/sci/ - Science & Math

>never
The energy crisis is going to suck, but we'll get over it eventually. See you in fifty years.

>>4582136
Why don't you faggots get it?

Singularity began nearly half a century ago when the internet was created.
>Technilogical boom
>World Unity
>Increasing infiltration of personal life and technology
>Lowering birth rates
>Transition from IRL commodities to virtual ones
>Proliferation of science and technology

C'mon, people. We're living in a glorious age and we're witnessing the future of the world where we all submit to a collective entity comprised entirely of the thoughts and ideas of everyone who knows. Hell, I pressed "submit" just to make this post!

Joking aside;
AI is supposed to be the next step in "intelligence", right? Well, if the braincells combine to make the brain, why is it shocking to think that AI should be powered by human thought in the first place? Humans are only going to build things that help ourselves, so we built computers and the internet to be extensions of our minds, to run thoughts and processes that we didn't have time to deal with.

Just because no one has engineered you a robotic eye, that doesn't mean society has failed. It only means it succeeded in ways you don't understand.

>>4580431

>>4582141
> The energy crisis is going to suck, but we'll get over it eventually.

You mean the "we" who manages to get enough food to survive in the post-petroleum world. That's 2-3 billion people out of 9 billion by then. So you have about 1/3rd chance to survive.

>>4582158
> Singularity began nearly half a century ago when the internet was created.

You still get up in the morning, put on your pants, leave your rock-and-wood domicile, travel in a car, do work in another rock-and-wood building, eat lunch, etc.

There's little difference in what you do daily than what your grandfather did in 1930.

Granted, things did keep changing. But the largest fraction of change can be traced to just one thing: The industrial energy input due to petroleum. And that's going away.

So sorry, no singularity. No riots over civil rights for gene-tweaked smart porpoises. No memory uploads. No interstellar flight. No genemorphing. Etc. Those are all scifi and will REMAIN scifi. Once we lose the petroleum input, we're gonna go back to 1850 AD (at best).

>>4582572
>implying that everyone on the planet has the same chances
LOL

The first world will be far better off than places that don't have their population growth under control yet. Besides, that number is straight from your ass.

>that feel when philosophizing Austrailian
I have no fear.

Worst thing about transhumanism are transhumanists. It's just eugenics all over again. They honestly believe in social darwinism but consider themselves to be morally righteous.

All of that stuff will happen just maybe not within our lifetimes.

In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter anyway.
The human race as an entity is what will survive and spread, the individuals that comprise it don't matter.
You can argue that you matter to yourself and whatnot, but as far as what fingerprint gets left on the universe as a whole, individuals don't matter, it is only the potential that the bulk of the human race possesses to leave a fingerprint on the universe.

It's kind of sad, because we still haven't evolved to FEEL this way. We can realize it with logic quite easily, but it doesn't change the feelings many people have about "self"ness.
The individual was necessarily important before we were the clear dominant species on this planet, but now at this point we are not competing with anyone... unless we meet a race of aliens or something..

>>4582572
>There's little difference in what you do daily than what your grandfather did in 1930.
Are you nuts?

After fighting in WWII, my grandfather worked on the railroad. He got up every day and smashed metal pins to wooden planks. As a kid, his sense of entertainment revolved around dressing up like foreigners, and then sneaking into various bars to stir up trouble for shits and giggles.

On the other hand, you have me, his grand child.
My job? Staring at glowing rectangles for hours on end. My entertainment? Staring at glowing rectangles for hours on end.

Roughly half of my accomplishments, dreams, and aspirations exist in or are the product of virtual reality. And yet despite the fact that I'm not up and moving, I'm redefining the world in ways that my Grandpa could never even begin to comprehend.

Also, consider the following:
Just about all countries with large spheres of influence on the internet are experiencing population declines and lowering birth rates.

So you've got 2 things going on here:

1) People are starting to consume fewer physical possessions and more on virtual forms of entertainment.
2) People are having fewer children and spending their entire careers just maintaining the infrastructure of the internet instead.

How often do people say, "I don't want to have kids because that costs too much money"? You may not realize it yet, but there's a reason peak oil will never happen. And ironically, it's because people are more selfish than ever.

>>4582634
>As a kid, his sense of entertainment revolved around dressing up like foreigners, and then sneaking into various bars to stir up trouble for shits and giggles.
TROLLING

That is fantastic!

>>4582634
>How often do people say, "I don't want to have kids because that costs too much money"? You may not realize it yet, but there's a reason peak oil will never happen. And ironically, it's because people are more selfish than ever.
Holy fucking shit, I never thought of it that way before.

>>4582634

>1) People are starting to consume fewer physical possessions and more on virtual forms of entertainment.
2) People are having fewer children and spending their entire careers just maintaining the infrastructure of the internet instead.

Stats, charts, graphs, data, source.

I've got the feeling you're getting these from the encyclopedia of your ass.

>>4582634

>"I don't want to have kids because that costs too much money"?

>implying that people plan pregnancies and children

So what else is going on in Fantasy World?

>>4582651
>>implying that people plan pregnancies and children
>implying they don't
What fucking trailer trash neighborhood are you from anyway?

>>4582580

>>4582657

It's called "teen sex"

You've probably only heard of it on the internet, but there are a lot of unplanned pregnancies, hence the need for a place called "planned parenthood"

>>4582645
I'm pulling these "facts and information" out of my ass because they're common fucking sense.

Seriously man. Have you never heard of "video games"? Have you never heard of "web design"? Do I really need to prove to you that these things exist and that they are increasing in popularity?

Seriously, if you don't have at least one person in your company that is competent with the internet enough create a web page for you, then that means you're probably fucked.

>>4582651
>condoms don't exist
>abortion doesn't exist
>not having sex is not an option

>>4582665
>2012
>not practicing abstinence

>>4582670

>whaarbl whaarbl whaarbl vwhaarbl whaarbl whaarbl whaarbl whaarbl whaarbl, whaarbl whaarbl whaarbl whaarbl.

I'm sorry, was all that supposed to make sense? So because people play video games and... make web sites... that means that people are buying stuff and not having babies because they are too busy on reddit?

Wow man, i don't have to do anything to make your side look like the crazy one.

>>4582682
0/10

>>4582651
The signs are all around you, bro.
Take a look at entertainment for instance:

Old sitcoms:
A family composed of a mother, father, and 2.5 children.

Modern sitcoms:
Childless co-workers working together in the office.

>>4582679
>2012
>not being a virgin

>>4582687

You saged? really?

Wow, someone is bumgrumpy and unable to articulate their position.

>>4582682
>that means that people are buying stuff and not having babies because they are too busy on reddit?
Actually, yeah. You've perfectly summarized my argument.

>Another peak oil thread

Stop making this shit, I'm tired of proving you wrong

>>4582691
is it tin-foil hat o'clock already? time flies when the trolls are out.

>>4582699
It's not about conspiracies. Just the trends in society.

>>4582701
>proving reality wrong

Sure is tinfoil hat in here.

Peak oil is a good thing. When we run out of oil, there will be no other option besides LFTR, Fusion, or efficient solar

>>4582704
>Implying whatever you say is reality/truth

>>4582702

>trends

we got a singularitarian here!

Everyone watch as he tried to distance himself from belief in a god by believing instead in the salvation of technology uploading his brain to internet heaven.

They're totally different, guise! technology is not god!*

*unless you're a singularitarian.

>>4582707
Peak oil is fact. Denying peak oil is more stupid than denying evolution.

>>4582699
You're witnessing a monumental revolution in western civilization as a whole, and you're in denial about it because I don't have exact numbers?

Look, it's cool and all of you disagree with me. I'm perfectly fine with that. But you're every bit as bad as me. You have every opportunity in the world to provide me with numbers, links, and websites to prove me wrong. Everything I'm saying can easily be discredited.

But instead of going through the effort of making a proper argument, all you're saying is "You're wrong because you didn't do this, this, or this" without actually making an argument of your own.

Why should I take you seriously whatsoever?

>>4582709
Are you sure?
Oil is naturally produced.
Sure, it takes a very very long time, but it is still being made gradually.
We are using it up faster than it is being generated, and the total levels will fall, but it will never completely run out.

>>4582711
Retard level over 9000.

>>4582708
We're trying to have an actual discussion here. But instead of presenting actual counter-arguments, all you're doing is creating strawmen screaming "STOP TALKING ABOUT STUFF I DON'T LIKE!"

>>4582714
Then explain which bit is incorrect, using citations as necessary.
If you can.

>>4582710

>You're witnessing a monumental revolution in western civilization as a whole, and you're in denial about it because I don't have exact numbers?

yeah, actually. Otherwise what is it that distinguishes your arguments from the people saying the rapture will happen any day now? They're following trends and shit too.

The fact that you consider it beneath you to provide source shows that you are not a "better" human being than any wal-mart shopper.

>You have every opportunity in the world to provide me with numbers, links, and websites to prove me wrong. Everything I'm saying can easily be discredited.

You sniveling little child. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your claim, not for me to disprove a negative.

Spend another decade amassing knowledge. you're not ripe yet.

>>4582718
Why should I even bother? You displayed an enormous lack of education regarding economy, biology and geology.

Peak oil is not science

>>4582720
>implying economics is not science

>>4582711
>Oil is naturally produced.
Keep in mind that those reserves took millions of years to produce.

If I drip water in a bucket for 1,000 seconds, then yeah. I'll end up with a bucket of water. But if you're draining that bucket at 10 drops per second, then you're eventually going to reach a point where you don't *have* 10 drops to drain in the first place.

Frankly, I'm against concepts like "peak oil" because of the implications that come along with it. But it's important you understand the argument in the first place.

>>4582719
>'I think you are stupid so I will not even bother trying to educate you'

Then perhaps for the benefit of anybody else reading?

>>4582727
>Keep in mind that those reserves took millions of years to produce.
"Sure, it takes a very very long time, but it is still being made gradually."

>Frankly, I'm against concepts like "peak oil" because of the implications that come along with it. But it's important you understand the argument in the first place.
I do understand the argument.

>>4582728
Everybody else seems to know what peak oil is.

>>4582719

>My knowledge is absolute. All opinions i hold are formed by that absolute knowledge. By disagreeing with me, you demonstrate that you do not have my absolute knowledge, because otherwise you'd agree with me.

Could you possibly be any more arrogant?

>>4582731
Dude, I was responding to harriet, the lowest troll we have on /sci/.

>>4582717
>The fact that you consider it beneath you to provide source shows that you are not a "better" human being than any wal-mart shopper.
Source?

>You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your claim, not for me to disprove a negative.
Source?

See, I can act like an annoying faggot, too.

By the way, I'm already familiar with burden of proof. I just want to see you post a source for me anyway, just because according to your argument, I have no reason to take you seriously until you do.

>>4582729
As do I, but oil will not run out entirely.

>>4582733
>I was responding to harriet, the lowest troll we have on /sci/.
And the fact that none of my posts are trollish in nature would mean...?

>>4582734
That's not the fucking point, you moron. A rapid decline in oil supply will inevitably mean the end of our economy. Society breaks down, anarchy breaks loose and we're back in stone age.

>>4582735
0/10

>>4582732

>asking for sources in a scientific discussion is faggotry

Well, you heard it here.

>>4582738
Asking for sources, when it is about common and trivial knowledge, is in fact faggotry and trolling.

>>4582730
The argument is that yeah, we'll never "run out" of oil.

But if the rate of production isn't as high as the rate of consumption, then you reach a point where the rate of consumption will have to fall. That's the idea behind "peak oil".

The part that I don't like is where everyone assumes that this inherently means the collapse of civilization and that society isn't shockingly adaptable to world crises.

>>4582738
No.

You brought up burden of proof. You need to provide me a source of burden of proof.

If you're not just here to troll, then give me a source. Otherwise, fuck off.

>>4582723
Economics is not a science, it's fucking politics.

>>4582744

>1) People are starting to consume fewer physical possessions and more on virtual forms of entertainment.

God damn, someone tell the clothing, cell phone, video game, vehicle, art, and house markets that they're no longer relevant, somehow. I guess everyone knows that you don't buy any of those things anymore.

>2) People are having fewer children and spending their entire careers just maintaining the infrastructure of the internet instead.

Shit man, i forgot that me and everyone i know works 9-5 on keeping that internet up. My bad.

Keep being a faggot that asserts that his assertions are common sense facts.

>>4582748

This is how you respond to people asking you for evidence? Just mock them and act like a cunt until you consider yourself victorious?

Way to progress the human condition, champ.

>>4582717
>spend another decade amassing spite

FTFY

>>4582634
> Are you nuts?

No, you're just delusional. Your grandfather got up, put on his pants, ate breakfast, and went to work. You do the same. There was no singularity for DAILY LIVING.

Just because you can send a letter across the world in 0.19 seconds doesn't do away with that basic fact. It's just a letter. Sending an email doesn't make you any brighter than your grandfather was when he sent a paper letter via the USPO.

Once again: Daily living is essentially the same. You sleep, like all generations before you did. You wake up and put on clothing, like all generations before you did. You eat breakfast, like all generations before you did. You do gainful work during the day in order to survive, like all generations before you did. Etc.

Stop being a fucking moron with being BLINDED BY IRRELEVANT DETAILS.

>>4582783
>you are still limited by physiological needs
>physiological needs have not changed since your grandfathers time

If you compare across larger time scales, the same things apply for Birds, and their most recent common ancestor with Crocodiles and alligators.
I think you are simplifying too much.

>>4582753
>1) People are starting to consume fewer physical possessions and more on virtual forms of entertainment.
What I'm discussing is proportional, not direct.

For instance, my Steam account has roughly $500 worth of games on it. Guess what what translates to in terms of physical possessions? Nada.

>Shit man, i forgot that me and everyone i know works 9-5 on keeping that internet up. My bad.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-19/markets/31209585_1_metro-areas-job-creation-job-growt
h

>Economists concur that two key factors drive regional economic growth – human capital or skills and technology.

>>4582807

No. He's showing that just because we have ipads and internet doesn't mean that technology has changed much of our daily lives.

>>4582757
I am going to mock you, because your idea of winning an argument is to ask people for sources.

It's even lazier and more half-assed than my argument because I actually constructed an argument in the first place. Should anything I say be treated as fact? No. But if you're going to disagree with me, at least provide a reasonable argument or a source of your own instead of just asking for me to do everything for you.

This isn't wikipedia, you cunt.

>>4582816

>For instance, my Steam account has roughly $500 worth of games on it. Guess what what translates to in terms of physical possessions? Nada.

Oh, so because online marketplaces make impulse buying easier that means that people aren't interested in physical items, or is it just because people like instant gratification and will make poor purchases if it's available?

>http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-19/markets/31209585_1_metro-areas-job-creation-job-g
rowt
h

>in highly developed and tech-oriented regions, tech jobs are rising

No shit. Places with lots of construction projects have higher hiring rates in construction than places that don't. How is that evidence of anything?

>>4582835

Who in their right mind would consider asking for a source the entire or the end of an argument? I ask your sources because it is only reasonable to attack your sources instead of just attacking you. Asking for sources is like a preliminary round, where i learn why you think what you do, and i can call attention to any flaws in the source, instead of being a child and calling you a faggot or an idiot or something.

Have you ever taken any formal debate study?

Is peak oil a thing again. I remember when it was supposed to be 2002, then 2009

>>4582783
Do my grandfather's thoughts and ideas not count as part of his "daily life"?

Hell, just look at my father. When he grew up, he'd wake up sweating every time a train rode by just because he thought that the train's whistle was an emergency siren. He grew up in Cold War era, and the idea that his life might end in an atomic attack was an integral part of his life. It was also one of the determining factors for what he wanted to do with his life and why he began taking interest in science and technology in the first place, as odd as that sounds.

Eating, sleeping, getting dressed. These aren't qualities you use to define every day lives. These aren't qualities you look for when you want to see if the world is changing or if society is progressing.

Not many people want to go without breathing, sleeping, or eating. Most people enjoy these things. Why should we define progress by how miserable we're making ourselves?

>>4582861
So let me get this straight:

The only way I can "win" this discussion is if I do it exclusively on YOUR terms. Which basically means:
I post a link.
You tell me I'm wrong.
And then we go back to calling each other "faggot" and whatnot.

Even if I DID post sources, even if I DID give you all the necessary information, it still wouldn't be good enough for you. You'd still just try to do everything in your power to disagree with me and tell me why my conclusions could be wrong.

That's why I want to prevent all this bullshit before it even begins. You've made no claims. You've offered no alternative thoughts or opinions. I have no motivation whatsoever to provide you so much when you have offered me nothing.

This is a one-sided discussion, and I refuse to prod any further until you either:
1) Provide me a counter argument.
2) Provide me a source that says I'm wrong.

>>4582909
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4s6qxPo70k

>>4582844
Let me describe our discussion thus far:

Me: "The sky is usually blue during the day"
You: "No it's not. Stop making things up."
Me: "Wait, what? But the sky is blue right now."
You: "Yeah, but it's not ALWAYS blue. Thus, you're wrong."
Me: "But I didn't say the sky was always blue. I said it is *usually* blue."
You: "Trends are not science. You lose."

Now can you just stop being an ass-munching faggot for at least one post? Christ...

>>4582921
Can you please just go back to /b/ already?

This is getting pathetic.

>that feel when inaccurately predicting future events

People in the 50s thought by the 21st century, we would be flying around in hover cars like the Jetsons, too.

>>4582136
predictions aren't scientific
post your irrational unproven unprovable point of views somewhere else
end of thread

>>4582983
>predictions aren't scientific
Like climate change, amirite?

>>4582136
Well, that's because humanity in the last 50 years has become very obsessed with human rights and ethics. This is what, in my opinion, puts a huge burden on science and stops in from progressing. Humanity is what matters, not person.

I made my first post ever in /sci/ asking about wether to get into the solar industry.
I thought /sci/ was pretty cool.

This thread is very much a large copypasta of other threads in other boards and I honestly question wether or not some of you are in touch with reality or if you're just argueing and playing dumb for the stimulus of it.

>>4582136
OP, your predictions aren't scientific
post your irrational unproven unprovable point of views somewhere else
end of thread

-- (had to express myself more clearly for the sake of clarity)

>>4583035
Go away, IQ fundie.

>>4583030
the total power of the sun is around 100 watts per meter
once you know that you know you don't want to work in an industry that can't meet our needs of energy
you'd better go into nuclear or work in the field of engineering products that consume less power

>>4583008

Sir, you may want to learn more about our organization.

>>4583052
>100 watts per meter
>watts per meter

>>4583008
Just out of curiosity, how much of a future do you think China has?

So far, they're progressing. They're prosperous enough that they now have the largest carbon foot print in the world (as a nation). But are they actually innovators? Or are they just following in the footsteps of western civilizations?

Personally, I think their success stems entirely from using information and technology that the west has already gathered and applying it to their culture. It seems like they aren't creating success as much as they are copying it.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that these societies don't focus on individual rights. They don't try to understand what it means to be human, nor do they understand what it takes to be a pioneer. They don't motivate individuals to be productive for their own sake. They just say "Do it for everyone else" and expect them to be happy with that.

Humans are not exclusively communal or individual. They're a combination of the two. And unless you actively focus on both aspects, trail blazing becomes difficult in the long run. Otherwise you're just unifying people with war so they become scared into working together.

>>4583052
This sounds a bit off but I'm ready to kill mys-

>>4583074
This sounds a wee bit optimistic, and you're still taking over gigantic, absolutely gigantic amounts of space, imagine the upkeep on those panels.
200 square kilometers of solar panels means ~14x14km of just solar panels, thats fairly absurd.

Then imagine all the powerlines needed to transfer the energy, then consider that it only works for half of the day, and not even everyday.
eh.

>>4583052
>the total power of the sun is around 100 watts per meter

>>4583092
Well, China is a special case. Nazi Germany didn't focus on human rights but yet within 20 years they made a huge progress in many scientific fields from medicine to rocketry. In the days of competition between USSR and USA (50-60s) image of the nation is what really mattered, and as you know it has given a huge kick start to the science and space exploration. Unfortunately today personal well being and human rights is the only thing that matters, people became ignorant, everybody thinks he's special. Government fears to sacrifice a single worthless human life in the name of science because it will be attacked and torn to pieces by thousands of human right defenders.

>>4583130
>many scientific fields from medicine to rocketry
only those two, jet engines mostly and barely any medicine wise (all they contributed is how the body behaves in freezing death tempratures afaik).
That is *puts tinfoil hat on*, unless the bell project was true, and scientist did get melted into black goo by what they were researching, but nobody knows.
Or I was never able to discover more about the black nazi bell (anything tangible).

>Unfortunately today personal well being and human rights is the only thing that matters, people became ignorant, everybody thinks he's special. Government fears to sacrifice a single worthless human life in the name of science
Can't think of a good reason to vivisect someone if they're not willing to get vivisected, and even then its a bit iffy.

Theres many ways science can progress, money is probably the greatest obstacle, during the war, money was not an issue if it meant sporting a great national image. The problem is nobody really cares about that now that there is no good reason to upkeep it.

>>4583130
>yet within 20 years they made a huge progress in many scientific fields from medicine to rocketry.
But again, both scenarios you listed were the result of World Wars, each growing on a progressively larger scale. And the result of each war was the same; economic interdependance on a progressively larger scale.

All of the successes you listed were the result of massive social disruption on scales unlike any we have seen since. We all bind together against a common enemy, but you still have two nations that are living in fear as a result.

How long can you keep people scared into being successful until they decide "you know, maybe trying to get along with 'that guy' wouldn't be so bad?

>>4583186
>Science in Nazi Germany
>all they contributed is how the body behaves in freezing death tempratures afaik

I thought it was Stalinist Russia that contributed that body of knowledge.

>>4583198

>>4583198