/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6821986
Yes, if we cooperate more and more, and don't exterminate ourselves or experience/cause any global "disordering" event before it, maybe some 100-200 years from now. 100 years is a lower limit for me, no upper though. Can't wait for this movie though

Voyager is in interstellar space.

>>6821986
There have always been feats that were deemed unachievable in the past.
But this one is a real head scratcher nontheless. We have acquired a level of understanding about the universe, that we can mostly rely on. It will probably hold true for the most part.
And one realization that comes with this is the fact, that light speed is pretty much as fast as anything can go and teleportation will proably never work, too.
Considering this, colonization of spce seems to be an increidbly difficult thing to do simply because of the time it would take just to travel around, let alone communicate.

>>6822010
how many people aboard?

>>6821986
>do you think humans will ever venture into the realms of interstellar travel? if so, when?

No. Never.

In less than 25 years, Singularity will happen (thank you CS master race) and then humanity will become irrelevant.

>>6822042
Riiiiiiight.

>>6822042
>wanting to be inside the matrix

disgusting race traitor

>>6821986

I think by the end of this century we will already have some colonization projects going well within our solar system and exploration projects outside our solar system / in other solar systems. I believe the engineering problems of space travel will be solved in just a few decades, the only problem that remains is the time it would took us to reach the closest star. With nuclear pulse propulsion engines it would take a human lifetime to get to the nearest star so this would only allow us to send probes (which will take decades to communicate with), not humans, unless we reach breakthroughs in hybernation technology aswell. We need a matter-antimatter engine to be able to travel like on pic.

Humans? No

Highly advanced robots with super intelligent ai? Yes

>>6822072
I don't know.
It seems to me that before any major group seriously considers to colonize space, all energy problems would have to be solved first.
At this point, the colonization of space seems like such a distant thing to even consider as many major problem here on earth aren't even close to being solved.
In the future, there will almost inevitably be a conflict about fundamental recources: food, water and energy.
I would say that it's more likely for humanity to blow itself up in the next 300 years in a nuclear war than do any serious efforts to explore space within that time frame.

>>6821986
Now that we have fusion, we can have generation spaceships :*)

>>6822042
>less than 25 years

hysterical

>>6822090
not gonna happen. the distances in space are mind boggingly vast. Only robots could cope. Robots can go into sleep mode and then wake up at their destination. So super intelligent robots will be the closet thing to humans in deep space.

Robots could store human dna, and build humans with this dna when they find a suitable planet, however.

>>6822094
Actually this seems the most plausible.
THe thing is however that there would need to be extreme circumstances for this to happen.
Nobody of the people who would send such a spaceship away would profit from this.
Best case scenario; the ship actually finds a planet and grows humans there.
So now there are humans on another planet that will never be visited by humans from earth and that will have no economical significance.
A plan like this would only be set in motion if the earth is dying and some people decided that the human race would need to live on.

>>6822090
I can't for the life of me think of a scenario where a generation ship with the trip lasting more than the original crew's grandchildren's lifetimes wouldn't end in basically a horror movie.

>>6821986
We don't have option. If we don't do it , the human race will end

>>6822010
With this we could technically (but with stupidly expensive costs) send people into interstellar space today if we wanted. Getting to the nearest star is probably still out of our reach.

>yfw space engine

>>6821986
Humans, no.
Humanity, yes.

Just look at the average human, and tell me that this creature is capable of interstellar travel.

Humans will never travel interstellar, maybe some strong AI robots, tens of thousands years from now.

Yes, when who knows, that depends on yet undeveloped technologies. The most plausible scenario in my mind is a massive generational colony ship. You could have suspended animation in the near future mixed with antimatter rockets too.

>>6821986
no and we wont go to mars either

>>6821986
We will have destroyed ourselves long before we would have reached that capability. Think Easter Island.

>>6821986
>>6822007
>Can't wait for this movie though

Watched trailer
all that weepy emotionalism

>>6822007
I think the opposite.

The only way we will ever achieve this is if our ressources are not wasted on the poor and stupid. Imagine all of the scientific progress we would've made had the entire budget for welfare been transferred to scientific research.

>>6822811
>Think Easter Island.

They never fully destroyed themself though, they just overexploited some limited resources and lacked the tech required to bypass the problems this created. Being isolated in the middle of the pacific is also a pretty big problem.

> By the time of European arrival in 1722, the island's population had dropped to 2,000–3,000 from a high of approximately 15,000 just a century earlier. Diseases carried by European sailors and Peruvian slave raiding of the 1860s further reduced the Rapa Nui population, down to 111 in 1877.[6]

Consider this:
The population density of 15k on 163 square km island is 91 people per square kilometer.

The area of Germany is 357,168 km2. If they had 91 persons per square kilometer they'd land at 32.5 million in population.

Germany have a population of 80 million and it's hardly considered overpopulated.

>>6823039
>Imagine all of the scientific progress we would've made had the entire budget for welfare been transferred to scientific research.

Imagine all the people who would remain poor instead of having a technician or STEM degree if there hadn't been welfare for them.
Social mobility leads to increased progress. Welfare programs increase social mobility.

>>6823038
I agree with you somehow, but the movie gotta be profitable. I mean, take the example of titanic, I don't think people would pay to watch a documentary of a ship sinking, there movie wouldn't be as successful at it was, so it's necessary for the industry to develop characters that are able to show their emotional "content". Just like they made up Jack and Rose, emotions are pretty overrated since we are all humans. But try watching this trailer instead

>http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3WzHXI5HizQ

>>6823039
I somehow agree with you, but that's not healthy dude. Not for us as society, also not for science, think about how many people could be contributing to science now, but instead are praying to get home alive or to get something to eat. I'd prefer wait some centuries more than just be indifferent to others people suffering.

And of course scientific research and social responsibility can easily coexist, so it's not like one thing is banishing the other...

>>6823039
Fuck off /pol/

Some of us grew up in shitty neighborhoods to minorities and managed to get a STEM degree and contribute due to that social welfare.

Imagine all of the Scientific Progress we would've made had the entire budget for the wars in the middle East been tansferred to scentific research.

>>6823055
People who are naturally intelligent will not remain poor very long. That's a pattern that was observed, for example, among the impoverished (and often illiterate) jewish immigrants to the USA. Even if these first generation immigrants themselves don't become scientists, they will usually prosper in business, enabling their descendants to pursue careers in science and technology. So the genetic potential is not wasted, it just skips one generation, which in the grand scheme of things is not much.

>Welfare programs increase social mobility.
I cannot understand how people can say that with a straight face. The war on poverty was started 50 years ago and has still produced any results.

>>6823039

>>6823079
>I somehow agree with you, but that's not healthy dude. Not for us as society, also not for science, think about how many people could be contributing to science now, but instead are praying to get home alive or to get something to eat. I'd prefer wait some centuries more than just be indifferent to others people suffering.
>And of course scientific research and social responsibility can easily coexist, so it's not like one thing is banishing the other...
This is the way it was throughout history up until the beginning of the 20th century. I'd say that it's actually the "healthiest" society possible. Our society is very unhealthy, because it subsidizes those who shouldn't exist in the first place (think of the brood of "baby mamas", paid for by the taxpayer)

>>6823084
I agree, military spending is a huge waste too.

And congratulations for uplifting yourself from poverty (although I believe that you would have succeeded in that with or without welfare). Out of curiosity, which race are you?

>>6823095
>I ignore opinions that make me feel uncomfortable

>>6823101
Thanks. It might be hard to understand how the welfare can help. But my dad died when I was young due to a work injury and my mom did her best to give me and my to brothers the best, but if hadn't been for that welfare I wouldn't have taken a science degree and instead work full time minimal wage to helpout.

In terms of race I'm not sure how you guys judge. My parents are from Southern Italy. Both my mom and I have dark hair and very blue eyes and easy tanned skin.

>>6823110
>In terms of race I'm not sure how you guys judge. My parents are from Southern Italy. Both my mom and I have dark hair and very blue eyes and easy tanned skin.
You're white

Have you ever wondered why you were able to achieve an education thanks to welfare, but that so many other recipients of welfare drop out of high school? How do you explain the difference in educational success between you and the average welfare recipient?

>>6823117
I'm not him but, I don't think your point is relevant. Let's suppose that people wasn't "successfully educated", like anon, either because they weren't not smart enough or they were too lazy. It's pretty utopic to think that everyone that has a "capacity" will be successful, just like it's utopic to think that everyone who receives welfare will be "successful". Like anon said, without this help, he probably wouldn't be here.

I think that our model of society glorify opportunities instead of "capacities". Welfare provides an opportunity, that's its purpose. But you are free to live in your beauty coloured "meritocracy" daydreams.

Not even mentioning the fact that people do not choose to be born with a "capacity", they just are.

>>6823117
>How do you explain the difference in educational success between you and the average welfare recipient?

I grew up with parents who taught me to dream big, stay humble and work hard.

I also grew up with a lot of hatred which i channeled towards studying, training and generally being the best at everything I could.

The reason I had hatred was because I attended a "good" high school. Seeing kids coming from wealthy homes who didn't even understand calculus but were guaranteed a top university due to a college fund while I had such a small almost non existing chance of ever getting a scholarship gave me this unfair feeling.

How come that my family which always worked so hard were not guaranteed anything that others took for granted? I felt like I had to prove that we weren't degenerates and everytime I got the highest scores or selected to varsity I felt like I had proven me and my family were not only inferior to the rest but superior.

I guess most people growing up on welfare don't get this spark. Maybe I was just lucky that I was born into a family that taught me ambition and hard work ethics.I can't really explain why.

>>6823039
Except welfare makes up a tiny little percentage of the total budget you moron

>>6823164
>It's pretty utopic to think that everyone that has a "capacity" will be successful, just like it's utopic to think that everyone who receives welfare will be "successful"
I'm just basing my opinion on empirical data : poor high IQ ethnic groups which immigrated to the USA without money and faced adversity, such as jews or chinese people, prospered within a few generations.

Blacks who have been on welfare for the past 50 years have actually regressed.

>Like anon said, without this help, he probably wouldn't be here.
Of course, without help he would've never had a STEM education. However, due to his higher than average intelligence, he would have probably become successfull in life and would have eventually joined the middle class. His children, who would be in the same intelligence range as him, would then be able to pursue a STEM education.

It's sad that he himself will never study STEM, but I think it's a small sacrifice compared to the trillions of dollars which are wasted on welfare.

>I think that our model of society glorify opportunities instead of "capacities". Welfare provides an opportunity, that's its purpose.
And that is stupid, because not everyone has the capacities to utilize the opportunity given to them.

>Not even mentioning the fact that people do not choose to be born with a "capacity", they just are.
Agreed, but they're highly heredetary.

>>6823199
>I grew up with parents who taught me to dream big, stay humble and work hard.
So you were born to responsible parents with a good work ethic. This is a sign of good genetics.

>I also grew up with a lot of hatred which i channeled towards studying, training and generally being the best at everything I could.
Okay

>The reason I had hatred was because I attended a "good" high school. Seeing kids coming from wealthy homes who didn't even understand calculus but were guaranteed a top university due to a college fund while I had such a small almost non existing chance of ever getting a scholarship gave me this unfair feeling.
I agree that it's dumb that you have to pay to go to university. In my country (France), the best universities are free and the only way to get in is to pass the anonymous entrance exam (which is also free)

>How come that my family which always worked so hard were not guaranteed anything that others took for granted? I felt like I had to prove that we weren't degenerates and everytime I got the highest scores or selected to varsity I felt like I had proven me and my family were not only inferior to the rest but superior.
Because your family started at lower starting point, due to being recent immigrants. The grandparents, or greatgrandparents of those rich kids you hated were also, at one point, in a situation similar to yours.

>I guess most people growing up on welfare don't get this spark. Maybe I was just lucky that I was born into a family that taught me ambition and hard work ethics.I can't really explain why.
I can explain why. You have a higher average intelligence, probably due to good genetics. Other welfare recipients don't get that spark simply because they're not smart enough to get it.

Out of curiosity, what were the jobs of your parents. Were they schoolteachers, by any chance?

>>6823230
Just come out and say what you really mean instead of pussyfooting around the topic with "welfare"

>>6823237
What do you mean? The fact that I think that blacks and hispanics are less intelligent on average than whites or asians?

>>6823245
You've made it clear that your problem isn't welfare itself, but "niggers n spics"

>>6823252
Well obviously.

The problem with welfare is twofold :

A) It is about as efficient as flushing money down the shitter. Welfare spending would be put to better use if it was spent on science instead (which was my original argument)

B) It increases the niggerness of niggers. Niggers on welfare breed at an alarmingly high rate, whereas middle class blacks actually have LESS children on average than middle class whites. This means that the black population in the United States is actually regressing, due to its lower class outbreeding its upper class.

>>6823262
> Welfare spending would be put to better use if it was spent on science instead
It would be a tiny dent. It's already been said in this thread that welfare spending is a minuscule part of the budget. Want to make a real cut? Then you have to cut in the military or social security.

> Niggers on welfare breed at an alarmingly high rate,
The black American population is shrinking, not growing. Turns out access to birth control and abortion is a good thing to you, right?

It's good to see that despite being wrong on both points, you still have a strong opinion about it.

>>6823236
>Out of curiosity, what were the jobs of your parents. Were they schoolteachers, by any chance?

My dad was an aircraft technician and my mom worked as a waitress and later on as a cleaning lady along with being a waitress.´

>>6823262
>A) It is about as efficient as flushing money down the shitter. Welfare spending would be put to better use if it was spent on science instead (which was my original argument)

welfare spending needs to be restructured, but not eliminated. it serves a very important economic function.

if we had just ONE welfare program instead of the ~140 we had now, we could cut every citizen over the age of 18 a 10k$ check every year, and still end up spending less than we do now.

>>6823279
Even Milton Friedman, champion of laissez-faire capitalism, supported a negative income tax (essentially a base income) to replace welfare programs for being more efficient.

So I just finished reading The Martian by Andrew Weir which I guess is semi related to this thread. A huge chunk of the details went over my head, but what are the most glaring inaccuracies in the book?

>>6823266
Welfare spending is 12% of the federal budget. Nasa is 0.5% of the federal budget. I wouldn't call it "minuscule"

>>6823326
And NASA isn't the end-all be-all of our science spending. Even a sizable portion of our massive military budget goes to pure R&D.

>>6823279
I'd love for someone to run actual numbers on that base income thing.

>>6823329
Into RD for killing other people, yeah. Don't see that being useful in the long run though, considering NASA actually has exploration in mind and the military has just
>muh oil

>>6823467
The military is funding huge advances in robotics, AI, mathematics (through codebreaking), stealth technology, and of course making things lighter and stronger for better weapons and armor.

>>6823329
>end-all be-all
whatever you say, Grandpa

>>6823467

>>6823477
Pretty much this, I know several people who just finished Robotics Engineering and got hired by both the Navy/AirForce, Army, and one kid for Lockhead Martin. They are not allowed to say more than that and basically admitted to probably never seeing them again. (Not that I care, fuck them).

Nope, nothing that is human as we know it. Cyborgs? Superintelligent androids, complex computer systems aboard travelling vessels filled with robots, maybe.

I think the universe is too vast for our feeble little forms to ever have any hope of jersey ting around it, at least in our current forms. I don't know that generation ships would ever be viable either, as one anon said it would eventually devolve into a horror show or a travelling gallery of insanity and possibly even micro - evolution. Would be a dope idea for a Sci fi book, some space travellers finding a derelict vessel a dozen generations or more after its launch, finding all kinds of fucked up atrocities and strangely mutated forms, all sorts of twisted science and forgotten purposes and such

BRB writing new space novel

>>6824176
Hate to brake it to you but it already exists.

>>6824181
Pandorum, that's what it was called. Literally what you described.

>>6824193

Well thanks for the time saver, and the recommendation

>>6822100
>Nobody of the people who would send such a spaceship away would profit from this.

The robots would. At some point humans will invent super-intelligent human like artificial intelligence. So robots in the future will posses this intelligence. So they want to survive just like humans do.

>>6822036

The steam locomotive was impossible for Ramses' Egypt.

The jumbo jet was impossible for Caesar's Rome.

The Apollo Program was impossible for Napoleon's Europe.

A Mission to Tau Ceti is impossible for us.

>>6821986
No. There is neither a means nor a point to it. Besides, civilization is doomed to be destroyed by greed of wealth and power.

>>6822094
WHY would robots want to go to different star systems?

>>6824216
You people need to get the fuck off /sci/ and go somewhere else. /b/ probably

>>6824216
>they want to survive
If you want to survive, you stick to wherever you are safe, and don't travel incomprehensible distances only to arrive (if at all) at an alien and probably hostile world.

Space travel and safety are polar opposites of each other.

>>6824359
>WHY would robots want to go to different star systems?

To survive. These robots/machines will have artificial super-intelligence and want to exist, like humans want to live.

>>6824368
>To survive.

What about >>6824365 is so hard to comprehend?

>>6824252
Your comparison makes as much sense as juxtaposing three unicelular organisms of various size and then adding a blue whale to the mix.

>>6824252
>ancient Egypt empire was confined to within a few thousand miles
>so was the Roman empire
>so was Napoleon's empire
>implying humanity will suddenly travel quadrillions of miles

/sci/: Where everything is impossible until it isn't

>>6824365
>>6824371
What if staying on Earth presents greater risks than space travel?

>>6821986
Probably, if we make it another 200 years or so. Things like particle-beam propelled magsails make achieving speeds a, decent fraction of c plausible if we have large quantities of construction labour, material, and energy available in space. And it seems plausible that suspended animation of some variety will one day become possible. And there is quite likely a planet or moon worth colonizing within 50 years of travel time.

>>6824176
The more interesting story is what the androids would do if they encountered alien life. Silently observe and send messages back to Earth? Take an active role in their development?

>>6824386
Nobody will live long enough to arrive anywhere else, thus nobody will bother to go. For an individual dying on Earth or in space is dying all the same, and for a collective sticking to their own homeworld makes always more sense that plunging into the abyss of space. The distances and the uncertainty are just way to great to ever be surmountable.

>>6824397
I thought you were talking about the robots.

>>6824402
"the robots" you are talking about are something beyond humanity's techonological singularity, and as such it is totally pointless for us to speculate what their rationale and motives might be.

>>6824417
(Similarly to it being futile for animals to try and speculate about the actual motives of human behavior.)

>>6824371
>>6824365
> you want to survive, you stick to wherever you are safe, and don't travel incomprehensible distances only to arrive (if at all) at an alien and probably hostile world.

I mean if the existence of the earth was threatened, like an asteroid or the sun going supergiant. Isn't that what this thread is about? obviously robots wouldn't want to leave the earth without a good reason.

>>6824425
Even then robots might want to travel around just because they can. like I said, they can travel great distances 'quickly' by going into sleep mode and waking up millions of years later at their destination. Robots only need a reliable power source to survive.

And our concept of what a space ship is is based on human limitations. Robots could spend thousands of years building a space ship to travel around in. They're robots, they aren't in a rush, since they don't die like humans do. They could make a really nice space ship.

>>6823084
>Some of us grew up in shitty neighborhoods to minorities and managed to get a STEM degree and contribute due to that social welfare.

For any such person there are 20 welfare receivers who are thugs whose net contribution to society is negative. Actually the more of a thug you are, the easier you'll get the welfare because those who dispense/divide it will be afraid of you and will gladly appease you for their own peace of mind.

>>6824417
it's pretty obvious that humans will invent real artificial intelligence in a little while, within 1000 years.
>speculate what their rationale and motives might be.

I think surviving would be a pretty obvious one, don't you think?

>>6824417
Not really. You'd just need an android of at least human-astronaut intelligence that could go to sleep for a long time and not die due to radiation or vacuum.

>>(Dead)
>>(Dead)
>>(Dead)
>>(Dead)

Jesus fucking christ, another thread where opinions expressing even the tiniest pinch of scepticism towards popular equalitarianist bullshit are mindlessly deleted.

>>6824433
>I think surviving would be a pretty obvious one, don't you think?
It is to us, but we are limited to the confines of our own perception and reasoning. Perhaps an AI anvanced enough will realize the futility of existence and choose to disintegrate instead. We can't know for sure, we can only extrapolate using ourselves as the modelling foundations, as we ourselves are the most intelectually advanced beings we know.

>>6824446
Well then don't make your colonization seed AI intelligent enough to be unpredictable. That shouldn't convince you though, even humans choose to take their own lives sometimes.

>>6824455
Everything beyond the so-called technological singuarity is by definition unpredictable to us. It's as if you were trying to peek beyond the event horizon of a black hole. You can speculate about what's happening there and make more or less educated guesses, but you will never be able to be actually sure.

>>6824461
Not all of us are delusional enough to think that something like the transhumanist's Rapture will ever happen. You're starting to sound like a broken record.

>>6824438
>equalitarianist
You mean egalitarianism?

I like how he stops replying when you insult his religion...

>>6824438
>it's those fuckin niggers n shit, mane
>why do people keep telling me I'm racist?

>>6824469
There's a difference between saying a technological singularity won't happen in the next century and saying it won't EVER happen. There's nothing religious about believing at some point in the distant future we'll figure out programs that can programs better programs that can program better...

>>6824514
That's such a simplistic view of progress that it boggles my mind that people can actually think like that. I feel nothing but the deepest antipathy towards singularitards.

>programs that can programs better programs that can program better...
This one's going on the wall of shame.

>>6824537
Nice actual argument my friend, I'll yeah that post a 9/10

>>6823467
Bruh, do you even DARPA?

>>6824469
If people keep talking about "robots" travelling into space out of their own initiative, they imply there's no more humans to control them.

The now interstellar Voyager 2 probe will one day run out of battery (about 20-40 years) and stop communicating with earth, but if it ever passes close to a star will power up and start transmitting again

>tfw 100,000 years on the probe awakens upon passing by a star and starts transmitting back to its now lifeless home planet, forever destined to wander the stars

Intense man

>>6824865
Not necessarily that there aren't any humans left to control them, just that no humans have either the will or means to do so.

>>6824877
I thought they were plutonium powered, not slar powered.

>>6824877
It's powered by RTGs so when power runs out in the next 20 years, the spacecraft will be permanently dead.

>>6822036
But this does not pose any problem. If you are fast enough, you can reach something that is 1 million light years away in an hour. The only problem is just that for your target 1 million light years will have passed when you arrive.

>>6823326
>implying that doesn't include money paid back to people who paid into the system all their lives

>Implying the human race didn't start elsewhere in space and has been seeding planets with humanoid life for eons.
>implying that lizards and greys didn't delete our history.

>>6824378
you just reinforced his point.
times change.

>>6824432
>Crime is at a 40 year low
>teen pregnancy per capita may be at it's lowest in *history*
He's right, these social programs are destroying this country!

>see interstellar travel thread
>most posts about welfare
>>make an attempt to revive the discussion about interstellar space travel?

A lot of people talk about the long distances of space which is a huge challenge to address, but what I'm concerned with is the navigation, we currently use the gravitational pull of the planets to travel about the solar system, this is the standard we are limited to (for now?). I'm sure someone already addressed this but what would it take to correctly navigate through space?

>inb4 robots solve everything

>>6822040
A drawing of two people.

>>6825163
Dense plasma focus fusion.

>>6823038
>Watched trailer
>all that weepy emotionalism

i just watched the trailer too. have to agree. why the fuck do they have to make everyone of these movies this weepfest bullshit? seems like its just a lazy formulaic way to try to ensure their profits.
why cant they make a movie like this thats based on the excitement or the wow factor of adventure and discovery?
and not either emotional bs drama or oh my god we discovered a race of giant alien bugs that want to devour mankind!
just proves theres not much imagination behind these productions.

Most likely, in 60 years we went from prototype airplanes to being able to travel to the moon. I'd say within the next 150 years, we will be traveling rather far, I'm sure we will have lunar bases within the next 50 years.

>>6825163
no, we use star trackers to navigate. We use planets' gravitational pull for slingshot maneuvers to gain or dump delta-V.

The main problem with interstellar travel isn't navigation, it is withstanding the eons of time it takes to get from one star to another. Basically, we need to learn how to make the technological equivalent of a seed.

>>6824365
biology proves you wrong.

Every successful species has mechanisms to spread to other environments. Plants by the mobility of seeds, animals by being mobile themselves. Because you never know when a disaster will wipe out your current environment. Interplanetary and interstellar travel is our society's equivalent to casting our seeds to the wind.

Our first step is to settle another planet, so a disaster on Earth can't wipe us out. After that, we can start thinking about surviving long stretches of time, both for a stable society and for long-lasting interstellar ships. Time mastery is required for long-term projects like interstellar trips, terraforming, and building megastructures.

>>6827967
>biology proves you wrong.
Then give one damn example where a form of life has even spread to another celestial body, let alone another star system. You're watching way too much scifi stuff for your own /sci/ good.

>>6827664
This type of overgeneralizing is so dumb. Haven't you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?

>>6827981
It's the law of marginal utility, not the "law of diminishing returns." It refers to economics, not technology. The appropriate law you're looking for is called Moore's Law. It, and history, prove you wrong.

>>6823055

The # intelligent negroes saved by white guilt/$ billions spent on niggers ratio is probably worse than you think.

>>6828070
>2014
>Still believing in Moore's law
>"We were at x - 1 yesterday, we're at x today, we'll assuredly be at x + 1 tomorrow!!"
OH child.

>>6822042
Even the lowest estimates I've ever heard, put the singularity at 2050.

>>6822100
Can we build intelligent robots having consciousness but like a dog who always wants to help his human partner?

>>6828564
Sure, we'll call it DOGE.

>Domestic
>Operation
>General (or) Guardian
>Engine

Guardian has a built in weapon and is a security model. General is more a companion model.