Humanity Confuses Me.

[Rejakor]

Humans are actually designed modularly, looking at it from a psychological viewpoint.

Human A can make Human B happy and 'coincidentally' Human B produces answer to problem Human B was working on shortly afterwards.  Humans gain mental advantage from being apart from communities, humans gain mental advantages from being part of communities, humans gain mental advantage from all kinds of crazy things other humans do, and produce markedly better results/results they almost NEVER reach otherwise - in groups of humans, even if they report that the group of humans made it HARDER for them to produce the results.

There's even some interesting work being done correlating population densities with technological breakthroughs in pre-industrial periods.  Humans created more technology as they needed it as the density rose... we're designed to kill each other for resources/breeding privileges, but we're also definitely designed to help each other out, even if in really subtle ways, to deal with outside threats (whether it's lack of resources, environmental change, or hostile groups/predators).

The actual possible potential of unaugmented humans is staggering when viewed in this context.  We can just megatron up and achieve things completely outside the scope of what we have so far achieved, if the right conditions were met (although to be sure, they'd have to be pretty apocalyptic).

I find it oddly comforting when viewing the various balancing mechanisms and hidden co-operative paradigms humans exist within that even if everyone fucks it up progress will inevitably be made by the push/pull of co-operation and competition.

[altpersona]

if you can rebang some old unfashionable section of the universe, you could outlive the heat death...


http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[Amechra]

So, next step...

Cause the apocalypse; any suggestions?

 

[Wrex]

So, next step...

Cause the apocalypse; any suggestions?

 

Airborne Ebola.

[Halinn]

False nuclear launch warnings in several countries at once, through cinematic hacking.

[bhu]

Find a way to set off massive emp bursts over the US and china, human nature will take care of the rest

genetically engineer a hyper infectious strain of syphilis that has a much higher kill rate and is completely resistant to antibiotics

increase the female hormones in food, plastics and other items to the point that young girls begin hitting puberty earlier and earlier until it reaches the point their organs dont form properly and teh females of the species die while the males grow ever closer to sterility

introduce legislation in various countries considered so heinous by the population that revolt occurs.  For example in the US make abortion and homosexual relationships mandatory, and outlaw english and christianity.  Target unstable portions of the population.

[Tshern]

Torch all the pigs and watch mankind tear itself apart when the prospect of not having any bacon kicks in. Sure, some people don't eat bacon for various reasons that make no sense whatsoever, but if you think the terrified bacon lovers don't shoot them to soothe their own nerves, you are wrong.

[bhu]

ensure the rest of the bees die

[Halinn]

A very large amount of crops are genetically identical (practically all cultivated bananas, for instance). Get some targeted plagues against corn, soy and maize. Watch most of the world's population die from hunger.

[darqueseid]

Total apocalypse isn't the answer,  and we haven't yet reached the population limit of our planet yet.  Back in the middle ages killing some people off made room, and made it easier for the survivors to live, ushering in an age where individual artisans could appear and invent.  but it wasn't ALL who died in the black death, it wasn't even 80-90%, it was only around half.  So if that's your goal you have to find a sweet spot of 30-60% of the population killed.  And you also have to leave food stores, and production etc. basically untouched, and ensure that enough of the wealthy are killed off as well (the black death killed off some of the  early power-brokers which made way for new ideas to flourish without getting crushed by an establishment).

But I'm not sure that sort of thing is productive in our time, sure there are people who are just acting as a drain on our society, but killing them off would just give us a further surplus in supply. 

If you think about it that's not what America is missing, one of my friends who grew up in the UAE told me that the primary difference between the US and the UAE is that there are just some things you CANT get there no matter how rich they are-whereas in America you can get virtually ANYthing if you have the cash. 

So our problem isn't really supply, its really the establishment power mongers that are holding us back.  The oil companies stop us from getting new clean energy technology, the power companies in bed with big oil hold us back from getting solar or more nuclear, the religious establishment holds us back from the correct social change(allowing gays to marry, providing equal rights and choices for women) etc etc... I could go on and on but you get the picture.  What we need is an apocalypse that targets the powerful elites who are holding us back.

[Tshern]

Total apocalypse isn't the answer,  and we haven't yet reached the population limit of our planet yet.  Back in the middle ages killing some people off made room, and made it easier for the survivors to live, ushering in an age where individual artisans could appear and invent.

So eliminating people was made more room back in the Middle Ages when the world was vastly less populated? Also, even though Earth certainly can support more people, it doesn't mean that it is not overpopulated. Of course the population spread is an important factor as well, but due to the way we treat the planet and pursue growth, one could easily argue we have too many people trying to get their share of the pie.

but it wasn't ALL who died in the black death, it wasn't even 80-90%, it was only around half.

Half of what? The population of the Earth? Not even close.

But I'm not sure that sort of thing is productive in our time, sure there are people who are just acting as a drain on our society, but killing them off would just give us a further surplus in supply.

Supply isn't the problem, distribution is. That is true.

the religious establishment holds us back from the correct social change(allowing gays to marry, providing equal rights and choices for women) etc etc... I could go on and on but you get the picture.  What we need is an apocalypse that targets the powerful elites who are holding us back.

Define correct social change.

[darqueseid]

Total apocalypse isn't the answer,  and we haven't yet reached the population limit of our planet yet.  Back in the middle ages killing some people off made room, and made it easier for the survivors to live, ushering in an age where individual artisans could appear and invent.

So eliminating people was made more room back in the Middle Ages when the world was vastly less populated? Also, even though Earth certainly can support more people, it doesn't mean that it is not overpopulated. Of course the population spread is an important factor as well, but due to the way we treat the planet and pursue growth, one could easily argue we have too many people trying to get their share of the pie.

The renaissance was primarily in Europe, so when we're talking those precipitating factors we're only talking about Europe.  We're not looking at the global scale because its usually not well recorded what happened on a global scale.  There is anecdotal evidence that the black plague affected other areas besides Europe, and that those areas also experienced a period of economic and social prosperity as well, but they happened at different times, either prior or after the European renaissance happened.  Regardless,  the Point is, right now the earth may be overpopulated, but that is not what is preventing artisans from creating and inventing, its the powerful elite.

but it wasn't ALL who died in the black death, it wasn't even 80-90%, it was only around half.

Half of what? The population of the Earth? Not even close.

Europe, and in places where the plague hit, it had a 30-60% mortality rate.

But I'm not sure that sort of thing is productive in our time, sure there are people who are just acting as a drain on our society, but killing them off would just give us a further surplus in supply.

Supply isn't the problem, distribution is. That is true.

the religious establishment holds us back from the correct social change(allowing gays to marry, providing equal rights and choices for women) etc etc... I could go on and on but you get the picture.  What we need is an apocalypse that targets the powerful elites who are holding us back.

Define correct social change.

Correct social change is the correct moral change based on logical reasons, not based on fairy tales that people happen to believe are true.  I'm not saying that one can't have their beliefs, people can believe whatever they want, they just shouldn't be able to foist their beliefs on others.  Of course we can go down the rabbit hole of mores, morals, etc.  But the point is, people should have equal rights, and don't now, people should be as free to make choices as possible and aren't now, and people should have equal opportunity and certainly don't now.  All those things we're promised by the American dream(and the constitution), but in practice only end up being available to the rich/straight/protestants...

[Tshern]

The renaissance was primarily in Europe, so when we're talking those precipitating factors we're only talking about Europe.  We're not looking at the global scale because its usually not well recorded what happened on a global scale.  There is anecdotal evidence that the black plague affected other areas besides Europe, and that those areas also experienced a period of economic and social prosperity as well, but they happened at different times, either prior or after the European renaissance happened.  Regardless,  the Point is, right now the earth may be overpopulated, but that is not what is preventing artisans from creating and inventing, its the powerful elite.

I would argue powerful elites have had their ways and incentives to stymie progress for a long, long time. It is by no means a phenomenon unique to our days, but I think that is what you implied by pointing out that the elites too suffered when the plague hit. However, it would be unfair to say that the Renaissance in Europe was the sole cause of scientific progress since despite the decline of Middle Eastern innovation, science did evolve elsewhere in the world as well.

Europe, and in places where the plague hit, it had a 30-60% mortality rate.

Fair enough, I was hoping you would not refer to the entire population of the world.

Correct social change is the correct moral change based on logical reasons, not based on fairy tales that people happen to believe are true.  I'm not saying that one can't have their beliefs, people can believe whatever they want, they just shouldn't be able to foist their beliefs on others.  Of course we can go down the rabbit hole of mores, morals, etc.  But the point is, people should have equal rights, and don't now, people should be as free to make choices as possible and aren't now, and people should have equal opportunity and certainly don't now.  All those things we're promised by the American dream(and the constitution)

The American dream is just a fairy tale, much like so many other beliefs people hold for various reasons. Under the most prevalent notions of private property, equality of opportunity is simply impossible. More to the point, the practices that actively work against equality of opportunity carry a lot more weight than the modest measures that seek to promote it even though the circlejerk of elites are unlikely to say that out loud.

rich/straight/protestants...

Don't forget 'male'.

[bhu]

I would argue powerful elites have had their ways and incentives to stymie progress for a long, long time. It is by no means a phenomenon unique to our days, but I think that is what you implied by pointing out that the elites too suffered when the plague hit. However, it would be unfair to say that the Renaissance in Europe was the sole cause of scientific progress since despite the decline of Middle Eastern innovation, science did evolve elsewhere in the world as well.

ELites have always had that ability, but there have always been times when they held things back for too long and were brutally murdered for it.  They were replaced by people who became new elites who were in turn brutally murdered later when they became entrenched and incapable of change.  That's what we currently lack with the progression of tech.  The means to successfully and violently overthrow elites and replace them.

[Tshern]

ELites have always had that ability, but there have always been times when they held things back for too long and were brutally murdered for it.  They were replaced by people who became new elites who were in turn brutally murdered later when they became entrenched and incapable of change.  That's what we currently lack with the progression of tech.  The means to successfully and violently overthrow elites and replace them.

As you pointed out, such a violent uprising on a global scale is extremely unlikely. Especially in modern Western neoliberal democracies the elites have a stranglehold on the resouces that could be used to overthrow them.

Progress, however, is still there. A lot of energy companies for example have reacted to public pressure and placed voluntary restrictions on their emissions and invested in cleaner energy sources. Collective action against the elites is still taking its first babysteps towards a large scale change, but it's there, under the surface. Curious to see how the situation evolves.

[phaedrusxy]

if you can rebang some old unfashionable section of the universe, you could outlive the heat death...


http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Very nice story. Yeah, it will probably go something like that, but the ending might be a bit different, depending on what the answer to the last question is.

[Amechra]

If we can find out a way to pull off instrumentality...

People tend to be nicer when their empathy is cranked sky high...

And, hey, I'm pretty sure we can pull that off without brain surgery...

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Entropy says otherwise. Everything wears down and decays one way or the other. You can't have true immortality if you can't solve entropy, and you can't solve entropy unless everything we know about physics is wrong.

Yes, it's true that we can't outlive the heat death of the universe. Anything short of that should be theoretically possible, though... I think I can live with that. 

Eating heat death fried brains , just before the  final fry.

[Rejakor]

We don't even properly know which kind of death the universe is going to suffer, and there's a lot of unknowns that seem to indicate the universe interacts with stuff we don't really understand or even know properly exists which might change that in some manner.

[DonQuixote]

Correct social change is the correct moral change based on logical reasons, not based on fairy tales that people happen to believe are true.  I'm not saying that one can't have their beliefs, people can believe whatever they want, they just shouldn't be able to foist their beliefs on others.  Of course we can go down the rabbit hole of mores, morals, etc.  But the point is, people should have equal rights, and don't now, people should be as free to make choices as possible and aren't now, and people should have equal opportunity and certainly don't now.  All those things we're promised by the American dream(and the constitution), but in practice only end up being available to the rich/straight/protestants...

I still see nothing in here that doesn't leave "Correct social change" as entirely subjective.