[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 19 KB, 500x399, atheism_motivational_poster_20.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1564559 No.1564559 [Reply] [Original]

How does /sci/ feel about this? Is this the most true thing you have ever seen or what?

>> No.1564564

is it a fact that technology advances exponentially?

>> No.1564567

Without religion we'd be already sucking other stars resources for fuels for our cars and space ships by now

>> No.1564569

I like how "scientific advancements" can be represented quantitatively in a single axis, without any in-depth explanation, values, or revisions (since theories and "advancements" often come up but then are disregarded later when disproven)

I'm not a christfag but this shit is just dumb

>> No.1564575

We wouldn't be exploring the galaxy but we'd be farther than mars by now, seriously... But we'd be a lot further if we could use more than 20 percent of our brains too.

>> No.1564582
File: 24 KB, 401x271, 1278658584473.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1564582

My face

>> No.1564585

>>1564575
Oh you.

>> No.1564588

>>1564575
>use more than 20 percent of our brains too.
nope
stop
not letting this go
you are a faggot
it's 20 percent of your brain AT A TIME, and it's there to prevent you from BECOMING BRAIN DEAD OR AUTISTIC.
brain overlocking is a bad idea, just use a brain machine interface

>> No.1564593
File: 16 KB, 503x283, spinal_tap_but_it_goes_to_eleven.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1564593

>>1564559
how is scientific advancement measured in this graph? What units is it in?

PIC RELATED

>> No.1564597

>>1564593
SAUs - (Scientific Advancement Units)

>> No.1564603

ITT: Jesus sucks my cock man

Without religion in general we would be further anyway.

>> No.1564604

>>1564593

its measured is faggots

>> No.1564608

>>1564588
is this why geeks aren't brain surgeons?

>> No.1564609

>>1564588

To be honest the 20% at a time thing is still bullshit.

While concious, at any one time only about 10% of your neurones will be firing. This is to stop your brain overheating. This number goes up when you sleep though.

>> No.1564613
File: 89 KB, 744x259, 1275982490621.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1564613

I'm an Atheist, but during the darkages the only people bothering to keep records or learn to read/write were the members of the church. (gotta preach that bible) Shit might've been better without the church, but it could've been way worse. Europe might've been another Africa without religion.

'course religion is kind of pointless in this day an age, but that's another issue entirely...

>> No.1564614

>>1564612
Either that or he's trolling

>> No.1564612 [DELETED] 

If that's the most true thing you have ever seen, you've got some serious truth problems.

>> No.1564623 [DELETED] 

Why does anti-religious rage make people stupider than the stupidest fundamentalists? Seriously.

>> No.1564627

>implying that Christianity did not lay the institutional framework that allowed Europe to advance beyond the Dark Ages
>implying that Christian monks weren't advancing science and mathematics
>implying that Christianity is too blame for the hole in technological advancements and not a bunch of huge bearded Vikings that tore a bunch a shit up.

>> No.1564630

How do I quantified scientific advancement?

>> No.1564635

Rome was collapsing for so many reasons. Outside of the Empire, Europe was nothing but roaming barbarians. The church allowed for literacy, record keeping, and a way to provide a small amount of unity to all those savages.

Plus the Romans didn't give two shits about technological advancements. They already had slaves to do everything for them.

Also I'm an athiestfag, cause someone is going to call me a christfag.

>> No.1564636
File: 93 KB, 677x335, 1270163965597.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1564636

>>1564627

>> No.1564637

>implying the darkages were not caused by the sack of Rome by barbarians/Vikings

>> No.1564642

>>1564635
Christfag pretending to be atheistfag to make himself sound super serious

>> No.1564647

>>1564604

So numbers of piles of sticks? That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't that be going down with time? Shouldn't there be faggotry fluctuations during the 1600-1800 period due to price fluctuations in wood price and fuel usage? Shouldn't there be seasonal variations in faggotry?

>> No.1564651

> ITT Europe == the world
Chinese, Arabs, and the Byzantine Empire would like to have a word with you.

>> No.1564652

While the Church did actively inhibit scientific progress, you can hardly blame the Dark Ages, and the halt of scientific progress in Europe, on Christianity or even religious belief in general. The fuedal system, which divided Europe into relatively isolated communities, was far more prohibitive to Scientific advancement than the Catholic Church ever was. When trade expanded and kings began to unite large amounts of land, scientific progress (as evidenced by an increase of inventions and techniques) began to make headway again.

>> No.1564654 [DELETED] 

>>1564613
Yep. By about 1000 AD the Islamic world started becoming batshit insane. The Alexandrian library was long gone. At that point, if it were not for the European monks writing shit down, and storing information, we would have lost all the Greek, Egyptian, Roman, and Arabic contributions to thought. And of course all the mathematical, scientific, philosophical contributions of the European monks themselves. Ockham, for example, who I've been reading about recently.

>> No.1564659

>>1564559

0/10

That graph is the most stale piece of troll food out there.

Try harder next time.

>> No.1564671

Only half of the responses here appear to agree with OP.

That half needs to GTFO.

Those that pointed out the graph's stupidity or actually know something about European history, kudos to you!

>> No.1564672

mostly, the romans squandered the scientific head-start given by the greeks, and so the decline probably started long before 420 (i forget now but that year seems significant)

so it wasn't really the fault of the catholic church

also you could blame the byzantines, maybe. as the west of europe fell, constantinople was alive and well, why didn't they keep shit going okay

well I think they didn't I'm not at that part in my book yet

>> No.1564673

>>1564637
>>1564635
>>1564627
Not only do the above posts have good points, but the implied general conceit of your argument is that finding more things to do with technology=better living.

Better living through chemistry my friend.

The one thing that Science cannot cure is your death. At least christianity makes a stab at it.

Seriously, more gadgets=better? What in this lifetime can you do that won't make your death any less bitter?

>> No.1564678 [DELETED] 

>>1564652
Can you name an instance where the catholic church actively inhibited scientific progress other than the trolling contest between Galileo and the pope?

>> No.1564685

>>1564678

Wait 20 minutes while he frantically researches wikipedia.

>> No.1564689

>>1564673
>The one thing that Science cannot cure is your death. At least christianity makes a stab at it.

>making up bullshit = taking a stab at death

science extends lifespans, religion does shit all

>> No.1564693
File: 289 KB, 988x931, trolldraw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1564693

>This thread

>> No.1564705

>>1564689
Immortality is possible with science too, putting your memories in an android will soon be scientifically possible

>> No.1564711

>>1564689
From what I know, some religions assert that the person is a non-physical entity. This is pretty hard to disprove, so I wouldn't call it spewing bullshit.

But you're missing the point of my post. Even if your soul doesn't exist, you're basically saying that you could be having more fun if it weren't for Christianity. (again, you might not personally be saying this, but I am extrapolating.)

Well boo hoo, you're still going to die.

>> No.1564714

>>1564705

[citation needed]

>> No.1564717

>>1564678

Off the top of my head, Copernicus and Kepler also had a few issues with the church. Besides specific run-ins, however, the church did take action against anything they deemed heretical (such as, say, the Earth was not the center of the universe. Or that Jersuelem was not in the middle of the Earth) .

>> No.1564719

>>1564705
Yes, well, there are quite a few things wrong with that idea.

Bottom line, you're going to die. If I have to prove this to you, then you are too stupid to get it anyway.

>> No.1564722

>>1564705
I WANT IN ON THAT SHIT I'LL TAKE FIFTEEN HOW MUCH.

>> No.1564743

>>1564705
I'm assuming by soon you mean 500 to 750 years from now. The only way to be there for that is through cryonics... Lucky for me I'm to be cryogenically frozen after my death so maybe I will see that

>> No.1564751

>>1564705
how do you avoid heat death and highly improbable event capable of killing you(IE getting hit with an experimental ship sent my an ancient alien civilization moving at lightspeed)?

>> No.1564758

>>1564743
>cryogenically frozen after my death, so maybe i'll see that
>frozen after my death
>after my death
l:/

>> No.1564763

>>1564751
Accidental death is a tricky thing but as long as they have you're brain somewhere and a spare robot body then I believe they wouldn't have a problem with reviving you technically

>> No.1564773

>>1564743
>Frozen after death
>Implying that will keep you alive
It's like using chest paddles on someone who's heart has been ripped out. It won't work.

>> No.1564776

>>1564758
lrn2science

With nanotechnology there is no reason you can't be revived. All they need is your brain and the intense cold and chemicals should keep it safe. Some scientists believe we'll be able to bring people back in 50 years from now but I still want to be brought back way further in time then that

>> No.1564780

>>1564751
distribute yourself in a network that grows exponentially.

>> No.1564783

>>1564776

Fuck. Stop coming out with unfounded bullshit.

Seriously when the fuck has any scientist ever said that using nano bots you could bring a 50 year old frozen corpse back to life?!

>> No.1564786

>>1564773
Thats a dumb analogy

>> No.1564788

>>1564776
>after my death
>my death
>DEATH
>:/

>> No.1564791

>>1564627
>Implying that Christianity is the only possible framework for discovery.

>> No.1564793

>>1564783
see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=974UMSY7hC0

>> No.1564794

>>1564793

>> ABC news

>> Stopped watching

>> No.1564796

>>1564788
Your quite simpleminded aren't you? People get brought back after technical death all the time dumbshit.

You best be trollin

>> No.1564801

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html

Very good article

>> No.1564803

>>1564796

Yeah for a max of like 2 minuted without braindeath/ mega brain damage. Not 50 fucking years. Fuck.

>> No.1564805

>amateur motivational-style infograph being the most true thing anyone has ever seen?

also have to consider human spirituality. the 'christian dark ages' wouldnt have taken off if there wasnt a need for the movement. if scientific advancement continued for another 200 years, the need for a revolution could have been greater, the movement much stronger, and the effects more persistent.

your graph suggests that a spiritual movement was long overdue, and that the blind persuit of science was a bad move. if this defecit was corrected earlier, the exponential growth could have started earlier.

another support i have for my idea that i can draw from your graph is the increase of the second scientific period, compared to the first, is much, much larger. especially incredible considering that it is more than double that of the roman period and starts from a much humbler beginning.

one might wonder where we would be without this spiritual development, where the increase of the roman period plateaued due to lack of spiritual support.

>> No.1564812

>>1564627
10/10

i don't think christfags have tried to blame problems caused by them on vikings for like the past 800 years

>> No.1564813

ITT: people still think religion is the opposite of science

PROTIP: magic is the opposite of science

>> No.1564816

>>1564803
Thats where the chems and freezing works but you obviously don't understand cryonics so I'm going to quit talking to you

>> No.1564820

>>1564813
Jesus = magic

>> No.1564822

>>1564637
fun fact: Rome went to all that shit shortly after it accepted christfaggotry as its official religion

>> No.1564825

>>1564711
>This is pretty hard to disprove, so I wouldn't call it spewing bullshit
WTF. That's precisely why it's bullshit. It's a specific claim that is impossible to disprove.

>> No.1564827

>>1564816

Plus you're a fucking idiot if you think cryonics is anywhere NEAR being able to freeze a person and wake them later.

We are fucking decades off that.

Freezing brains in a tub is easy as fuck.

>> No.1564828

feelsbadman.jpg

>> No.1564831

>>1564816
>video says ice crystals can form, causing more damage
>50 YEARS
>:l

>> No.1564832

>>1564813
science is magic

>> No.1564837

Everyone on here stating cryonics won't work obviously underestimates future scientific endeavors. If a motherfucking invisibility cloak and time machine are feasible for the future I think cryonics is too.

>> No.1564839

>go to /sci/
>see religion thread on top
>check graph
>Y-axis fuck yeah

>> No.1564840

I think religion hates us because we pwn their asses with logic and sense when all they have is "ACCEPT US BECAUSE WE GIVE YOU HOPE and we get you as slaves >_> <_<"

If science was a living entity, like say Nature or Gaia or smt. Then (s)he wouldn't give a shit about religion and just keep working trying to figure out the world around them coldly and objectively... rather than just giving in to petty feelings and emotions and inferiority complexes

>> No.1564842

>>1564813
PROTIP: you can only use protip if you are a pro. Magic is religion.

Well, not religion, that's a practice, like a habit, but you know what I mean.

>> No.1564845

To think this thread that I started as a baby is growing up to this raging teen full of anger... They grow up so fast...

>> No.1564846

>>1564837

Time machine not possible. Sorry.

>> No.1564847

>>1564825
Eh, I get where you are coming from. You think that the bible was just made up. Like scientology. Like someone just came up with it.

>> No.1564853

>>1564847
Are you
>implying
that it wasn't?

>> No.1564857

Michio Kaku is a genious. Don't doubt him, seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8

>> No.1564865

>>1564763
>>1564763
There wouldn't be much brain left if you got hit with a relativistic bomb or were in the blast radius of a relativistic bomb. Immortality is highly highly highly highly improbable. More improbable than getting hit with a relativistic bomb.

So you have a copy of yourself outside of the blast radius, so you manage to avoid heat death, let's ignore philosophical issues or whether or not it's possible for a second and talk about probability.

There is an incredibly low probability that a chunk of antimatter spontaneously comes into existence in all copies of yourself or gamma rays strike in such a way as to flip all the bits in you and your copies positronic brains to zero and write a program that erases your copies. It's improbable, and the chances of it having happened as t goes to infinity approach 1.

>> No.1564870

>>1564825
>>1564853
I don't know exactly. I'm kind of swishing this argument around in my mouth right now to see how it tastes. I don't know exactly what to do with it.

For some reason, whenever I assert that God exists, people bring up pink unicorns, and I don't want this conversation to take that kind of turn.

What do you think?

>> No.1564874

Do you guys really believe that Jesus didn't influence everything around us? He helped invent everything from toothpaste to 4g cellphones and computers. He is the reason you guys can spew this shit over his internet

>> No.1564884

>>1564870
Well then maybe you should actually provide evidence for the existence of an ancient near-eastern tribal deity rather than just asserting it

>> No.1564891

>>1564870
>swishing in mouth
>pink unicorns
>pink
>pink swishing in mouth
i think pink lemonade is delicious. :l

>> No.1564912

>>1564884
I'm not so sure that it is something for which evidence can be provided. Can you provide evidence that there exists qualities good and bad? That is the task I am presented with. You see the trouble. Logic can only be used to show whether something is good or bad relative to another something, and further assumes that therefore no absolutes exist.

>> No.1564916

I heard that our universe was created by this giant monster that burped and a little chunk of his dinner came out and then he was all like "Man, I'll never clean this shit up" the little chunk kept growing forever too and it hasn't ended yet and it'll eventually be cleaned in a few trillion years.

Epic mindfuck

>> No.1564917

Graph is stupid. All the knowledge we had at the time was a result of the stability provided by the Roman Empire. People were not able to build this into a sustainable society so it failed and so did its knowledge along with it.

>> No.1564934

>>1564912
>I'm not so sure that it is something for which evidence can be provided.
Well, see, that's your problem. You ought to cough up some evidence or stop asserting it.

Also, can you explain to me what the hell "qualities good and bad" are?

>> No.1564941

>>1564934
The words good and bad have meaning, do they not? Is that meaning only relative?

>> No.1564970

>>1564941
Well, it depends on your meta-ethics. But arguing over definitions of good and bad is a completely separate issue from arguing about the existence of God. We basically have an agreed definition of what "God" means, an all powerful/all knowing supreme being, etc. If you give me your (morally-realist) definition of good and bad then there should be evidence for those qualities. But you have a definition of god so now you need evidence.

>> No.1564989

>>1564970
I wonder what do you think?

Is the concept of God that different from scientific concepts? In my mind they are completely interchangeable.

>> No.1564999

>>1564989

Well, it's unlike a scientific theory in that it doesn't make any predictions and isn't testable or falsifiable.

>> No.1565009 [DELETED] 

>>1564717
The church didn't give a shit about Kepler. The church didn't give a shit about Copernicus... well actually a cardinal wrote him about his heliocentrism urging him to publish it. When he did publish it he dedicated it to the pope. Nobody gave a shit. Three years later some monk bashed it as being contrary to scripture, but that's about it.

The thing between galileo and the pope was really an isolated ego thing. You should read the stuff that galileo trolled the pope with.

>> No.1565029

>>1564999
But in reality, one is just a refinement of the other. Consider a machine. Einsteins clock. The cromagnon simpleton comes up with an explanation of why it does what it does. The more refined scientist establishes a theory of its working parts and tests these theories. Often they make accurate predictions.

But the underlying aspect of life which God addresses isn't how things work, it is purpose.

Neither scientist nor caveman can prove purpose.

So when I make claims on other boards that there is a God, what I am really saying is that there are absolutes, the primary absolute being purpose. your exhortation then, to
>cough up some evidence or stop asserting it.
is once again impossible. I am faced with the dilemma of proving something for which no evidence can be given.

>> No.1565036
File: 43 KB, 610x386, hd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1565036

>>1564564
I noticed nobody responded to you. Here, let me explain.

This is a picture of the first hard drive capable of holding a gigabyte of data. It was made 20 years ago. Beside it is a flash card that can hold up to 32 gigabytes of data, made this year. Now think about this- For thousands of years prior, the method of storing data was by writing it by hand, until the printing press came along.

Now do you see? We are approaching a technological singularity. Only a fool would ignore the leaps in progress and say otherwise.

>> No.1565055 [DELETED] 

>>1565036
rapid increases in progress do not imply a technologic signularity. All advances have limits.

>> No.1565061

>>1565029
But what evidence do you have that there is a teleological "purpose" at all, or that "the purpose is God"?

>what I am really saying is that there are absolutes, the primary absolute being purpose

I'm sorry, but what the hell does this even mean? Generally when someone says that there's a god they are making a metaphysical claim that there is a supernatural being. Not making vague New Age assertions.

>> No.1565100

>>1565061
>New Age

Well, I'm not your typical theist. You're used to responding to Christians, likely.

Anyway, I have no evidence, this should be obvious. If there were evidence, don't you think you would have heard of it by now?

>I'm sorry, but what the hell does this even mean?

Its very simple and logical. I assert that there is a purpose. Deriving from that is good and evil.

>We basically have an agreed definition of what "God" means, an all powerful/all knowing supreme being, etc.

This if from an earlier post, and is why I am asking you what your thoughts on the subject are? What do you think?

>> No.1565111

I assert that there is a purpose.

Is there ultimately a difference between asking why something is and asking how something came to be as it is?

>> No.1565115

>>1565100
If you have no evidence then why do you assert it?
A purpose for what? How/why is the purpose a god? What do you mean by good and evil? What does it mean to "derive good and evil from that"?

I don't think that there is a god or any reason to think that there is. As for ethics/purpose I haven't studied that very much.

>> No.1565119

>>1565111
No, there is no difference, but we haven't reached a point yet where we can establish why anything is (with science) Kind of like the question of what happens after death. We are at the stage where we are free to believe whatever we want.

>> No.1565125

>>1565119
If there is no difference, then discovery why is redundant, when discovering how reveals the same answer.

>> No.1565129

>>1565119
Well, for what happens after death, the scientific evidence indicating that consciousness is entirely a product of the brain shows that when you die you probably just cease to be conscious.

>> No.1565134

>>1565115
Look, you have answered not one part of my very simple question, which is, what do you think? What do you hope to gain from my answers to your questions? Why are we having this dumb conversation? Is it really that you don't understand what I am saying? What are you looking for?

As for derive good and evil, well, this is very simple. If there is a purpose, then that which achieves the purpose is good, and that which doesn't is evil. This is basic morality.

>> No.1565152 [DELETED] 

>>1565129
I don't think scientific evidence shows that at all. Have you read any research on NDE's?

>> No.1565160

>>1565152
http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/jansen1.html

>> No.1565166

SAW THIS THREAD AN HOUR AGO

THOUGHT /SCI/ GOING TO GET TROLLED AGAIN

>97 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

/SCI/ GOT TROLLED AGAIN

NEVER CHANGE /SCI/

>> No.1565177

>>1565152
The endogenous tryptamine DMT can produce experiences which are indistinguishable from NDEs

>> No.1565183

>>1565152
Also,
>NDE's are not evidence for life after death on simple logical grounds: death is defined as the final, irreversible end. Anyone who 'returned' did not, by definition, die - although their mind, brain and body may have been in a very unusual state.

>> No.1565202

>>1565166
This is /sci/:
>"HOLY SHIT GUYS, LOOK AT THIS ONLINE IQ TEST!"
>"Hmmm, 148. I've scored higher."
>"lol enginners, too busy dreaming of cocks 2 get above 150"
>"OH FUCK RELIGION THREAD"
>9000 posts later
>"WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST!? YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOES!"
>"Can someone explain Quasars to me?"
>"What? I don't watch anime. Fuck off, weeaboo."

>> No.1565209

>>1565202
Hey! I have a 148 IQ too!

>> No.1565213

As if the world revolves around the west now? I may be an atheist, but I'd like to point out that scientific advancement continued in the Ottoman empire and Tang Dynasty, although both were religious and had periods of instability. We wouldn't even have the preserved knowledge of the greeks without the religious Ottomans...

>> No.1565222

I think people of higher intelligence are more likely to doubt themselves and harbor insecurities regarding their convictions.

That, or this place is full of underage trolls.

>> No.1565224
File: 32 KB, 415x281, 1281245097459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1565224

Fixed the OPs image.

>> No.1565228

>>1565213
Don't you mean the Arabs? The raghead subhuman sandniggering Arabs?

>> No.1565243 [DELETED] 

>>1565183
I don't see how that makes NDE's not evidence for life after death.
>>1565177
indistinguishable according to whom? If you look at this:
>>1565160
such conclusions seem made by classifying NDE's into extremely vaguely-stated stages, and then matching them with the drug-induced stages that fit the vaguely-state stages, but only because the stages are so vague as to be ambiguous. What is experienced from the drug sounds nothing like what is experienced in an NDE.

>> No.1565248 [DELETED] 

>>1565213
Or without the religious Greeks.

>> No.1565250

>>1565228
Baghdad was cool before they pissed off Genghis Khan. You don't piss off Genghis Khan.

>> No.1565268

>>1565228
>The raghead subhuman sandniggering Arabs?

He probably meant the "invented the Arabic number system, which has facilitated scientific development for the past 1000 years" Arabs.

Religion does weird things to cultures.

>> No.1565269

>>1565228
Those stupid Arabs invented algebra and some other higher maths. We use Arabic numerals. The middle east is now a shithole because Baghdad was leveled by Genghis khan. Then khan had the irrigation ditches in the fertile crescent filled, turning it into a desert. 800 years later and they still haven't recovered.

>> No.1565283

>>1565269
Genghis Khan is a mother fucking rtol

>> No.1565291

>>1565228
Successful troll is successful. 9/10

>> No.1565307

>>1565228
I realize you're trolling, but the posters above me prove my point.
/sci/ doesn't need to be tied to the militancy of some anti-religious sentiments.

>> No.1565316

yeah lol witout them evil christers we wud be flyin in space now stooped christers lolz

>> No.1565325

>>1565316
Good. I'm glad you finally realize that stupid fantasies that have no basis in reality are what's holding your species back.

>> No.1565524
File: 1.10 MB, 1076x4082, 1275977657972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1565524

>>1564564
Yep, but infrastructure doesn't because there is a limited amount of resource that is being consumed ever faster.

At the end we live in a world where the spread of technology is linear.
If the economic system changed into a resource's based technocracy, then OP's picture would happen.

>> No.1565529

>>1565524
WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS
WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS
WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS
WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS
WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS

there are no talented comic drawers these days

>> No.1565576
File: 72 KB, 734x404, 1259215509428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1565576

>>1565524
>If the economic system changed into a resource's based technocracy, then OP's picture would happen.

>> No.1565642

>>1565576
Fuck yeah! Let's start a Technocracy!
lol BRACING.