/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5957438]

Anyone else think science is a threat?

before you talk about how science increased the lifespan and the well being of most peoples, 80 percent of the world is poor and do not have access to all the supposed great things science generated

>but we have to keep trying, we can't know if we don't try

What do you want to prove, again?

[Anonymous No.5957446]

>>5957438
>Anyone else think science is a threat?
A threat to what?

[Anonymous No.5957445]

>What do you want to prove, again?
Good question, I'm asking you.

[Anonymous No.5957454]

>>5957446
to us

>>5957445
>implying science do not try to proves theories are sufficiently true to be accepted and so on all the time

alright...

[Anonymous No.5957453]

It is a massive benefit if everyone has equal access to the subsequent technology.
But when one group has exclusive access (the Atomic bomb for example), then that groups survivability is greatly enhanced.

Science is neither evil or benevolent - that is the purview of the user.

I strongly suspect that we will eventually have scientific whistleblowers in the near future.

[Anonymous No.5957455]

Holy shit these threads

[Anonymous No.5957460]

>>5957454
>to us
You mean you are scared that your computer might eat you?

Specify please. What exactly is science's supposed threat?

[Anonymous No.5957463]

>>5957460
I think he means that if our reach accelerates away from our grasp.
Like if we develop AI without fully comprehending the outcomes and Skynet takes over.

[Anonymous No.5957465]

>>5957463
How is a fascist and logical emperor worse than a fascist and irrational one?

[Anonymous No.5957474]

>>5957465
Because we would be dumbfounded at any solution implemented by such an emperor.
It would appear irrational to us, because simply don't fully comprehend the problem.

[Anonymous No.5957478]

>>5957474
So, in other words, it'd be better, but incomprehensible.
Sort of like the difference between a calculator and an addiator.

[Anonymous No.5957480]

>>5957478
Nope. We would be unable to discern if it will be better or worse.
It could be that AI directs us to make a series of advancements that lead to a cure for cancer or unlimited clean energy. Or it leads us to annihilation.
At the beginning, it is unlikely we could deduce the end game.

Even applying game theory would be useless because the AI knows that we know that it knows game theory so it might deliberately "cheat"

[Anonymous No.5957482]

>>5957480
You have a very warped view of alien intelligences.

[Anonymous No.5957484]

Science is knowledge.
The threat is always the lack of knowledge, or the use you make of that knowledge, not the knowledge itself

[Anonymous No.5957485]

>>5957482
Well they are alien after all.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

[Anonymous No.5957486]

>>5957485
They are also or mind-children. Would you lock your own children in your cellar indefinitely because you cannot say for certain they will not develop violent tendencies and kill you?

[Anonymous No.5957488]

>>5957460
i hope you are kidding, if you don't think there is a legitimate reason to criticize science...

all science did right now is exerce its power like any systems, the problem with science lie in its unstoppable growing power, every inch of our planet is being consumed by it, from peoples which are actually reduced to gears of the machine to resources which is the fuel of the "machine"

it is also responsible for the increasing population, science do not care about that, 80% of the world is still poor, most of them are used as simple gears, i will not talk about animals who are actually just being totally enslaved, bred by machines for the purpose of nourrishing the high number of humans off this planet and even so it is badly used since it cannot even serve everyone correctly

there is a growing dependence of science and that is scary because it is taking control over all our lives, from maintaining healty body to entertaining us, we almost accept every new kind of technologies the system can generate

not only that but the system in itself impose its rules, science is pervading in every institutions (politicals and so on), we already make decisions based on our machines, a normal progression because the system is increasing in complexity, it seek a way to maintain itself through artificial intelligence or others means

science almost unified everything there is to be unified so all parts are dependent on one another, the perfect way to total control, progress in medical science need all others fields to progress as well so you can't take the good part of it

so the logic is simple, if technology continue to grow, we will all be reduced to nothing else but gears of a giant system imagined by the "elite" class, scientists, the logical conclusion of the growing technology is to kill/enslave us and maybe generate its own living organisms when we will become too useless, we are helping the process to achieve its goal blindly

there is way more examples...

[Violent Simians Guy No.5957490]

>>5957438
> Anyone else think science is a threat?

Science isn't a threat. It's petroleum-energized high technology that's the clear and present danger to Humanity. And it's all coming to an end, since petroleum is depleting.

Stop worrying about the threat, since it will fix itself in due course (it'll starve out). Worry instead that some ruler, his cronies and armies will make sure that YOU die instead of him in the coming Resource Wars, leading to the Last War.

[Anonymous No.5957491]

>>5957486
They wouldn't be our children. Inducing subservience would likely lead to the same behaviour humans exhibit when they are oppressed.
If we developed AI, then that AI is capable of developing a more powerful AI. And so on.

We would immediately lose complete control.

[Anonymous No.5957496]

the way Platon thought of a "math" realm, one could also think that science in itself is an emergent "living" system which is seeking to gain total control over our live, it is indeed constituting a new reality that the first humans could not even imagine being made, science is deshumanizing, it is seeking to change us so it can continue its progression, in 2000 year maybe humans will stop existing as they were all transformed by a simple system thought of first by few smart peoples then the total population

gonna read off the thread now

[Anonymous No.5957501]

>>5957488
>i hope you are kidding, if you don't think there is a legitimate reason to criticize science...
I never said anything of the sort. Learn to read.
>all science did right now [...]
You are confusing various concepts. Capitalism is one of the many things that are not the same as science.
>there is a growing dependence of science
True.
Would you reject living in a house because that would mean you wouldn't live without a house anymore?
>science is pervading in every institutions
I'll just replace the word science in this statement with the word "knowledge" and I agree readily.
>science almost unified everything there is to be unified so all parts are dependent on one another,
Our civilization has become more complex with the various advancements, yes.
If you wish to live in a simple dirt hut that you could build on your own that is your own business.
>so the logic is simple, [...] the logical conclusion
That's not logic.

[Anonymous No.5957506]

>>5957491
You sound exactly like an old guy complaining about the rotten youth being so unruly and completely spoiled.
Do you have a NO COMPILING HERE sign on your lawn?

[Anonymous No.5957508]

>>5957488

Science is humanity's description of the known Universe. That's it.

It is a series of tools we use to investigate further. And the beauty of it is that it is a self-correcting process.

The vast majority of scientists become giddy at the thought of seeing something new and interesting. They do not involve their political and religious positions (or lack thereof) in their work.

But we should be using the scientific method to make us make policy decisions. But what is rational may not be humane, so we must always treat it as a tool rather than a crutch.

[Anonymous No.5957510]

>>5957506
Maybe I am. But I notice you didn't point out any flaw in my reasoning.

And if you notice, I never said we shouldn't develop AI. Just that we should be mindful to not progress too far too fast and not take the time to ponder what might happen next.

[Anonymous No.5957525]

>>5957501
>You are confusing various concepts. Capitalism is one of the many things that are not the same as science.

Are you sure? why it is called political science then nowaday? it is taught in various school around the world and the economy use technology and science heavily now

>Our civilization has become more complex with the various advancements, yes.

you still ignore the fact advancements still do not serve everyone equally but only some lucky individuals

>>5957484
>The threat is always the lack of knowledge, or the use you make of that knowledge, not the knowledge itself

i do not agree, there is no threats except for the scientific system in itself, without knowledge there is not much science to do and so not so much progress, not much convoluted ideas, most of the civilizations in history are deeply linked with their technology... they were always dependent off science, their threats remained in the number of rogues elements within them who had complete knowledge of their civilization and who took control over it over time

>They do not involve their political and religious positions (or lack thereof) in their work.

they do as science is a system of thought

[Anonymous No.5957528]

>>5957525

Your summer holidays are almost over. Go outside and play.

[Anonymous No.5957536]

>>5957525
>Are you sure?
Yes.
>why it is called political science then nowaday?
Turning something into a science means studying something. Some people wish to know what they are doing before making important decisions. Good thing thing or bad thing?
>the economy use technology and science heavily now
They always have.
>you still ignore the fact advancements still do not serve everyone equally
I am not. You are invoking the nirvana fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
Everybody draws an advantage out of science. If you have ever used a tool more specialized than a rock you happened to find on the ground you too are one of the benefactors of science.

[Anonymous No.5957537]

>>5957510
> And if you notice, I never said we shouldn't develop AI. Just that we should be mindful to not progress too far too fast and not take the time to ponder what might happen next.

Uh, yeaaaaah there, dude. Clearly you don't understand what's going on in the AI field, which is pretty much NOTHING. Going too fast is not one of their problems. They're going shitfuckedly too slow. They'd benefit from stopping this constant process of examination and re-examination and simply build AIs to let their emergent intelligences actually EMERGE for fucking once.

AI development is going so slow that it's essentially going BACKWARD. We need pervasive AI of many levels, and the industry isn't producing 0.001% of what's needed. It's the most glorious waste of academic investment, ever.

[Anonymous No.5957539]

>>5957537
>They'd benefit from stopping this constant process of examination and re-examination and simply build AIs to let their emergent intelligences actually EMERGE for fucking once.
Woah Wolfram, can't you just buy a server farm with your mathematicabucks and stop bothering the rest of the world with your crackpottery?

[Anonymous No.5957542]

I'd like to alter that to: capitalism uses science threateningly.

There is no arguement that spreading the benefits of science around the world would be a good thing. The arguement is that using science to enforce economic relations, create "nuclear diplomatic deterrents", popularize party line politics and radicalize dissenters so they can't participate in a political process that has already been taken over by how easily science lets money change hands is a threat. A big threat.

[Anonymous No.5957550]

>>5957537
You're right, I know very little about the field.
But if they develop it tomorrow, what I said will be relevant.
It appears to me to be one of a few hypothetical technologies that is a real game changer.

[Anonymous No.5957594]

>>5957550
>But if they develop it tomorrow, what I said will be relevant.
So what you're essentially saying is that every time we see a push or attempt at building AI, we should forcibly interfere and shut it down because we have to spend and infinite time debating philosophical dangers before actually building the fucking thing.

What this will lead to is that every academic and benign groups will never get a chance to build strong AI, however, a malignant group that doesn't give a fuck and have independent funding would develop fully functional AI and put guns in its hands, then WE'D ALL DIE AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!

[Anonymous No.5957605]

>>5957594
Not really. It should be treated with the same respect we assign to other technologies.

But by all means, have it crunch the numbers and figure out computationally frustrating problems. Just don't give it the nuclear launch codes.

I approach this problem from game theory. Mistrust, which may later prove to be unnecessary, is almost always a wise decision for first contact.

[Anonymous No.5957610]

>>5957605
>Just don't give it the nuclear launch codes.
Awww, you never let me have any FUN!

[Anonymous No.5957624]

>>5957610
Fear not, we could always ask it nicely to figure out how to create ZOMBIES
That's fun for the whole family.

[Anonymous No.5958045]

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

[Anonymous No.5958050]

>>5958045
Oh God I love that panel.

[Anonymous No.5958067]

>>5957550
But AIs don't just pop up from nowhere.

Shit like that needs a lot of research and then implementation.

You don't just hook up a processor to a memory chip and program it with self_aware = True.

[Anonymous No.5958083]

"Never trust an engineer, they go from building sewing machines to building nuclear bombs."

[Anonymous No.5958086]

The people who study science mostly want to benefit mankind or that's what I fucking hope. The problem is that they lack the politicking required to take what they've discovered and push it for humanity's benefit.

[Anonymous No.5958085]

>>5958045
digusting, there is nothing about noble savage here so stop your propaganda saying we support the idea of Rousseau, we are perfectly aware that they were violents but the system in its entirety is as violent and is based around violence so no news here, progress is a very violent process of modifications, and i don't talk about wars and so on

however the more we go back in time the more mens are equals and so fighting is 1 to 1 not with technological leap and so on, progress is alien by nature, the goal is to change us to something else, the something else in particular is interesting to talk about because it might end up completely deshumanizing us

all of the stuff progress did, most do not want it yet they are obligated to follow it somehow except thoses who have all the advantages from it (engineers, scientists, elite, bourgeois and so on), and i don't talk about the hopeless state of peoples nowadays, science try to fix this one by giving them pills but all it do is in fact exerce its control through technological means

[Anonymous No.5958096]

>>5958085
>all of the stuff progress did, most do not want it
ecks dee
>shut in american boy has opinions on the world

[Anonymous No.5958108]

>>5958086
thoses who study science do it for money and fame, then they can live off the grid through the privileges they get while perpetuating it, either that or they are mentally affected by a condition which make them very smart but incapable of looking at their own actions further in time

it is interesting actually that in mathematics field there is generally (thoses who do not work for banks) a sens of honor which is rather rare in the scientific circle which is at best hypocritical

>>5958096
not an american

[Anonymous No.5958110]

>>5958085
Did you forget your meds or something.

>however the more we go back in time the more mens are equals and so fighting is 1 to 1

ohwaityou'reseriousletmelaughevenharder.gif

Humans have been gangraping, murdering, enslaving, and eating each other since day one. You're looking back to a romanticized age that never existed.

>all of the stuff progress did, most do not want it

People don't want to live to an old age, have most if not all of their children survive to adulthood, have a full stomach, live in comfort despite the searing heat or piercing cold outside, etc?

Then why aren't people lining up to go join the tribes in the Congo and Amazon?

Throughout history it's always been the opposite; people living in more primitive areas have always wanted to move in to more developed areas in hopes of a better life.

[Anonymous No.5958113]

>>5958110
He thinks his little group of neo-luddites count as "most people".

[Anonymous No.5958124]

2deep4me, man

[Anonymous No.5958156]

>>5957438
The threat is not science or religion, they are just tools for progress and development. The threat lies in human nature which can succumb to corruption.

We are predisposed to seeking personal gain over others. It is just instinct like masturbation, some of us have learned to control it and wait for sex like normal people, some are chronic masturbators.

It comes down to individual values and assumptions which are impossible to determine and assign quantitative values to.

[Anonymous No.5958157]

>>5958110
you clearly don't understand what the fuck i am saying, try to take into account the 80 percents of poors who can't enjoy your nicest stuff due to historical process driven by progress, then go back in time and say peoples back then did not have a chance like right now if they were born in the wrong place, wrong, they were much more independent, if you think that they died too early then whatever, you can't get it, you are too dependent on the system to give you what you want for your own selfishness, huurrr i am gonna live forever (it will not happen anytime soon), it is true but right now most peoples don't even know what the fuck to do when they get old, i for one would welcome a much less stressfull and obliterated life even if i might die sooner

>People don't want to live to an old age, have most if not all of their children survive to adulthood, have a full stomach, live in comfort despite the searing heat or piercing cold outside, etc?

You very much don't get it on the scale required to get it, ALL of this there was before, the difference now is progress make it difficult for everyone to have EQUAL chances to get it

>Then why aren't people lining up to go join the tribes in the Congo and Amazon?

they don't get it, they are too much entertained/lazy or too poor to even think about it, don't get me with the middle class and others higher class, theses are priviliged

>Throughout history it's always been the opposite; people living in more primitive areas have always wanted to move in to more developed areas in hopes of a better life.

wrong, american indians used horses because they felt obligated to do so due to more and more sparse resources, i will not talk about some africans tribes who are now prostituting themselves or getting raped because they did not moved as fast as others to the pre supposed "civilization" stage, i bet if you talk to one of them they would like to return to their old state

[Anonymous No.5958174]

>>5957438
I don't think science is a threat, I think that the application of knowledge and the folly of man is a threat. What you are talking about is institutionalized oppression. This is a political/economic problem this is not a problem concerning the development of science. The developments of science are not arbitrary, they are governed by ideas. If society values atomic bombs, then scientific research will go into the development of atomic bombs. If a society values improving the lives of the poorest and most hindered sect of people, then scientific research will go into solving this problem. The most powerful tool for changing the outcome of the world is not scientific research, it is an idea. If you want to change the world, change the current ideas. And this is being done, it just takes time. It will not come by a rebellion of the Proletariat, like Marx predicted, it will come by individuals talking responsibility for their actions and practicing virtue.

[Anonymous No.5958186]

that said guys i don't give a fuck about it all, i think clearly you won and it is impossible to go back by now and so time will tell

you are all robots anyway from science standard, maybe you are all agents of a living system you are not even aware of defending, Gödel already thought it was possible because he was heavily into formal logic, all this lead to nothing but ramblings

[Anonymous No.5958204]

>>5958157
>80 percents of poors who can't enjoy your nicest stuff due to historical process driven by progress
It's like you have no idea what happened in Asia for the last 30 years.

[Anonymous No.5958207]

>>5958108
>thoses who study science do it for money and fame

Seriously? Name one famous living scientist. Name one rich scientist. I don't mean popularizers who who used to be or are sometimes scientists; those are TV show hosts or authors.
No one gets rich or famous from science directly; they become well known because they were also in media or wealthy because they were also a business man.
I think Einstein or Oppenheimer were the most recent ones to get famous and I don't think either ever got rich.

People who want to get rich and famous study acting or voice.

[Anonymous No.5958209]

>>5958157
>you clearly don't understand what the fuck i am saying, try to take into account the 80 percents of poors who can't enjoy your nicest stuff due to historical process driven by progress

Most of humanity DOES enjoy the benefits of advancement, even if they do not do so at the same rate as developed countries. Things like vaccines, crop rotation, knowing and being able to dig better, deeper wells, modern medical ideas instead of going off to your local witch-doctor, etc. Even things like cars, domestication of animals, budding industry, etc are prevalent in most countries.

> ALL of this there was before,

No, it wasn't. Back in the good ol' days, most of my children would die within the first two years of their life, if I broke my leg I'd be a cripple the rest of my life, an infected scratch could easily mean a painful death, famines were common, if the enemy tribe was bigger they could attack us, kill me and al the other men, then steal and rape the women and children, I could be sacrificed to some pagan god by my own tribesmen, every generation had a large outbreak of plague of one disease or another, etc etc etc.

>wrong,

Please, I beg you, look at both historic and present immigration patterns.

[Anonymous No.5958245]

>>5958083
I'll have you know that my uncle built a number of sewing machines but not a single nuclear bomb.

[Anonymous No.5958249]

>>5958204
tell me then, do they enjoy nice stuff? it don't count if they enjoy it but still live in dirt huts or are obligated to work for a shit wage getting enslaved by big corporations

>>5958207
they still get a good amount of money, don't lie, they are maybe not as rich as they would like to but they still get a sufficient amount to not bitch about it, then as soon as they work they get a nice house off the world to live peacefully, plus thoses who publish worthless papers without contributing to anything, there is also thoses who try to crush others scientists ideas for no reasons but money or little fame, in history this has happened very often

[Anonymous No.5958255]

>>5958249
>still live in dirt huts
Yeah you really have no idea.

[Anonymous No.5958259]

>>5958255
enlight me then

[Anonymous No.5958267]

>>5958259
The only people in Asia living in literal dirt huts would probably be some tribals living in Burma or parts of India. Probably Indonesia, too.

[Anonymous No.5958285]

>>5958209
i can't answer this as i do not have sufficient informations about it, still i am highly dubious of peoples living in primitives areas wanting to move to developed areas because of what i read from american indians tribes and some of africans/amazonian tribes, if your examples are more recent it could just be because their cultures got destroyed, if a culture is decimated then i bet peoples will want to move somewhere else to gain advantages of it

>>5958267
what about the chinese farmers? the situation of india is a joke also, emergent nation but filthiest and with still very poor peoples due to their caste systems

[Anonymous No.5958297]

>>5958285
I applaud you for distracting everybody from your original claim (ie: that it is science that is bad) and now argue only about whether or not the world is actually in a worse state as compared to before.
You are still going to lose this argument though. Of course, if my hunch is right, you are in this only for the enjoyment of getting responses. Winning or losing doesn't matter then.

[Anonymous No.5958298]

>>5958285
>science is now responsible for the caste system

>what about the chinese farmers?
The countryside has been largely modernized, they don't live in huts.

[Anonymous No.5958306]

>>5958285
>i can't answer this as i do not have sufficient informations about it

You don't know any "informations" about it yet you try to defend an uninformed opinion you have about it?

20th century South America is a pretty good example, for the longest time the European-descended peoples dominated the coast and major cities, with most natives staying in the rural regions. However, as standards of living rose and conditions continued to grow better, native populations flooded into the urban areas, causing large demographic shifts in the continent.

In countries such as America, or the nations in Europe, there are large pushes for immigration from less developed countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa; all people looking to find a better life and have a better standard of living.

Do you know WHY this is? because just as I pointed out in:

>Back in the good ol' days, most of my children would die within the first two years of their life, if I broke my leg I'd be a cripple the rest of my life, an infected scratch could easily mean a painful death, famines were common, if the enemy tribe was bigger they could attack us, kill me and al the other men, then steal and rape the women and children, I could be sacrificed to some pagan god by my own tribesmen, every generation had a large outbreak of plague of one disease or another, etc etc etc.

Being poor and primitive is NOT a great, noble, honorable, easy-going, romantic, or in any way special way of living.

[Anonymous No.5958319]

Someone should go on /pol/ and make a thread asking "Anyone else think politics are a threat?"

[Anonymous No.5958331]

>>5958306
>Even more consequential than warfare or mistreatment on indigenous populations was the geographic displacement of native Indian tribes. The increased European population due to immigration and high birth rates of Native European settlers put pressure on native tribes to relocate and alter their traditional ways of life. The introduction of new forms of intensive agriculture by Europeans let them grow enough food in a given area to support many more people than the native hunting and gathering societies could. Displacement of native peoples living traditionally often resulted in increased infant mortality and often higher death rates which steadily lowered their populations for some time. In the United States, for example, the relocations of Native Americans resulting from the policies of Indian removal and the reservation system created a disruption which resulted in fewer live births and a short term population decline.

took it from wikipedia, don't know your sources but i laughed

sadly if we go on this topic deeply i can't reply much because i just don't happen to know a lot about it and so might just be uninformed, i have lots of things to read on the topic though now

[Anonymous No.5958338]

>>5958306
and i laughed precisely because you seem to idealize civilization just like you fire at me thinking i idealize savages while i am not, i am totally aware that they were violent and there was many others problems like diseases and so on but i still argue it is much better than all the suffering science/progress generated

[Anonymous No.5958347]

>>5958338
meanwhile its even worse because all the problems there was, they are still there and we face even more problems while generating them, this is all what i am arguing

[Anonymous No.5958355]

>>5958338
>i still argue it is much better than all the suffering science/progress generated
Well then you're still retarded.

>b...b... you idealize!
It's not an argument by itself, back it up.

[Anonymous No.5958356]

>>5958355
answer this then

>>5958331

[Anonymous No.5958359]

>>5958331
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

Over the past century alone infant mortality has decline drastically. Thanks to science.

Is the best you can do is quote wikipedia (on something that doesn't even directly redute a single thing I said), feel like you're intellectually superior in some way by laughing, then admit you don't know shit about what you're talking about?

>>5958338
>all the suffering science/progress generated

Like increased crop yields to feed more mouths, vaccines so your children aren't all wiped out or deformed or made infertile, better and better animal husbandry for more food and labor so you don't have to toil all day, machines to even better replace labor, antibiotics so you don't have to die of infection from a small cut, etc?

[Anonymous No.5958364]

>>5957454
>implying science do not try to proves theories are sufficiently true to be accepted and so on all the time
implying this is not how you live your life? If someone punches you in the face, for no reason, then you can say based on experience and reasoning that he may very well punch you in the face again for little to no reason. This is science. We use the past to deduce the future. You got any better ideas?

[Anonymous No.5958375]

>>5957453
>I strongly suspect that we will eventually have scientific whistleblowers in the near future.
Can anybody post links saying if this has happened already?

[Anonymous No.5958377]

>i)
Science is not a threat, it merely is a tool. Politics, systems of governance aren't threats, they're also tools.

>ii) thought experiment:
Imagine a dictatorship where 1 man detains all power and has infinite power over anyone, however he wants whenever he wants it. He has nuclear weapons, torture systems and that shit.
Case 1: He goes full blown Hitler, uses ballistics and aerodynamics to make bombs and so forth. Segregates and kills millions. Let's simplify the situation as "bad".
Case 2: He develops education, research, applies tools (science, politics) to further his country and sets up an egalitarian system, dismantle his army save for a few defense systems and tries to eradicate poverty while stimulating entrepreneurship.
Let's simplify this case as "good".

>iii) Fact: Poverty and access to luxury and standard of living has increased since the middle ages. Even though the inequalities are blatant and still widespread, less people are oppressed.

Science has nothing to do with poverty, equality, ethics or justice. You can use a hammer to repair furniture or crack your neighbor's daughter's skull, the hammer is indifferent and has no say over it's own utility/usage. Only humans decide. We could further argue that much in the same way, science isn't a "good" thing either. Scientists aren't heroes or baddies; they should shut the fuck up and integrate in peace without worrying if they contribute to bad or good things.

You might want to watch deciders, people of influence and power. They might accidentally be scientists but don't get confused.

[Anonymous No.5958380]

>>5958356
>While some California tribes were settled on reservations, others were hunted down and massacred by 19th century American settlers. It is estimated that some 4,500 people of the Population of Native California suffered violent deaths between 1849 and 1870.

yet i am retarded

>>5958359
your link does not have much values as my wikipedia quote specifically because it focus on United States alone, also does it count aborption?

also why does my quote does not refute anything you said? natives flooded but there in the mean time killed by their new way of life, all of what they did, they did so because their populations could NOT sustain themselves alone with hunting and gathering so basically what i am saying some thread earlier... they were forced to move due to the implantation of technologies which permitted them to support a higher number of peoples but it disminished their populations over time, meanwhile where are they now? i bet this minority is now one of the poorest of the nation because they don't have any advantages there

[Anonymous No.5958386]

>>5958380
>your link does not have much values as my wikipedia quote specifically because it focus on United States alone, also does it count aborption?

>aborption

But in any case, who do you think abortion would have anything to do with infant mortality? The lowered infant mortality is in large part due to better health of the mother, and better medicine and knowledge for caring for infants and saving them if something goes wrong.

>also why does my quote does not refute anything you said?

The example I gave was for SOUTH AMERICA, as in nothing to do with the United States of America.

Also, most of the Native Americans, in North America at least, already had agrarian societies to some degree. Many didn't become nomads until long after first contact.

[Anonymous No.5958389]

>>5958356
Answer what?
This isn't even related to the discussion.
Sage? Ahah, poor fucker, how mad do you have to be?

[Anonymous No.5958402]

>>5958386
if it is for south america, yes, as soon as they started stopping being hunter and gatherers i bet inequalities started to strike in, in fact they even did sacrifices of their own peoples and had somehow for some of them a "scientific" caste, science effectively corrupted them, then they died due to massives diseases when spanish arrived, after i don't know much to answer but anyway they were already corrupted

as soon as a society stop being hunter and gatherer inequalities strike in and the system is very difficult to destroy, ie: it is empowering itself

[Anonymous No.5958407]

catholic church pls go

[Anonymous No.5958406]

>>5958402
and science is a huge predicament for agrarian societies

[Anonymous No.5958421]

>>5958402
>bet inequalities started to strike in

You'd lose that bet because inequality has always existed in humanity, and we can find it even in non-human species.

>sacrifices of their own peoples and had somehow for some of them a "scientific" caste

You mean the priest classes? The ones that just wore a funny hat and claimed to talk to the gods? Also I assume you're referring to the Aztec, which is North America, not South America.

>as soon as a society stop being hunter and gatherer inequalities strike in and the system is very difficult to destroy

Again, inequality, human sacrifice, war, infanticide, and just plain ol' bashing each other's heads in and raping each other has always been around.

[Anonymous No.5958425]

>>5957438
It is a threat, but unless you want to die from a [exaggeration]papercut[/exaggeration], you'll accept that threat.

It's like everything in life, a calculated risk. Do you drive a car? Do you know how threatening that is to your existence? Eating food carries the threat of choking, better invest in a blender! But you don't want to the risk the threat of chopping up your fingers do you?

[Anonymous No.5958431]

>>5958421
you somehow won i don't have anything to say about your post this time but i will read on the subject to see it by myself

thread over i guess... for this time, i will return

[Anonymous No.5958434]

>>5958431

[Anonymous No.5958437]

>>5958431
I "somehow" won because i'm defending the truth. When you defend actual facts it is easy to "win" a debate.

[Anonymous No.5958779]

>Science is neither evil or benevolent - that is the purview of the user

Science has been invented by human to explain stuff. I can't see in which way science could be a threat.
Sometimes, people misunderstand what science means and keep in mind only the 'medicin' stuff. How could humanity be ritcher by knowing how black holes work?

[Anonymous No.5958795]

>>5957438
How are your teeth?

If the answer isn't: Incredible pain when I eat, missing most of them, yellow as fuck with a few black ones, then science is good.

What's your parasite situation? Head lice OK? Fun fact: body lice, which is a different species than head lice, diverged right around the time humans started wearing clothes.

Oh yeah, we eliminated small pox, a terrible scourge on the human race using the largest immunization program the world has ever seen.

And it was a success. Pic related since you need some proof and fuck you trying to refute what I said.

[Anonymous No.5958863]

>>5958795

Thank you for putting it succinctly

[Anonymous No.5958876]

>>5957624
I loved this discussion thread.

[Anonymous No.5958887]

I think it is in the wrong hands. Like my brother for example adding brake fluid to pool cleaner.

Could someone help me out with disposing of this? It's late at night and the brake fluid is a DOT 4 and it did make a bit of a flame, but there is still a lot left in there. Will it be safe to sit out there over night or is it a ticking time bomb?