing off such a valuable asset to society.

Nice job trying to equate slavery to eating animals even though theyre two completely different things. I'm amazed how retarded the arguments are that vegans give trying to justify that their way of eating is somehow more morally correct.

Did you know that the shit you're eating was alive at one time too? You fucking plant killer. The lettuce and vegetables you eat are grown in huge warehouses and ripped from the ground and thrown into machines where they are chopped up into small pieces and canned or packaged so your filthy vegan lips can taste of their succulent juices. How dare you kill anything alive. What kind of morals do you have when you could be eating a rock?

There will be a huge knowledge divide. Technology will advance rapidly and the average person will be able to interact with it, but not understand it in a meaningful way. This will also lead to the average person not being able to grasp the new political and moral issues that arise from the new technology. Most voters won't have a clue about these issues - much worse than today. Political gridlock and stupidity will be much worse. The stupid people will turn to religion. There will be techo-activists.

>>2281726
So I should be allowed to set kittens on fire, if I want?

>>2281743
>Implying I'm a vegan
Plants don't feel pain, and humans cannot get sustenance from nonliving organisms. Slavery is far worse than meat eating, but I'm making a point about how social change works.

>>2281747
Nah not really, I don't really understand how a lot of technology works, just the very basics of electricity really but I don't know about the emergent phenomena of materials that allow for advanced shit like memory storage on hard drives and the like.

But hey I still know that technology is never a problem or threat, it's just it's appliances that can be hazardous, but still that doesn't mean the technology should be constrained.

>>2281773
> but still that doesn't mean the technology should be constrained.

Never said it should be.

>>2281764
Nah, cause that's causing unnecessary pain for the kitteh.

Most slaughterhouses kill animals fast with a pneumatic bolt to he brain stem, either way I don't care about an animals pain, I care about prolonged suffering.

>>2281780
Ok, stomping a kittens brains out.

Also, factory farming ensures suffering. And we fuck up the death penalty, where the objective is to avoid suffering and everyone watches.

Killing =/= Humane in 99% of circumstances.

>So I should be allowed to set kittens on fire, if I want?

Good job using fallacies

>but I'm making a point about how social change works.

Let me know when you decide to do that.

>>2281779
No I know, not saying that you did, just that people place their fear of technology being misused above the freedom to make use of the technology.

Just a little side note really, nothing meant by it.

>>2281715
> There is legitimate ethical concerns

We better stop those mean wolves from killing deer.
Wolf = murderer

>>2281747
Managing the privacy setting on Facebook is beyond the capabilities of some people.

Once reasonably good AI is developed, it can help guide these people through life, but it will also be able to manipulate them in major ways.

>>2281788
Oh wow, killing isn't always humane, fucking straw man if I ever saw one.

There's a difference between killing an animal for meat and killing a person for retribution and vengeance, one is based off a primal drive of hunger, the other is an emotional drive for justice and payback.

Try again.

The laws of physics are laws, everything else (including morality) are just opinions. Might makes right - deal with it.

Instead of sticking to eating animals, I suggest we gengineer plants that have muscles and nervous systems and are able to feel pain and scream.

And that they can be eaten raw.

>>2281641
or created in labs, in-vitro meat

>>2281789
Argue with me, or don't. Just stop pretending that calling me retarded invalidates my points.
>>2281794
>Takes ethical cues from wolves.

>>2281804
>There's a difference between killing an animal for meat and killing a person for retribution and vengeance

Not really, at least not in the grand scheme of things.

>>2281788
Maybe the future will bring more emphasis on humane treatment of animals. And humane ways to raise an kill animals for food.

>>2281820
Problem for you is, my perspective takes emotions and drives into account.

Dude, really get perspective, the "grand scheme of things" is useless if you don't maintain a personal perspective.

Either way, I'm still gonna consume animals like a E-head pops pills.

>>2281830
>Problem for you is, my perspective takes emotions and drives into account.

That sounds more like a problem for you than it is for me. I guess my point was that they're all just meat-sacks and they're either moving about or they aren't.

>>2281804
I agree. There are differences. But I think meat eating is unethical under this logic:
P1: Needless suffering is wrong, in all animals
P2: Meat consumption promotes suffering in animals
P3: Meat consumption is not necessary for human survival
Conclusion: Meat eating is unethical.

Which premise do you disagree with, and why?

>>2281839
Not a problem for me, I can see distinct different forms of killing, some are fine and some aren't, all depends on the methods and purposes, I can happily let animals get killed as long as I'm getting some delicious muscle and flesh at the end of it.

Thread ruined by vegans vs. normal people. I'm hiding this shit.

>>2281841
>suffering is wrong
Prove it. See:
>>2281807

If we can eat animals without them suffering more than they would in a natural setting, what is the problem?

Of course some factory farm animals do suffer a lot today, but that condemnation of factory farming doesn't mean that eating meat in and of itself is bad.

>>2281841
>P3: Meat consumption is not necessary for human survival

But it is necessary for me to get ripped.

>>2281844
Again, I think you've failed to see my point. I would have no more ethical issue eating you than I would any other animal or plant.

>>2281841
> P1: Needless suffering is wrong, in all animals

Based on this, humans should not have children, because all people will experience some suffering in their life - physical or emotional.

>>2281847
Which is to say, ethics aren't real. Which is to step outside this argument. Fine.

>>2281848
No, just makes it harder.
It is very difficult to kill something without suffering, and it is impossible to ensure non-suffering.

>>2281849

>>2281849
You can get protein from lots of sources. And no, I wasn't intending to be funny.

>>2281849
No, just makes it harder.

Correction.

>>2281819

Everybody has been waiting for you to prove any point what-so-ever. All you've accomplished is going off topic and using arguments with analogies that deter from the main point. You've yet to state WHY you think that eating less meat is better and how for thousands of years man has survived pretty damn well on a diet of both meat and vegetables. Why don't you try actually validating your reason for a belief that less meat will be eaten and why ethical issues are being brought up instead of avoiding the main issue?

There are many more people who aren't going to see a problem with slaughtering of animals and yet you have a personal vendetta against it? Why not though are you faltering in your crusade to turn people against meat besides morality which usually comes down to ones own opinion on the subject matter.

If you're going to use an example of slavery even, the problem is that some people may find slavery as O.K. so its YOUR job as well to try and disprove that it is with concrete evidence that don't involve morals and it is the other person's job as well to refute your argument as to why its would be good.

You have yet to gain any ground concerning your own argument so please start.

>>2281859
Needless suffering. Reproduction is a basic need.

Anyone else?

>>2281841
Point 2 assumes that when you can an animal you try to maximise suffering and pain, A bolt to the back of the brain stem severs the connection to the body, animal is instantly killed, the brain feels no pain, and since the body is paralysed there is no pain to be felt.

As previously stated, try again.

>>2281866
> No, just makes it harder.
>It is very difficult to kill something without suffering, and it is impossible to ensure non-suffering.

Not buying it. If a hunter can, on average, kill a deer with the deer suffering less than it would by dying from a wolf attack or from starvation in the winter what is the fucking problem.

Killing a deer with a well placed shot might involve the least amount of suffering for the deer.

>>2281881
>Anyone else?
>>2281847

>Which is to step outside this argument. Fine.
...is a cop out.

>>2281891
My point exactly, an animal will suffer throughout it's life, bolt to the spine is actually quite pleasant as far as dying goes.

>>2281881
> Reproduction is a basic need.

No it absolutely fucking is not! Humans can choose to got extinct. There is no logical necessity for humans to have to exist. No logic contradiction is created by humans not having offspring.

Its impossible to know. This kind of uncertanity makes me uneasy, and I sometimes feel paralized by it. But I somehow overcome it, by selectively focusing on different things and forgetting others.

>>2281903
I'm sold, I'll take one.

>>2281879
Um what? Care to explain why slavery is wrong LOGICALLY? Its a matter of morals.

My job is to convince people that meat eating is wrong morally, so the practice will end.

I posted my reasoning, see >>2281841

That's it. If you have a problem with something specific, come at me.

Putting on my leather jacket to go out for a bacon cheeseburger...

>>2281910
A deer will sufer more at the hands of the wilderness than at human hands, if anything we save suffering, the get a good life, a steady supply of food and water, and in teh case of organic animals, a lot of space to move around and do their own thing with.

Very little suffering, then killed with a bolt to the spine to kill them, where's the suffering?

Now compare that to a deer being killed by being hit by a car, which will not die immediately but instead will likely suffer massive internal injuries, as it would with a pack of wolves or other wild predators attacking it, it would literally be eaten alive.

Your thought processes are flawed and biased, all thanks to some sort of guilt that sounds like it's caused by your species being higher in the food chain.

>>2281910
>That's it. If you have a problem with something specific, come at me.

>suffering is wrong
I don't believe this.

>>2281890
Even in ideal settings, the bolt to the brain errs and causes tremendous suffering. As stated before, we've failed to lethally inject people to death causing horrendous agony.

>>2281891
Hunting>Factory farming

>>2281898
No, its not. If you think ethics can't be argued and everything subjective, why are you arguing? Under your assumptions, this and all discussions involving morals are pointless.

>>2281904
Then there is no logical reason for survival. Right?

>>2281910
Not the poster, but I'll take a shot.

It's monetarily ineffective. U.S. corporations discovered a long time ago that it's a lot cheaper to pay a non-static set of workers a living wage than to not pay a static set of workers and have to support them. When you give wages, unless the workers unionize or the government steps in, YOU decide what that wage is. If a worker doesn't like that, you fire them and someone else will line right up to take their place. If they're a shitty worker, you fire them and someone else takes their place. If you have slaves and one of them revolts or is lazy, you either sell them (hard to do when they're undesirable), kill them (in which case you lose the investment), or deal with it (bad for the business). If a slave runs off, you lose the money you paid for them, if an employee runs off, you have no net loss.

Capitalists figured this one out a few hundred years ago, it took southern US farmers a long time after that to figured it out because slavery was so ingrained in human culture in general.

Suffering is an unavoidable part of life.

>>2281841
ethics and morality are relative therefore you're basis about outlawing meat eating is retarded because there is no completely right or wrong in moral and ethics.

>>2281945
whoops, i forgot one more point. It's cheaper to pay that living wage than to support a slave. Since you decide the employee's wages, you don't have to pay them enough if you don't want to and chances are they'll accept that unless they are guaranteed better pay elsewhere. If it's a slave, then you have to feed and clothe them or, again, you're out of an investment.

>>2281910

>Care to explain why slavery is wrong LOGICALLY? Its a matter of morals

Slavery is Wrong: People are used in sex trafficking which creates a lot of unwanted children. unwanted children have a tendency to lead a life of crime. John Donahue from Yale wrote a lengthy paper on the subject which showed that there is a correlation between abortion rates and crime activity. Increase in sex trafficking( sex slavery/prostitution) led to higher crimes rates when abortion within the area wasn't legalized.

Just like you I'll use some random analogy,but this time its actual evidence seeing as a physical problem has been created that affects everybody ie crime.

Slavery Right: Slavery in many cultures has been shown to dramatically increase the state of economies Take the Egyptians for example which used slavery very heavily and yet they were extremely advanced for their time.

Notice that nowhere did I point out peoples "moral dilemmas" and "feelings", but yet still proved my point. Come at me Bro

>>2281943
>Then there is no logical reason for survival. Right?

You are absolutely correct about this. Reproduction, living, and surviving are not the product of logic.

Survival is not based on logical necessity. It is based on desire. This desire may be biologically coded into us, but it is desire none the less.

In the end, this desire can not be satisfied. All things eventually die.

>>2281943
> Hunting>Factory farming

Hunting =/= Factory farming
Now you're just saying shit with no support at all.

>>2281576

>"In 1943, Thomas J Watson, President of IBM, >supposedly said "I think there is a world market for >maybe five computers". "

that is how dumb you sound

>>2281943
>Under your assumptions, this and all discussions involving morals are pointless.

Correct. Might makes right, as I mentioned before. My point is that as long as there are people that subscribe to this philosophy, others (that subscribe to a more restrictive philosophy) will continue to be subverted. That is the true law of nature. Your own desire to place subjective restrictions on yourself (and others) will only lead to your elimination, as it should be.

>>2281935
I don't believe that anyone eats meat to eliminate suffering for animals. There are instances in which consumption PREVENTS suffering, and you've outlined a few, but the vast majority causes additional pain and suffering. >>2281938
K. I think most disagree.
>>2281945
I never heard that perspective. Is it factual, or your theory?

>>2281943
>Even in ideal settings, the bolt to the brain errs and causes tremendous suffering. As stated before, we've failed to lethally inject people to death causing horrendous agony.

With death, there is always the risk of suffering. We should try to minimize that risk when we kill animals for food.

>>2281943

There is a huge difference between the lethal injection a bolt to the brain stem.

THe lethal injection relies on carefully measured chemicals, which will not always be capable of delivering a killer blow to a human thanks to differing metabolic rates, the weight and size of the subject, and how the body metabolises the chemicals.

Where as a bolt directly the brain stem WILL if placed correctly, kill anything.

>>2282014
Yup, lethal injection is a compromise - pretty likely to not cause suffering if done correctly and also not messy or bloody. The optimal method could be messy or bloody and they didn't want that.

>>2282036
Best method in my opinion would be an automated disembowlment crank.

Just have a pressure sensitive switch in place that activates the system, have a hook that pierces the abdomen and a sort of arcade machine claw that pulls out the intestines.

Hey presto everyone's happy, well except for the victim but yeah they don't matter.

>>2281841

For P1: Even though I mostly agree that suffering is unpleasant, it will sometimes teach you something. To that extent, I don't find suffering inherently bad. Im tempted to argue that suffering without reprieve is bad as it is debilitating assuming there is some way to stop it. So yes, I agree that needless suffering is bad.

Someone raised the point that many times, wild animals will suffer more and at a higher frequency when in the wild (hunting, hit by cars, disease, etc.). It isnt difficult to make it more comfortable for livestock in captivity than in the wild. Under those circumstances, P2 attenuates P1 and works against your conclusion.

P3 is actually OK. A lot of people like eating meat and it is a good source of protein among other things, but it is not necessary for survival.

tl;dr, I am not buying into your argument, try harder. (Hint: point out the resources keeping livestock requires)

I'm arguing with 5 people at once.

I'm reading up on abolition of slavery, and it looks like its ban in America was based on morals, specifically Quakers used religion to fight it.

>>2281995
Will lead to my elimination? Ok disregarding crazy threat.

>>2282014

I've literally seen the bolt miss the brain stem and cause trauma. The act of killing it is only half the debate anyway. The hormone injecting penned up for life part contribute to lifelong suffering.

>>2282008
Nope, we minimize cost.

>>2282071
> (Hint: point out the resources keeping livestock requires)

Most human endeavors are bad for the environment - mining, energy, plastics, etc.
If expending resources to maintain livestock is bad, so are most major human undertakings.

>>2282071
Wow, I disagree with you, but you have actually addressed a premise and argued. Thank you.

As I said before, I believe nature inflicts less pain on animals than our current methods. We would need a study to validate this.

>>2282081
>Will lead to my elimination? Ok disregarding crazy threat.

I, of course, meant this in the abstract sense. I doubt your daft enough to have interpreted it otherwise, so I can only conclude that you're (again) copping out and ignoring my point.

Suffice to say, any group or species that puts itself at a disadvantage due to some arbitrary rule deserves to go extinct.

>>2282071
There are three basic lines of reason against meat consumption: Ethics, Sustainability and Health.

Ethics concern me the most.

>>2282081
Then we create a more effective method, how about a wide blade that cuts clean through the spine into the neck.

And I agree, animals that are kept penned up and pumped full of hormones are treated badly, it's the reason I eat organic as much as possible.

Plus organic tastes better.

>>2282104
>You don't believe in morals
>You don't think society should impose morals
>You're in favor of Rape being illegal
>You're in favor of statutory rape being illegal
>You're in favor of animal cruelty being illegal
>You're in favor of regulatory practices on business
>You think stealing should be illegal

You now realize that you subscribe to literally thousands of arbitrary rules. Fortunately, your theory on extinction is false and you will survive, and maybe even have offspring.

>>2281455
>yfw all flourishing civilizations have relied on a mythology to progress and crumble when belief in said mythologies wane

>>2282110
I think that's a good start.

>>2282131
>You don't believe in morals
Correct.
>You don't think society should impose morals
Incorrect.
>You're in favor of Rape being illegal
Incorrect.
>You're in favor of statutory rape being illegal
Incorrect.
>You're in favor of animal cruelty being illegal
Incorrect.
>You're in favor of regulatory practices on business
Correct.
>You think stealing should be illegal
Correct.

I'm in favor of arbitrary rules that allow society to produce the things I desire. I'm in favor of rules that the majority follow, so as to give sociopathic behavior a clear advantage. Bankers and politicians have has this wrapped up for centuries, it's a pretty good gig.

i think if vegetarian food was cheaper/easier to obtain (ie vegetarian fast food) more people would become vegetarians. i know i would. i fuckin love animals, but i dont have the money or time to find vegetarian food.

>>2282138
>mfw no civilisation that has been religious (namely, all of them) have ever renounced religion and subsequently crumbled

>>2282163

>You're in favor of animal cruelty being illegal
Incorrect.

Why?

>>2282167
Its really easy. All my roommates/girlfriend eat meat, its almost no bother at all. Try to make it 7 weeks and then its habit.

>>2282169
USSR, Rome, etc

>>2282172
It's irrelevant to me. Rape on the other hand I have quite an interest in.

people won't exist like we do now. we will be our bodies first and foremost, which will be of a multitude of both organic and mechanical forms, and our 'minds' will be changed like clothes. there will be a 'root mind' which will be like what we think of ourselves, which will host/wear a large number of minds/personalities. but it will be an inconceivably vast intelligence compared to ourselves, like god.

there will be a lot less of these beings (like a couple million?), and their interactions will be very different from how we interact. not due to a lack of resource but due to a lack of logical need (the 'clothing' type personalities will not be duplicated anywhere, there will be many that are so alike as to be indiscernible but in a way the 'root'/'server'/'mega'/-minds/godheads will exist to serve the 'clothing' types)

basically at some point everyone will start transitioning to digital consciousness and then all the consciousnesses will be afloat on the internet, until eventually they start to clump together. and physical forms to interact with the 'real world' and the actual servers on which the new simulated world is hosted will become simpler and more refined.

this is the big picture, of course, it will be made up of lots of little things. rapid construction techniques (nanoassembly) will eventually become a new kind of organic life, which i think is what most of this will be (nanotech).

culture will survive and continue to thrive, but it will be so fast and absurd, so splintered and schizophrenic, it would appear almost static to us modern folks. like tv/radio sun static, if you step back far enough it just sounds like a continual tone over a gray screen. that's the future.

>>2282181

>Implying Catholicism did not exist
>Implying Stalin was not worshipped

>Egypt
>Greece
>Aztec
>Maori
>Babylon
>Atlantis
>Israel
>Persia

>>2282197
Capital letters, on the other hand, will have gone extinct.

>>2282185
I think you are a fucking outlier. A consistent outlier, but an outlier. But thank you for being vocal. You are correct under your premise. If you don't think animal cruelty is wrong, you should eat meat and enjoy it.

>>2282203
>Atlantis
Uh

>>2282131
>You now realize that you subscribe to literally thousands of arbitrary rules. Fortunately, your theory on extinction is false and you will survive, and maybe even have offspring.

Morality is a luxury of the civilized world, nothing more.

>>2282217
Agreed. Samefag arguing against meat, btw.

>>2282211
>I think you are a fucking outlier. A consistent outlier, but an outlier.
Well, that's kind of the point. It would never work otherwise.

>If you don't think animal cruelty is wrong, you should eat meat and enjoy it.
I don't go out of my way to cause suffering to animals (unlike my interactions with people) but I have no issues enjoying anything the world has to offer, regardless of its origin.

>>2282205
i'd say they were an early casualty of the digital text formats emphasis on speed above all else. but of course, in the future i describe, most or all communication will be in completely new formats that don't yet exist.

2015 - Russia gets stronger, starts pushing it's power around. A republican president has been voted in in the United States. Rising deficit levels in the US have stalled the economy and shit has started hitting the fan.

2020 - Mass riots in Europe in countries near bankruptcy accept hard cuts in pension, social security and rise of retirement age anger many. The increasing (fundamentalist) Muslim presence sets off a series of catastrophes caused be both sides. The US is in dire financial straits. China is rising as a superpower but now political instability between the exterior and more-impoverished interior threaten to tear the country apart again. Self-driving cars, trucks, buses and even planes are coming out onto the market.

2025 - Turkey and Brazil start to show their increasing power. Russia is now pushing to retake some of the former Soviet states. Belarus + Ukraine have already been absorbed. The United States is now considered by many, including it's own citizens of becoming an oppressive shithole. Self-driving vehicles have become more affordable and started displacing many former truck, cab, bus drivers and even pilots, causing a rise in unemployment around the developed world. A rise in alternative automated jobs also threatens many service sector jobs.

2030 - Because of the ever-decreasing price and increasing complexity of AI, they are now a common occurrence within shops stacking boxes or being cashiers and janitors. The EU goes through a massive cultural upheaval: either the (fundamentalist) Muslims concede and integrate, or a similar situation to the Inquisition will happen. Unemployment rises. Some formerly strong economies collapse. China fragments. However the advent of (primitive) medical nanobots now cure a plethora of diseases and even cancers. A primitive form of the molecular assembler is demoed. Japan begins designing their space elevator, for real.

Should I go on?

>>2282278
All the while, a small group claims a small landmass, creating a haven for the world's scientists to study in seclusion while the world tears itself apart.

>>2282278
>Russia gets stronger

Stopped reading right there.

>>2282285
~2040
And if the world is shit, and suddenly a near-utopia springs up, there is a very real chance some countries will want to implement a similar system.

>>2282278
I like this guy.

>>2282278
>Japan begins designing their space elevator
>mfw the US and the EU have both collapsed financially and yet Japan is somehow just fine.

>>2282290
Correction:
>And if the world is shit, and suddenly a near-utopia springs up, there is a very real chance most countries will want to destroy them.

>>2282290
>there is a very real chance some Muslims will come along and tear it down

fixed that for you

>>2282081
> Nope, we minimize cost.

But that doesn't mean we couldn't have a different system in the future that minimizes suffering instead. It also does not mean that all meat today is produced to minimize cost.

>>2282306
>>2282301
But the small country will win, with science.

>>2282301
Unlikely. Most people will be very unhappy with their government and situation. Bloody revolutions would be quite probable, unfortunately.

>>2282300
Japan will most likely be feeding of the spoils of the former Chinese states and utilizing undersea mining. Sure they'll be poorer but because Japan was traditionally a closed society they'll survive, more or less. A space elevator would mean investments anyway, and asteroid mining.

2020: the Internet is fucking everywhere.
2030: Transhumanism is beginning to take off.
2050: People head for the stars. Medicine is sufficiently advanced such that anyone healthy need not die.
2100: Medicine can now protect brains from degenerating. Not only do you never die, but you never become mad.
2100: We live now occupy more than one planet. Our eggs are not in one basket, so to speak. The human race survives.

That's if we can make it to 2100. Be optimistic, please.

>>2282314
>MUSLIMS ATTACK
>But the small country will win, with ethnic cleansing

ftfy

>>2282278
Inurdaes, are you getting this from the timeline website?

>>2282310
>It also does not mean that all meat today is produced to minimize cost.

Virtually every product is designed and or manufactured in a way to maximize profit. While there are rare exceptions, I doubt meat is one of them.

>>2282327
It's down
>>2282323
We will (probably) not take an aggressive stance. Threats to citizens and our infrastructure, however, will be dealt with swiftly.

anyone here read Brave New World? i think the future will bring us closer to that utopia.

>>2282328
Note that I said that "It also does not mean that ALL meat today is produced to minimize cost."

As long as even one producer is putting something before minimum cost, the statement is true. SO, if free range chicken costs more than factory farm chicken, it's true.

>>2282314
"and thousands upon thousands of filthy wretches surged forth only to be vaporized in a blinding flash of light"

>>2280436
By 2050: China has absorbed North Korea, Euro loses competitiveness and the EU is unstable. America has engaged in various ill-fated wars with technically inferior rivals (ho hum). Wars in Middle-East.

By 2100: South America and Africa rise as superpowers. South American powers purchasing former North American land, Africa and Russia competing for European land.

>>2282347
>SO, if free range chicken costs more than factory farm chicken, it's true.

Perhaps we're defining 'cost' differently. If the farmer absorbed his increased cost of free-range chicken then you may have a point, but that cost is passed along to the consumer. As such, the profit remains intact.

>>2282386
My statement was about minimum cost, not profit. Not minimum cost for the consumer for sure.

if AI gets so advanced that it starts making unemployment rise, dont you think they'll have technology to semi wipe out world hunger? so that wouldnt be a problem?

>>2282544
They make the products but then there are a large portion of the population that cannot afford them, even if they are really cheap.

However what you just described is my goal.

captcha: widerjo Cynthia,

>>2282544
we already have the technology to wipe out world hunger. we are living in a failed state world government. people are allowed to starve because nobody cares.

The major possible events will be a nuclear attack on an isreali city

possible war between us and china

or us and russia (they're not a democracy you know...)

or china and russian... maybe... I guess

>>2282558
>Nuclear attack on an Israeli city
Expect 30 nukes lobbed back at whichever country did it.

Yay global thermonuclear war!

>>2282571

more like a regional conflict

you know words mean something... right?

>>2282577
>>2282571
>>2282558
>nuclear war in the Middle east
>Everybody hides in a vault
>survivors on the surface turn into ghouls

>>2282577
Well, I was kind of assuming that once you had a regional nuclear conflict, it'd escalate to a global one.

>>2282617

There's no reason to assume that.

In fact, a nice regional exchange may be good for the world.

Teach us a thing or two.

>>2282625
In my dream, I could read the "Book of Worlds", a vast encyclopedia of a billion planets within the Milky Way. What could the galactic computer tell me about this now darkened world? They must have survived some earlier catastrophe. Their biology was different from ours. High technology. I wondered what those lights had been for; there must have been signs they were in trouble. The possibility of survival in a century -- less than one percent, not very good odds. Communications interrupted. Their world society had failed; they had made the ultimate mistake. I felt a longing to return to earth.

The television transmissions from earth rushed past me, expanding away from our planet at the speed of light. Then suddenly -- silence, total and absolute. But the dream was not yet done.

Had we destroyed our home? What had we done to the earth? There had been many ways for life to perish at our hands; we had poisoned the air and water; we had ravaged the land. Perhaps we had changed the climate. Could it have been a plague or nuclear war? I remembered the galactic computer. What would it say about the earth?

There was our region of the galaxy; there was our world. I had found the entry for earth: HUMANITY: THIRD FROM THE SUN. They had heard our television broadcasts and thought them an application for cosmic citizenship. Our technology had been growing enormously (they got that right). Two hundred nation states, about six global powers, the potential to become one planet. Probability of survival over a century -- here, also, less than one percent. So, it was nuclear war, a full nuclear exchange.

>>2282652
There would be no more big questions, no more answers. Never again a love or a child; no descendents to remember us and be proud; no more voyages to the stars, no more songs from the earth.

I saw east Africa and thought, "a few million years ago we humans took our first steps there. Our brains grew and changed. The old parts began to be guided by the new parts, and this made us human -- with compassion and foresight and reason. But, instead, we listened to that reptilian voice within us, counseling fear, territoriality and aggression. We accepted the products of science; we rejected its methods".

Maybe the reptiles will evolve intelligence once more. Perhaps, one day, there will be civilizations again on earth. There will be life, there will be intelligence; but there will be no more humans -- not here, not in a billion worlds.


Every thinking person fears nuclear war, and every technological nation plans for it. Everyone knows its madness, and every country has an excuse. There is a dreary chain of causality. The Germans were working on the bomb at the beginning of World War II, so the Americans had to make one first. If the Americans had one, the Russians had to have one. Then the British, the French, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis. Many nations now collect nuclear weapons; they are easy to make. You can steal fissionable material from nuclear reactors. Nuclear weapons have almost become a home industry.

>>2282652

yeah, that was written in 1980

if there was ever a time to fear a "full nuclear exchange", it was then

this is a new era, and it's totally plausible to have a regional exchange, now, without it blowing up into an armageddon type scenario