/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2595661
Comes in handy, doesn't it?

>OP post
>"Hey /sci/ national security hurp derp

80 posts later

>"FUCKING KILL YOURSELF YOU STUPID FAGGOT
>RAAAAAAAAAAGE

lol wut

>>2542738
Holy shit what the fuck are you doing in /sci/?!

After /new met it's fate I assumed you'd just gone back to stormfront. Or at least /int/.

>>2440509
Well said. I wish I had time to pursue this further, but I have to be off.
I really wish I could convince you to read it. You would not be wasting your time, and I'd enjoy discussing it with you.

In the interim, take care.

>>2440481
Thats not a terribly humble attitude for a scientist to take, considering the discipline is predicated and advanced on the willingness to be proven wrong.

Also remember that just because we don't yet know the answers, that doesn't mean that there are none.

The practical implications of your position relegate mankind to determine life and cultural values through religious impression and cultural tradition. Hasn't gone so well so far imo.

>>2440400
Bold statement considering the theory is formative, and his work in neurology.

Have you read The Moral Landscape?

>>2440389

>>2440375

>oh wow, that was pretty clever. +1

>>2440367
ah. thanks.

>oneist

the fuck does that even mean?

>>2440330
>>2440330
...troll?

>>2440303
seriously man, going too far there. calm down, or shush. you're not doing your perspective any favors getting belligerent.

>>2440293
Chill man, he's honestly trying to help you communicate better. I suggest you take his advice.

Further, you should read Sam Harris for some insight into your latter question of subjective value systems and what science may perhaps have to say about that.

>>2440203

>>2440116
>Die in a fire Aether. Reported. Filtered. Nuked from orbit. Etc.

He really that bad? Every board seems to have one I suppose.
Shit, /n e w/ had half a dozen...

>>2439980
Right, and therein Im seeing another similarity-

That fundamentally the "decisions" made are not arbitrary, they are arrived at.
In this systems approach, there is no room for corruption as we know it, as "policy", such as it will be, is a matter of verifiable, quantifiable data. This allows for a system of holographically empirical decisions, not based on opinion, cultural relevancy, or religious interpretation.
That which is self-evident will be seen as such, and must render results that can be reproduced at every level.
Getting closer?

threads starting out strong. good discussion so far anon

>>2439799
>make long-ass reply post
>response fucking where?
>down the rabbit hole
>such is life is soviet 4chan

Okay. Doing this again.

Im not a part of any group, its just that I like to research a matter before I talk about it, which is why you'll not find me in a theoretical physics thread beyond expressing interest or fascination.

On the other hand, given you seem to equate everyone not in your group with "retards", I'd likely fall in there somewhere.

Im actually more interested in the particular differences of your TT group, and the Technocrats Im familiar with.
Like, for instance, how do you intend to enact a technical meritocracy and prevent the corruption inherent to a system of currency exchange?
It seems if there's ONE given in such a system, it's the inevitable consolidation of power, wealth, and influence. Does your group have no interest in egalitarianism, or... ?

>>2439751
Thanks for that, I'll look into it.

See, it seems that if we're trying to for predictive value, as an anon above said, it's a rather poor idea to predicate the function on the "rationality of self-interest".
So why not address the quantifiable NEEDS of human beings, from base to beyond, and get a formula that can actually be applied?
Shouldn't that be at the basic foundation of an economic theory?

>>2439745
Oh, sorry.
I didn't realize there were entire organizations of Technocrats who could be classified as "retards".

How much is your membership fee, by the way?

>The Technocracy Study Course and The Venus Project are pretty similar

>fucking retarded tzm/tvp are cult dipshits

Im getting mixed signals here OP. And further, I happen to know TZM and Technocracy affiliates are on pretty communicable terms, at least in the northwest.
The single biggest point of contention being the institutionalization of a meritocracy, which is a major concern to those worried about concentration of power and influence.

>>2437450
>more plastic nodules in the ocean than plankton
>release vast amounts of toxins into the seas
>11 distinct gires of refuse, one the size of texas in the atlantic

yeah mate, no worries

>>2437460
>Ek confirmed for furry

lol, sorry, it's early yet, need my coffee
cheers lass, ttyl

>>2437422
I've heard it's difficult not to project anthropomorphic biases on the studies, given prolonged exposure.
Have you ever had this problem?

>>2437415
>implying you can cite a single peer-reviewed study in the last 20 years that states every ecological field isn't in decline

Seriously, this isn't even debatable. Old news, fucked up news, but hardly shocking at this point.