[ 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: 87 KB, 634x442, article-1208038-06204334000005DC-742_634x442.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2934400 No.2934400 [Reply] [Original]

/K/
We all know that eventually man will explore, mine, and colonize space.
And being man, we will fight and kill each other.
My question is, what will we use?
Kinetic projectiles are far to powerful, you can miss and end up blowing up half of Europe. And, other countries (On separate planets) can just send a fuck huge piece of metal at us, and we wont be able to stop it.

Lasers, same thing. Rail guns fit in there to.
So, are we gonna use IR seeking missiles, since ships will leave a fuckton of IR signature, or what?

>> No.2934406

>>2934400 missiles

The fuel needed to accelerate missiles to speeds relevant to space battle would require them to be huge and easy to intercept well before reaching their target.

Seeing as space doesn't have the scattering effect that an atmosphere has, I'd like to say lasers but that's just a nerd dream at the moment. The fact is that all we can do is guess at what space-based combat will be like and what weapons will be effective. Until we can actually see what the realities of war in space are, it's all we can do.

>> No.2934410

>Kinetic projectiles are far to powerful, you can miss and end up blowing up half of Europe.

Someone's played too much Mass Effect.

Hitting something at random in Space that ISN'T a star or black hole or at the very least an uninhabitable gas giant is incredibly unlikely.

>> No.2934415

>/K/
WRONG BOARD BRO
>>2934406

Wait, why would it have to be so large? I thought no gravity, means firecracker will go miles.

>> No.2934423

>We all know that eventually man will explore, mine, and colonize space.

>And being man, we will fight and kill each other.

Both of those statements, far from being things "we all know," are in fact quite debatable.

What possible reason could you have for attacking another inhabited planet? Of course, all sci-fi just glosses over this issue with bullshit like "unobtainium" but it's not obvious what would motivate interplanetary or interstellar warfare. Saying that we would do so just because we're humans and that's what humans do is a "just so story."

>> No.2934424

>>2934415

Cause space battles would be over MASSIVE distances, the rocket would have to go at cosmic speeds. To accelerate that fast, it must blast a lot of fuel.

It could go miles slowly, sure, but a space cruiser will likely be covered in hundreds of anti-missile laser batteries.

>> No.2934426

Antimatter beams.

Using fukken magnets, positrons can easily be accelerated to 99.999999% the speed of light (we have the technology today at the LHC, I can imagine it being easier in the future) which would annihilate the electrons on the enemy ship's hull. Can't be stopped, unless they have a ridiculously strong positive magnetic field around their ship capable to repelling positrons going 99.999999% lightspeed. If that's the case, we can immediately switch to firing antiprotons instead.

>> No.2934430

>>2934410
OP here.
Look, all somebody has to do is go crazy and point their ship around. Hell, if they want to, they can crash their ship with it. and think, in space, battlefields will have no direction. The battlefield will have people constantly above, under, left, right, behind, and forward of the enemy. To many chances for friendly fire.

>> No.2934437

>>2934423
Religion. Power. Bored. One planet might be full of niggers.
Lots of reasons to kick some shit.

>> No.2934439

>>2934415

It would still need fuel to accelerate in order to hit its target. And it would need to spend fuel to change directions to track a target.

Also in space there is no horizon that can be used to mask the approach of a missile. As soon as its engines flare up to change course, it'll be detected and shot down.

>> No.2934444

>>2934430

FOF detectors.
Scanners in every direction.

Do you seriously think space battles will be fought by eye or something? Visually, without exponential magnification, you likely would not even be able to SEE the ships at the distances the battle would be fought.

>> No.2934451

>>2934426
Well, fuck. Best answer ive seen.
But, how will you stop it? What happens if you accidentally shoot at a friend? or indirectly shoot one?

>> No.2934455

>>2934444

Not to mention you absolutely cannot install windows on a spaceship, unless you like being cooked alive in cosmic radiation.

Nice quads btw.

>> No.2934462

>>2934437
Not one war has ever been fought for any of those "reasons" you gave in isolation. All wars in human history have had an underlying element of conflict over scarce resources. Planets and their materials are not scarce resources on the scale relevant to a space-faring civilization. If you didn't like the way one planet conducted its affairs, you could go somewhere else. Pick a direction. Go that way. There will be an uninhabited planet that way that's every bit as useful as the one inhabited by the people you don't like.

>> No.2934469

>>2934462
Whose to say these planets will be so bountiful? What happens if the only solid planet is millions of light years away, Impossible to reach using current FTL drives without building a fuckhuge planet sized ship to make the journey?

>> No.2934477

>>2934444
So, how will these weapon systems track these ships? They're gonna be miles away, they can decide just to barrel roll or fucking turn randomly, and the projectile misses.

Also, how will they be able to separate friend and foe?

>> No.2934483

>>2934426

Yea... getting the antimatter might be a problem. Currently costs $250 million to produce 10 milligrams of positrons.

>> No.2934491

>Kinetic projectiles are far to powerful, you can miss and end up blowing up half of Europe
nope.jpg.
the size of the kinetic projectile that would be necessary to destroy half of Europe would be about 50,000 times larger than all of the spacecraft that have ever been sent into space... including all of the satellites.


getting it off the ground would require 100% of the chemical fuel contained within the earth.


you would literally deplete all of the biomass on the planet of hydrogen (from its C-H bonds) to make enough fuel to get it off the ground.


you are talking about a spherical meteor about 1-2 miles in diameter.

>> No.2934492

>>2934469
Current evidence strongly weighs against that possibility. Even if rocky planets are that rare, the rocky rubble from which they're built is abundant. This much is known from studies of proto-planetary disks around young stars. A sufficiently advanced civilization doesn't really *need* planets. All the raw materials for building whatever you want are floating around practically every star in the sky.

Then again, as I said before, the non-existence of terrestrial planets would be very strange. There is *no* model of planetary formation that has them scattered as far apart as "millions of light years."

>> No.2934502

>>2934477

>So, how will these weapon systems track these ships?

Judging from a complex issue /sci/ has wrestled over and over about, ships will generally have massive IR signatures and no stealth or cover.
The "stealth" issue is what the wrestling is about, as to whether a ship could temporarily release all its exhaust in a fashion the enemy couldn't detect, that would be very difficult to accomplish at any rate.

>They're gonna be miles away, they can decide just to barrel roll or fucking turn randomly, and the projectile misses.

That's why lasers will probably be the weapon of choice, or relativistic projectiles that would be near the speed of light to prevent avoidance.

>Also, how will they be able to separate friend and foe?

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

Except two hundred years better or something.

>> No.2934510

>>2934492
Why would they have to launch them out of a planet? Why not gravity assist?
>>2934491
Well, assuming that resources are plentiful, we still have reasons to fight. Like, Lets say there is a huge poor rich gap. Or Christians extremists decide they dont have to live on the same planets as non-believers.
Humans love to fucking fight.
(Also, I'm going to assume that Earth and all the planets have united, if not, I have alot of more reasons.)

>> No.2934518

>>2934502
So, most of these ships will be FTL capable. Why cant they outrun the lasers?

>> No.2934526

>>2934477
>barrel roll or fucking turn randomly

Too much mass effect, bro. Ships are literally sitting ducks in space, inertia makes it way too difficult to maneuver. "Turning" in space is impossible, because there's no friction to exert a centripetal force on the ship (which is how cars turn on Earth). Your spaceship will be sideways, but will still go forward.

>> No.2934524

>>2934483

miligrams?


thats about 10^15 positrons dude.

try femtograms.

>> No.2934529

>>2934510

>Like, Lets say there is a huge poor rich gap.

The rich abandon the poor to be rich elsewhere OR
The poor evacuate or are evicted and go get rich in a new location

>Or Christians extremists decide they dont have to live on the same planets as non-believers.

Then they can fly away and enjoy themselves elsewhere.

>Humans love to fucking fight.

No, you're just an asshole. Humans will probably spend most of their aggression on ultra hologames.

>> No.2934538

Matter-antimatter explosions, I bet, considering that the energy that it produces is unmatched by none.

>> No.2934540

>>2934526
Your Impractical. Humans have always found a reason to fight and bicker. ALWAYS.

What happens if those Christians decide to go on a little Crusade to cleanse the Universe?

Or ALIENS
>>2934529
Then why not just accelerate a fuckton?

>> No.2934542

>>2934518

>FTL

science fiction broseph

There is just no going faster. It is not that you cannot move faster than light, just that light happens to go at the fastest speed anything can go.

>> No.2934549

>>2934510
>Well, assuming that resources are plentiful, we still have reasons to fight. Like, Lets say there is a huge poor rich gap.
If resources are plentiful, it's very unlikely that there would be a "huge poor rich gap." In fact, it's not even clear what the words "poor" and "rich" should mean, since those words usually denote the amount of resources a person controls.

>Or Christians extremists decide they dont have to live on the same planets as non-believers.
Christian extremists do not have to exist in the future. You're equivocating on the actual topic, which was me pointing out that it's not *inevitable* (i.e. something "we all know") that humans will fight and kill each other in space.

>Humans love to fucking fight.
I do not love to fucking fight. I do not relish the idea of my existence being extinguished, because I enjoy the good things that exist in life and want to go on relishing them. Future people, with the benefits of advanced technology, might enjoy the good things in life even more, and therefore want even less to risk not being around to experience them. What is often thought of as "human nature" is just as often a product of circumstances. People are willing to be reckless, to stake their lives in meaningless or borderline meaningless conflicts in part because they live in abject conditions or mortality places an upper bound on just how much value they can get out of life. I think immortals who enjoy the wonders of advanced technology will be far less willing to fight for nothing, when there aren't even any scarce resources at stake.

>> No.2934556

>>2934540

I'm not saying humans won't fight in space. Hell, I'm betting that we will. But fighting in space is nothing like what you see in video games, it's absolutely boring, unflashy, unmaneuverable, slow, and depends largely on tactics and numbers, not ballsy heroic suicide moves.

Think of it like fighting in the middle of the ocean... on canoes. Without paddles.

>> No.2934557

>>2934542
SO, if it goes at the fastest speed you can go, lets say that you kept going faster and faster to the point where Lights speed has increased by exponential amounts? Would light magically traverse the universe faster?

>> No.2934559

>>2934556

>and sniper rifles.

>> No.2934565

>>2934557

Motherfucker what did I JUST say?

Light does not go at lightspeed because "Light is the fastest", it goes at lightspeed because LIGHT IS UTTERLY UNIMPEDED, it moves as FAST as it can ever go no matter what! Light is always at its top speed, and since it literally has NOTHING to slow it down, there is no way to go faster!

Light speed is not in fact the speed of light. Light speed is the cosmic speed limit that cannot be broken. Photons just happen to go that fast because a photon cannot be slowed down.

And no, they can't be sped up either. You spoke nonsense.

>> No.2934564

>>2934556
But i wanna know what those Canoes will use to sink the other canoes.

P.S. Will there be wet T-shirts?

>> No.2934582

>>2934565
Butthurt much?

What about wormholes?

and what says that we cant go faster than light? A little equation? Math has been proved wrong many times.

>> No.2934583

>>2934540
>Your Impractical. Humans have always found a reason to fight and bicker. ALWAYS.

It's "you're." Furthermore, that's an example of the fallacy of accident. Humans have not been in a situation comparable to that of a space-faring civilization before, so you can't just "destroy the exception" by arguing that it it will be the same as it has been.

>> No.2934587

>>2934400
High intensity lasers that travel at light speed, anything slower, they'd see it coming, and have plenty of time to move.

>> No.2934593

>>2934582

Dear god, science fucking fiction.

Wormholes would NOT be viable to execute in a combat situation, and if it WERE, then all combat would be is WORMHOLING BOMBS INTO THE ENEMY SHIPS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> No.2934601

>>2934582
Except this theory has been proven right, many times.

captcha: ourrittl not(op

>> No.2934607

>>2934583
If a cat shit on the carpet for the past thousand years every time you said Banana, you would think that it would continue doing so for the next thousand years.
> The future is highly unpredictable, So, I might have been wrong to to make it a absolute, but I am neither wrong nor right, this is all highly speculative.
> This is the fucking internet. Nobody really gives a shit if you spell something wrong. Also, correcting my grammar and spelling is in itself a ad hominem, since you are attacking my intelligence simply because I spelled a word wrong, and i frown on people who use ad hominems.

>> No.2934612

I would think that explosive projectiles will be mostly used in space combat. Even small explosives would be extremely effective. The velocity itself would do much damage, but an explosion in a pressurized environment like the inside of a ship would do the most damage. I believe it would like detonating a grenade in a submarine.

>> No.2934616

>>2934612
sorry, im not op

>> No.2934617

>>2934593
WELL THEN WE JUST SOLVED HOW FUCKING WARS WILL BE FOUGHT
YOU FUCKING WON.

>> No.2934625

>>2934607
>If a cat shit on the carpet for the past thousand years every time you said Banana, you would think that it would continue doing so for the next thousand years.

That's a false analogy. You have given no relevant difference between the past circumstances and the present ones. I have given many relevant differences between past human circumstances and space-faring circumstances that bear on the psychological and strategic motivations for conflict. You commit the fallacy of accident by ignoring those differences, and you reinforce the fallacy with this false analogy that again ignores them.

As for correcting your homophone error, I didn't suggest that it implied anything about your argument. Your imputing that to me is however a straw man fallacy on your part.

>> No.2934627
File: 2 KB, 126x95, amazed soldier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2934627

>>2934625
Flawless victory.

>> No.2934634

>>2934582
Math proved wrong? What are you, a tapeworm?

>> No.2934635

>>2934607
Your and you're have two very different meanings and can change the meaning of a sentence. "Your" implies some form of ownership. "You're" descripes something.

An example of how it's bad to mix these two:
Your ass
You're ass

These sentences signifies two completely different things. So, correct grammar is always relevant when wanting to relay information.

>> No.2934639

>>2934625
>"..You would think.."
>"..would think.."
>"..think..."
I never said it would continue doing so, I said, you would THINK it would. KEYWORD IS THINK.

So, why would you point out that error? It was completely off topic, and could very much be ignored.

and do I need to repeat myself again?

> The future is highly unpredictable, So, I might have been wrong to to make it a absolute, but I am neither wrong nor right, this is all highly speculative.

>> No.2934644

>>2934617
I'd rather wormhole HIV into every enemy's female and botulinum toxin into every enemy's commander. That'd be fun.

>> No.2934649

>>2934644
Dildos.
Dildos everywhere.

>> No.2934652

People will continue fighting for one reason or another in the future space-faring age. Peace will occur, but it's only for a short while before war breaks out. Belligerence is hardwired into our brains. No matter how civilized we become, our primal nature will always be a part of us.

>> No.2934653

This could be a way to travel FTL without breaking SR

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

Out running a lazer though is immposible as the information that a lazer was being fired at you would arrive at the same time as the lazer unless there's some retarded fire up time or something where lights flash etc. on the enemy craft

>> No.2934657
File: 73 KB, 360x274, DILDOS-DILDOS-EVERYWHERE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2934657

>>2934649
2200: "NEWSFLASH: The president of Mars found dead with a dildo in the butt... and mouth... and both ears... and eyes..."

>> No.2934658

>>2934639
Lol'ing, because by arguing, he is supporting
>>2934635's argument about humans being prone to arguing and fighting.

>> No.2934661

>>2934657
FUCKING LOL'D

>> No.2934667

Given all the trouble in producing ranged weaponry for space combat, I foresee humans doing the next best option: board the enemy ship and use guns there. Hell, if the quarters are close enough, we get to test out the viability of chain-weapons!

>> No.2934670

>>2934652
>People will continue fighting for one reason or another in the future space-faring age. Peace will occur, but it's only for a short while before war breaks out.
That's mere assertion.

>Belligerence is hardwired into our brains.
No complex behaviour is "hardwired into our brains." Human beings have never been proven to have any instinctual behaviour outside of infancy (suckling might be instinctual).

>No matter how civilized we become, our primal nature will always be a part of us.
Even granting for the sake of argument that we have a "primal nature" that predisposes us to aggression even when there's no underlying motivation (imagine two territorial animals fighting to the death over a tiny mud hole in the middle of a vast, uninhabited expanse dotted with comparable features) why is it necessarily "always" a part of us? Who has decreed this? Evolutionary essentialist raptor Christ? What is this nature made of? How is it immutable? Last I heard, human brains were made of imminently mutable material substance.

>> No.2934671

>>2934652

Actually the brutality of war is being rather phased out in civilization at large.

All that rage and belligerence is still there.

It's just directed at things like the World Cup and the Olympics.

>> No.2934672
File: 33 KB, 337x506, breast-surgery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2934672

>>2934657
I just invented wormhole [sex change] surgery! The late president could have also have a dildo in his vagina!

>> No.2934693

>>2934670
I want to see you get a shell full of lead in your face, so you can tell everybody that there wont be any fucking wars in the future.
Your like the people after ww1.
LOL, WE AINT GONNA HAVE NO WAR, WE DONT HAVE TO ARM OURSELVES, CAUSE
WARS BAD, MKAY?
>suddenly BLITZKIERG
>>2934657
How would we STOP THIS? THE DILDOS MUST BE STOPPED.

>> No.2934701

>>2934693

Wow, look at that strawman burn from all the ad hominems!

>> No.2934702

>>2934693
This madness couldn't be stopped except for wormholing the attacker's planet into their sun.

>> No.2934703

Why the fuck do you think we would just start a war, space is huge.

>> No.2934707

>>2934702
BUT WHAT IF SUN WAS DILDOS?

>> No.2934721

>>2934670
>That's mere assertion.
Humans are doing it today, as they have done since the dawn of humanity. One can extrapolate that it will continue in the future.

>No complex behaviour is "hardwired into our brains."
Survival instincts are hardwired. These instincts give rise to behaviors that promote self-perservation. The complex behavior that people have all revolve around our primal instincts. We may be able to suppress it through rational thinking and proper education, but it's still always there.

>why is it necessarily "always" a part of us? Who has decreed this?
Our genes.
>Last I heard, human brains were made of imminently mutable material substance.
It's only mutable to a certain degree. You can't stop masturbating or have sex, can you?

>> No.2934734

>>2934721
> Our genes
Ever heard of genetic engineering?

>> No.2934735

>>2934721

>Humans are doing it today, as they have done since the dawn of humanity. One can extrapolate that it will continue in the future.

No, you cannot.

You could say "Humans have been waging war on Earth for 10000 years" and it would be true. On Earth, where there is limited room and resources.
There is no inexorable axiom that humans will wage war with the amount of resources that easy interstellar flight would allow.

>Survival instincts are hardwired. These instincts give rise to behaviors that promote self-perservation. The complex behavior that people have all revolve around our primal instincts. We may be able to suppress it through rational thinking and proper education, but it's still always there.

Do you know what those make us do? Do you you know what they are for?
They are to drive us to maximize our resources.
Completely fucking useless when you have easy interstellar travel.

>It's only mutable to a certain degree. You can't stop masturbating or have sex, can you?

Uh, yes? Millions of people have, I'd wager.

>> No.2934745

>>2934701
He also threw in the rarer and more prized "ad baculum" which is a veritable pearl among fallacies.

>> No.2934746

>>2934735
>You can't stop masturbating or have sex, can you?
Catholic priests, for example, can. Also, think of these people who committed suicide by a hunger strike or lost consciousness because of not breathing (you can't die that way, though, as unconscious brain starts breathing again). You can't stop eating or breathing, right?

>> No.2934767 [DELETED] 

>>2934721
>Survival instincts are hardwired. These instincts give rise to behaviors that promote self-perservation. The complex behavior that people have all revolve around our primal instincts. We may be able to suppress it through rational thinking and proper education, but it's still always there.

As I said before, it has never been proven (that is, scientifically confirmed) that human beings have instincts outside of some stereotypical behaviours in infancy. You seemed to ignore the following part of my post where I argue that even if something is there, that doesn't mean it always *must* be there.

There's also the little problem that your whole argument about "survival instincts" actually militates *against* the occurrence of space-based warfare. Conflict is inimical to survival, especially when the conflict does not occur over some limited resource that is essential to survival.

>> No.2934788 [DELETED] 

>We all know that eventually man will explore, mine, and colonize space.
>we will fight and kill each other.

Pick 1.

Also we will only use space for resources.

By the time we acutally go out and colonize space, we will have become a peaceful race of scientists or all died out.

deal with it

>> No.2934792 [DELETED] 

>>2934721
>You can't stop masturbating or have sex, can you?

Takes a shit ton of self-discipline.

>> No.2934846 [DELETED] 
File: 303 KB, 1280x720, 1295347426793.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2934846

>MFW the genetically engineered people of the future look like loli/shotas and care more about sexy time, recreating the Hanging Gardens of Babylon IN SPACE, virtual reality gladiators and remote-controlled robot deathmatches than killing each other IRL.

>> No.2934848 [DELETED] 

>We all know

>> No.2934865 [DELETED] 

>>2934846
sounds a hell of a lot more fun than being shot at by enemies too far away to even see over a space MacGuffin

>> No.2934980 [DELETED] 

>>2934430
>To many chances for friendly fire.

You grossly overestimate how much is out there to hit vs the empty space for a projectile to pass right through.

You're either taking your cues from Mass Effect or somehow independently came up with ideas uncannily similar to it (which I doubt), so let's address that right now:

A 20Kg slug at 1.3% of light speed will burn up in the atmosphere if it "hits" a planet like Earth. There won't be a city-leveling impact. You probably won't want to look directly at the fireball though.

If you miss and the slug goes off into deep space (again at 1.3% of light speed), it's not likely to impact another object in 10,000 years. It isn't even likely to impact something in billions of years. It is entirely possible and in fact likely that it won't collide with anything before the universe undergoes heat death and the slug itself has undergone complete nuclear decay over the course of hundreds of billions of years (fun fact: even "stable" elements will decay given sufficient time).

Finally, even if you hit your target, the slug is still going to continue traveling with most of its launch velocity after striking and plowing right through its target. Only now you've got pieces of debris from the target also flying every which way at dangerous velocities.

>> No.2935053 [DELETED] 
File: 10 KB, 267x400, portrait-gentleman-bw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2935053

>And being man, we will fight and kill each other.

Have you considered peace?
People with a low intelligence tend to use violence while people with a better insight on the situation will tend to solute things peacefully, if not manipulate the situation.

I personally think we will grow over our eager to kill, eventually. People just need to be educated more and think more reasonable.

Just my opinion though,
feel free to prove me wrong.

>> No.2935065 [DELETED] 

>>2935053
>think more reasonable

And then, only then, will we have enough reasonable thought up to evolve.

>> No.2935081 [DELETED] 

>>2934846
So they will hang around in a garden oasis in space fucking each other, then plug themselves into machines to control combat robots robots so they can kill each other without actually dieing?

sounds awesome, cant wait

>> No.2935087 [DELETED] 

>>2935053

We will never get over our need to be able to kill each other

Because the ultimate power in the universe is being able to kill, for without it you are at the mercy of those who can, and there will always be those who wish to kill without reason

>> No.2935105 [DELETED] 

>>2935087
Isn't that a sentence of ignorance?

>> No.2935133 [DELETED] 

>>2935087

No, idiot.

Reasons why conflicts occur:

1. Resource Scarcity.

2. Social Identity theory

3. Invidious Comparisons

4. Group Aspirations

5. Relative Deprivation/Rapidly Expanding Achievements

6. Status Inconsistency

You know what all six of these have in common? RESOURCES.

When you have a situation where individuals have nearly unlimited resources with the ability to just up and leave to another place, then rational thought (Liberal Democratic Peace Theory) leads to people doing so.

InB4 PhD Conflict Analysis & Resolution.

>> No.2935134 [DELETED] 

>>2935087
>Because the ultimate power in the universe is being able to kill

Floating gemstone pleasure palaces of intricate design, lofty solar cathedrals of untold and resplendant radiance, meandering hedgerow mazes under the light of alien moons, none can ever compare to splattering some squishy creature's guts everywhere. That just hardcore xxtreme and proves you are the king of the world.

>> No.2935190 [DELETED] 

>>2935087
>>2935134

I've come to call this sort of thinking the "action movie ethic." It's a form of self-reinforcing violence fetishism propagated by media appealing to the level of borderline retards. It says nothing about human nature but more about the nature of brain disease. Only diseased individuals would subscribe the irrational idea that denying someone else his happiness (life, enjoyment of possessions and resources) is a goal that should be pursued at great personal cost, where the opportunity cost is the free and peaceable enjoyment of those things oneself.

Needless to say, I find it far from inevitable that people that stupid will go untreated in the future. Surely they must have by then developed some clinical solution to imbecility.