/sci/ - Science & Math

are there black people in the future?

>>4190661
Most likely.

>>4190653
But they use their conscripts no better than the bugs. The humans are just as expendable in the eyes of the Federation's leadership as the bugs are in theirs.

>>4190677
The individual does not matter(Unless he contributes something great that helps the species).

The species should always be put first.

Soldiers are and should be expendable

>>4190684
So things like maneuver warfare, combined arms, etc are all totally overrated?

The answer to any enemy is to Zerg-rush em' with loads of brutally (but inadequately) trained conscripts supplied with largely ineffective equipment and with little to no supply train?

You propose that we use a largely ineffective military that wastes human life as standard doctrine to safeguard the species?

>genetically
>_>.jpg

>>4190708
I assume in the future we'll like exist in the trillions(if we colonize space)

We can produce humans just for the sake of disposable soldiers or even machines

>>4190708
meh, it worked for the Russians

>>4190716
Rewire the brains of unborn babies?

>>4190725
Still leads to a far less effective military than you could have otherwise.

>>4190728
>>4190725
Why waste human potential?

What's the point of safeguarding a species whose lives you consider expendable?

If anything, I see even the lowliest human soldier of the future as a platoon leader. Each soldier (of the infantry) commands a platoon of Semi-Autonomous Automated Combatants. They'd have equivalent AI to a clever dog, but they'd be capable of following commands and carrying out missions.

This isn't to mention that infantry actions will be largely useless for an interplanetary or interstellar civilization. Infantry (marines, rather) would really only be useful for taking control of key points on a planet or for precision raids.

>>4190774
>Still believing every human has potential for greatness
>Almost 2012

>Semi-Autonomous Automated Combatants
Sounds expensive as fuck though.

>This isn't to mention that infantry actions will be largely useless for an interplanetary or interstellar civilization. Infantry (marines, rather) would really only be useful for taking control of key points on a planet or for precision raids.

Well yes, this whole ST style infantry warfare discussion is a bit pointless, I think the point OP was trying to make in >>4190684 is that individuals should be valued less than our species as a whole. An individual should sacrifice himself to save equipment our ships more valuable than himself for example.

>>4190838
Transporting, feeding, providing benefits to, and paying masses of infantry sounds expensive as fuck.

To me, standard doctrine for marine/infantry operations would be:
>Every ship stores an appropriately-sized "reaction force" for emergency situations.
>Human soldiers are kept in suspended animation for the duration of their tour until needed. Their accompanying robotic combatants are kept in storage.
>When a landing force is needed, the humans are revived and the robotic combatants are prepared.

This way ships have the combat flexibility to deploy troops without the space or supply penalties associated with keeping humans alive on a ship.

>>4190653

>Putting the maximization of the length of our continued existence as a species as (mostly) the highest possible priority.

Why would you do that?

>>4190904
Are you being serious? What could possibly be more important than our survival as a species.

>>4190923

>Are you being serious?

I am.

>What could possibly be more important than our survival as a species.

That doesnt explain why would you do this:
>>Putting the maximization of the length of our continued existence as a species as (mostly) the highest possible priority.

>>4190923

>implying our biological purpose should be our source of existential purpose

>>4190923
Some people just aren't humanistic, they believe life in general to be more important than our species. These individuals, along with all the dualist scum, will be the first to be eradicated after we establish the new world order.

>>4190933
>Implying it shouldn't.

>>4190930
Uh yes it does, 'Putting the maximization of the length of our continued existence as a species as (mostly) the highest possible priority.' IS ensuring the survival of the species.

Well, if the goal of a massive military is to protect the human race, then infantry isn't going to do much.

Relativistic Kill Vehicles could fuck up our species' collective shit and even a huge space fleet would be little impediment to that goal. Until a viable defense to an attack like that can be imagined, there's little point in building a species-protecting military of any kind.

>>4190945

>Uh yes it does,

What does it?

>IS ensuring the survival of the species

Why would you "Ensure the survival of the species"?

>>4190953
In starship troopers there are no relativistic kill vehicles.

Are you suggesting people stop wearing out their selfish jeans?

You know, I made 4 posts in this thread -and I still have no idea what the fuck you guys are on about.

Are we discussing the existential purpose of our species or cool space marines?

>>4190957
Are you trolling? that's like asking why you should defend yourself if attacked or asking why its a bad thing to stop reproducing.

>>4190971
Both

>>4190971
The existential purpose of our species is to become space marines.

>>4190972

You still havent answered the question.
Which would lead any rational person to believe that you are an idiot.

>>4190985

Why is that?

>>4190979
Well obviously we can't have two discussions in a single thread. So given the importance and seriousness of the topic...we should obviously focus on the space marines. I think >>4190888 had a good idea, the only problem being that keeping soldiers in suspended animation would most likely still require some energy. Perhaps it's better to manufacture soldiers when need and only keep a few commanders on the ship that could also be used for other purposes.

>>4190996
I have not answered it because I am frankly unable to understand why you would even ask it. What is wrong with you that you do not understand why preserving your own species is a good thing? There is no good reason from a biological, moral or a social perspective for not doing so.

>>4190999
Because it's awesome???

>>4191017

>There is no good reason from a biological, moral or a social perspective for not doing so.

I'm not askinq you why we shouldnt do it.
Im askinq you why we "Should" do it.
Isnt that what you are for?
If you are, then why are you for it?

>>4190999
Because any alternative is for sophists and weaklings.

>>4191007
Commanders are there, that's the human component.

We're not talking mass invasion forces here, these are just forces from platoon to brigade strength (depending on the size of the ship) that are kept in reserve if needed.

If you wanted to "warm-up" a regiment for use then you'd only really be reviving the regimental staff on down to platoon leaders. The rest of the manpower is robotic so there're no worries there.

>>4191029

Prove it.

>>4190653
>Putting the maximization of the length of our continued existence as a species as (mostly) the highest possible priority.

The existence of our species is guaranteed for the foreseeable future, now what? Also this thread belongs on /pol/

>I've been watching Starship Troopers and honestly fidn the ideology of The Federation to be quite ideal.

Yeah, if you are NPH. If not, have fun being an expendable piece of meat that's sent into battle without any kind of strategy apparently.

>>4191038
But we could train our navigators and engineers to lead the mechanized platoon, that way we don't have to waste energy for biological storage.

>>4191043
We concentrate on our scientific and exploration endeavors until we subsequently extend our what is "foreseeable" about our future.

>>4191053
If your death aids in the continued existence of your species, so be it.

>>4191043
The foreseeable future is not good enough.

We need to prepare as far as we can possibly imagine.

>>4191075

Is that somehing you'd sacrifice your own life for?

>>4191081
A universe without humanity is worthless.

>>4191081
If you were chosen to be sent into the meat grinder, you probably don't have a lot positive prospects concerning your future anyway.

>>4191085

The universe would still have ancient aliens.

ITT: nobody read the actual book

the movie is a fucking disgrace and verhoeven should be shot for mocking heinlein like that "hurrr durrr humans throw soldiers into meat grinder SS practices nazis"

in the actual book, the starship troopers were elite soldiers, kind of like imperial marines, armored like a tank with enough dakka to take out half of new york

>>4190677
How is that any different than other war aside from the sacrifice of "starship troopers" being for a much more noble cause?

>>4191085
I know that feel.

>>4191094
>make a movie based on a book
>get someone who hated the book to direct it

Hollywood logic.

One of two instances where I enjoyed the movie better than the book.

>>4191079
The Long Now Foundation seeks to promote long-term thinking, much longer than our lifespans (say 10k years). It seems a little pessimistic though, or underfunded, since most of its projects revolve around preserving our knowledge and such that can outlast everything else previously built. Regardless of their current efforts, the ideological values it holds are admirable and you can view some of their conference talks at fora.tv, featuring many familiar speakers except in a much longer format.
I don't work for them, but I would sure like to, therefore advertisement.

>>4191094
I read the book, it was okay, Movie was fucking amazing though. Especially the extra gory theatrical release.

>>4191123

What was the other?

inb4 Fight Club

>>4191129
Where has this foundation been all my life?

>>4191148
Um...

er....

...

It was Fight Club. :(

If we have FTL capabilities like in the Starship Troopers along with capability to build enormous fleets of ships capable of this, universe is open to humanity and ALL reasons for any new, enforced change in social/political structure will become completely useless, as there no longer anything to threaten the existence of human species.

>>4190653
>I've been watching Starship Troopers

Dear god how horrifying.

Read the book, it is much more intellectual and indepth about the system.

>>4191160
>as there no longer anything to threaten the existence of human species.
You really don't believe in other organisms with advanced technology?

>>4191162
The book was kind of a criticism of a militaristic society. So was the movie. Personally, the movie did a better job of doing it while commenting on modern society.

>>4191162
Does the book have the propaganda that glorifies the human species?

If so, I'll read it.

>>4191160
>ALL reasons for any new, enforced change in social/political structure will become completely useless, as there no longer anything to threaten the existence of human species.
>no longer anything to threaten the existence of human species.

Except for a bunch of pissed off bugs...

>OP is a fascist.

>>4191167

Oh yes i do, but that has nothing to do with inducing a permanent state of martial law (or something close to that). Time of war is an exception of course.

>>4191175
Something wrong with caring for the greater good?

>>4191174

World in Starship Troopers was already totalitarian before the bugs became a problem.

>>4191160
Uh good luck with that when another equally advanced but more organized species systematically conquers all the special snowflake isolated human planets.

>>4191178
If a species has FTL travel, they can pretty much get whatever they want easily I'd assume.

Would there even be any reason for species THIS ADVANCED to have wars?

>>4191187
you have X, I want X

war... war never changes

>>4191181
Yeah, but even it wasn't, I think humanity would eventually adopt the system permanently after a few zerg-tier threats

>>4191183
Possibly, but why?

What could we have they want?

If you have FTL travel wouldn't you have mastered the ability to do things like create resources from scratch and such?

>>4191180

Greater good, no, more like social devolution and barbarism. But of course that is relative and not seen as such by a genetically engineered slave race (of course, there must be 'defective units' at times which regain their sense of individualism, which must be purged).

>>4191192
But couldn't you just build x be messing with something elses atomic structure?

>>4191183
Theoretically, the time it takes to conquer and recolinize a planet is less than the time to colonize a new planet, so a pacifist but expansionary race will not be wiped out by a conquering race until there are no more planets left to colonize.

>>4191195
Why would you ever assume that because a species can go FTL by whatever means they have the capability to synthesize whatever they want.

>>4191195
slaves maybe, perhaps they are immortal but sterile and maybe AI is impossible. Lots of maybes per any given scenario, but there are certainly reasons.

>>4191187

FTL travel may be only few breakthroughs away and the initial level of advancement (both socially and technologically) may not even be that high.

>yes, i am implying stuff

>>4191202
>immortal but sterile
Cloning?
>AI is impossible
Who cares, use cyborg clones maybe?

>>4191200
Yeah but that pacifistic race is still losing territory and people are presumably dying in huge numbers. Refusing to defend yourself in such a situation would be tantamount to allowing genocide.

>>4191170
So what you are saying is, we need to bring all of humanity under the control of a single military government?

>>4191209
They are net gaining of territory. Because colonizing new planets is faster than conquering already colonized planets, the territory gained by the pacifist race exceed the territory lost to the conquering race.

>>4191196
>Greater good, no, more like social devolution and barbarism.
What? You do realize that Nazi-Germany was one of the most -scientifically and otherwise- advanced societies at the time? Granted, they committed a lot of atrocities, but the Romans didn't exactly treat their barbarian neighbors kindly either. To say it constitutes "social devolution and barbarism" is preposterous and even naive.

>>4191215
That does not matter in the slightest. The leadership of that race would deserve to be shot for betraying billions of their own people to conquest and death. And even if they manage to escape constantly having to move forward to avoid being attacked is no way to exist.

>>4191180
Mass institutionalization of genetic engineering for collectivist aims would not achieve a greater good. It would treat individuals, like you, as expendable trash for the meat grinder. All while disregarding any individual suffering by making the claim that the greater good is being met. It is classic totalitarian communism/Nazism.

The tactical approach seen in the Starship Troopers movie was much like the Soviet's human wave approach, which resulted in millions upon millions of dead and hellish living conditions. Whereas the book's tactical approach was technological, focused on making individual super soldiers through superior equipment.

If you want to achieve militaristic aims then you should be in favor of robotic drones and new technologies. Not an insect-like eusocial caste of warrior humans.

>>4191206
Aliens don't even need FTL to be a threat, they could just have superior strategy rather than technology.

>>4191207
I can't really write a whole book for you, I just provided an example. Instead perhaps you could simply imagine we are the attacker and what motives we have. Their motives have no relevant connection to ours, but if we imply they are sapient then they have SOME motives, and it is incredibly unlikely that NONE of those motives result in war.

fun fact: nazi science got us to the moon

>>4191223
The only thing that matter is maximizing the length of time our species exists, no matter how horrific it makes our lives

>>4191229
Didn't it cure a lot of shit and result in many kinds of treatments?

Human test subjects really do bring in results

>>4191200
>Theoretically, the time it takes to conquer and recolinize a planet is less than the time to colonize a new planet,
Disagree, what if the planets need terraforming? It would be easier to conquer a planet already terraformed by another species.

>>4191217

That is true, but remember that germany prior to great deppression was a flourishing democracy, besides their BEST scientists were mainly jewish, which left from Germany as soon as possible. Their stupid ideology also rendered atomic physics as 'jew science' etc. and as such had very little interest in developing a nuclear bomb.

None of the so called nazi super-weapons would've done nothing to save them in the end. If the war would've lasted longer for germany, or germany had done less tactically stupid decisions, they would've been nuked like the japan and that would've been the end for it.

Point being, they were'nt nearly that great.

>>4191221
What about an anarchic race? Or an insect race?

Anyway, there is nothing stopping the planets from fighting back, or the inhabitants from leaving beforehand. Hell if I was running a space faring civilization, noone would have the time to get comfortable on a planet, it would be stripped of everything of value within a generation. The conquering race can have it after that, or even before I'm done, I get as much as I can and move on, that way I don't have to pay the cost of defending it.

>>4191232
The horror starting with your life I assume? Are you a masochist or just a hypocritical troll? In any case, speak for yourself, not for everyone else. I could not care less about the species when I'm dead.

If you want to be a myopic collectivist for the human species then you would want more scientific research on telomeres, stem cells, and life extension technologies in general. All this warrior caste bullshit would achieve nothing.

>>4191217

Oh, and for the Romans. They were partly democratic and free society to those who were'nt slaves (slave were basically to them, what industry is for us) and were literally the closest thing to modern western society the world had in that time.

Your argument is invalid.

Enough with all this talk about fascism!

The with fascism isn't that it sees society as a machine to be made more efficient, thereby sacrificing the liberty and lives the people. The problem with fascism is that it sees morality as outside the machine and therefor wrong, when one should include morality into the machine. Those who commit atrocities because they view society as a machine are simply too stupid to understand why morality exists and the purpose it serves in stabilizing society. They simply see it as a wishy-washy term to be ignored instead of trying to understand it and use it within their greater plans for society.

If society were the sports car, then mass murdering fascists would be like wannabe mechanic who immediately assumes spoilers are useless simply because most people like the look of it. Because the most people fail to understand the utility of morality and yet still respect it, mass murdering fascists assumes morality is superfluous.

>>4191254
>>4191245
So obviously the problem isn't violence, it's racism and ideologies.

>>4191245
I just hate the fact that people are blind to benefits of such a centralized political system due to the fact that it's forever doomed to be associated with other Nazi-Germany ideologies, for example supremacism, that were very imprudent. Every time Technocracies are advocated it's accused of being fascism.

For example this typical American that thinks politics can be simplified to single ideologies "hurr durr democracy > all xD":

>>4191254
>Oh, and for the Romans. They were partly democratic and free society to those who were'nt slaves (slave were basically to them, what industry is for us) and were literally the closest thing to modern western society the world had in that time.

Learn to read, my argument was that being civilized doesn't mean you have to act like pussies. The Romans had little regard for humans that weren't Roman citizens and yet they were still the the most advanced society in Ancient History. If you look closely that post isn't about Democracy vs. Fascism, in fact it never advocated either, it just criticized the poster it quoted for saying fascism=social devolution and barbarism.

>>4191280
This is why utilitarianism falls short of pragmatism?

>>4191303
Perhaps I'm not familiar enough with the two because I don't understand your post. Care to elaborate?

>>4191280
>The problem with fascism is that it sees morality as outside the machine and therefor wrong, when one should include morality into the machine.
Who says fascism considers >morality outside of the machine? If you murder someone in a fascist society, are you not punished?
And who's "morality" are we talking about here anyway? You can't use subjective terms to argue against speculative societies.

The movie felt kind of like a dark comedy/satire. I guess that was the intention. Using human life that way is just retarded.

Also, yes, if humans abolished individuality (but still had ethics and morals) then society would be trillions of times better than it is now. Although when you talk about the establishment of individuality, people instantly assume that it's fascist.

>>4191327
I felt like I was stretching the definition of fascism when I wrote my post. Let me explain...

A government that sacrifices its population and generally doesn't give a damn about individual liberties because of "the greater good" fails to recognize the utility of such things.

>>4191392
>Using human life that way is just retarded.
In what way?

>>4191424
Thank you, that's all I wanted to be clarified.