Faith In Technology [ex: Crypto GovBankCorp]
On 7/23/19, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
yeah because of blind faith in 'technology'.
There is a lot of blind faith in tech, a lot of hand waving about hard problems from ostensibly "smart" people.
Ray Kurzweil, who is 71, thinks he will live forever - he predicts by 2029 medical tech will be at a point where each year will add at least another year to your life span, effective immortality.
2029 could easily be possible with moonshot sized levels of cooperative research, and a "go" signal. The real obstacle right now is probably not money or science, but religion (as infused into politics), the "go" signal... Every single major medical advance in history has been held back or at least shadowed by comments of "Gasp, you're playing God (or with Fire), only God can do that, stop now." Especially applies to any kind of "unnatural" life extension where you would have otherwise dropped... organ transplant (historically heart), etc. The Gasp's aren't making much noise about some outcomes... cancer cure, your own clone in a vat of jello in your house, brain / memory transplant, but seem to have moved on now, as their last stand in unprovable mystery, to intermediate research dependency of stem cells, embryonic blobs of a few 100k cells, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug
Moore's law applied to renewables, it's no fucking problem :).
There seems to be a going hypothesis... If Humanity can engineer biology (example halt aging, regenerate arbitrary parts, food, cures, etc) in time to be useful, then it can engineer any fix to mistakes, in time to save Humanity.
It all sounds like technology as religious experience to me.
Even if you buy into the inevitability of this future tech, is it really a road map for utopia? Humanity is facing some tough shit, much of it directly tied to tech progression: massive surveillance states on levels never previously imagined, wealth continually centralized among a tiny world elite, existential risks as a direct result of technological advances - atomic weapons, other "WMD", and of course turning the heat up on the planet by dumping carbon into the atmosphere at ever greater rates.
It seems like we are on a race to destroy ourselves... Will tech help us or hinder us? Imagine the "democratization of high-tech" that comes with all this progress - what happens when anybody with the latest & greatest 3d printer and a few other relatively cheap odds and ends can create an atomic bomb? What happens when gene hacking becomes truly cheap and ubiquitous, and anyone with a little biology knowledge and the right hardware can engineer a plague?
Independant Nuke and Chem are local threats, not global existential, thus can be generally ignored. Independant Bio release is the only direct global existential threat, and it only needs a brain, a little money, and a small space. With all things independant, it's extremely hard to stop a determined player... even with a geopolitical "no go" progress cap set in the world, an independant will eventually be able to push at least marginally through that artificially set development boundary. Best bet with Bio may in fact rest on having widespread ability to engineer a fix faster than a total kill can sweep. That ability requires a "go" today. It's a bit chicken egg, but you've got zero chance if you don't.
What's the answer to the Fermi paradox?
Doesn't matter... alien's either do or do not exist, and they either will or will not kill us, mod any negotiations. Until Humanity itself goes interstellar or first contact or evidence happens, there seems little point in trying to plan, do, or not do, anything about such possibilities. Besides, all worthy aliens within at least a 100 light year radius already have a head start on us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_extraterrestrial_intelligen... https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06024 Best hope might be to bioengineer some brainless hot blondes to trade with them or use as trojan infiltrators, because on a galactic scale that might be the only unique and rare element you've got on your side... The Bimbo Attack. Another way of thinking is that Human DNA tends to do whatever it takes to survive, to advance, etc, and avoids suicide. Seems many of these debates people have "Woes, do or not do" end up moot since so long as it fits within that, it's likely to end up happening in its own course of time and progress anyways, no matter what you do.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:08:39PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
What's the answer to the Fermi paradox?
< SNIP > I was hinting at something simpler. Namely: any sufficiently intelligent life form will destroy itself before it ever gets a chance to send von neumann probes out pissing its mark all over the universe. -- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:34:40 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:08:39PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
What's the answer to the Fermi paradox?
< SNIP >
I was hinting at something simpler. Namely: any sufficiently intelligent life form will destroy itself
why?
before it ever gets a chance to send von neumann probes out pissing its mark all over the universe.
and why would 'they' send 'probes'? And what makes you think anyone can 'send probes' all over an infinite universe? the explanation for the alleged 'fermi paradox' looks kinda clear to me. Imperialist western assholes who have raped the whole world take for granted that 'aliens' would do the same thing with the whole universe... however, I'd assume that intelligent beings wouldn't bother 'colonizing the universe'. So there isn't any 'paradox'. Just a self centered assumption made by some ppl.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:02:13PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:34:40 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:08:39PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
What's the answer to the Fermi paradox?
< SNIP >
I was hinting at something simpler. Namely: any sufficiently intelligent life form will destroy itself
why?
It's a cynical way of looking at what seems to be a rapacious species, who seems to have its eye on short term gains, and is continually on the edge of unsustainable expansion or unintentional self-destruction. Nick Bostrum has some other theories that aren't exactly existential ends, but "the gradual elimination of all forms of being worth caring about" (not talking about the simulation hypothesis). https://nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html
before it ever gets a chance to send von neumann probes out pissing its mark all over the universe.
and why would 'they' send 'probes'? And what makes you think anyone can 'send probes' all over an infinite universe?
the explanation for the alleged 'fermi paradox' looks kinda clear to me. Imperialist western assholes who have raped the whole world take for granted that 'aliens' would do the same thing with the whole universe...
however, I'd assume that intelligent beings wouldn't bother 'colonizing the universe'. So there isn't any 'paradox'. Just a self centered assumption made by some ppl.
Yeah, I hope so. That's the positive way to think about it, and how I hope shit plays out - how it would have to have played out, all over the trillions of galaxies with billions of stars and exoplanets that make up the universe, over the past ~14B years. Of course, its also possible the "Great Filter" could be something else entirely, or some other explanation. Anyway, we'll likely be dead before humanity totally shits the bed, if it does happen, so who gives a fuck, right :)
-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:13:57 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:02:13PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:34:40 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:08:39PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
What's the answer to the Fermi paradox?
< SNIP >
I was hinting at something simpler. Namely: any sufficiently intelligent life form will destroy itself
why?
It's a cynical way of looking at what seems to be a rapacious species, who seems to have its eye on short term gains,
is that the species, or the ruling class? Are you putting for instance wall street bankers and their victims worldwide in the same bag?
and is continually on the edge of unsustainable expansion or unintentional self-destruction.
Nick Bostrum has some other theories that aren't exactly existential ends, but "the gradual elimination of all forms of being worth caring about" (not talking about the simulation hypothesis).
"We then consider how such catastrophic outcomes could be avoided and argue that under certain conditions the only possible remedy would be a globally coordinated policy to control human evolution" "globally coordinated policy to control human evolution" of course means world government by anglo-western-swede scum. a closer look at the article shows a lot of pseudo scientific babbling including the completely unwarranted assumption that 'mind uploading' 'works'. But it also seems that bostrom is worried about humans being 'outcompeted' by 'machines'. Of course the idea is ridiculous, and bostrom like a good fascist completely ignores the existence of the ruling class (his employers), the ruling class being of course the people who happen to own the machines, and pretends that it's all a matter of 'evolution'. Watch out! Your microwave oven is going to 'evolve' and kill you while you sleep! So we can assume that bostrom is a world wide wannabe tyrant of the 'benevolent' kind. (then again, what sort of wannabe tyrant would show his hand by acknowleding that he's evil - you know their motto : don't be evil!) At any rate he favors something he calls "eudaemonic agents" which seems to be people(?) whith some morally worthy qualities. Then again, given bostrom's pseudo-scientific, reductionist, 'evolutionary' babbling, the distinction is pretty much arbitrary. Either 'evolution' favors 'survival of the fittest' - whatever 'fittest' means, or it doesn't. And then 'evolution' is either outside of 'human' control, or whatever 'humans' do is part of 'evolution' as well. "Might not individuals acting in a free market allocate their resources optimally between eudaemonic “consumption” and non-eudaemonic “investment”" What free market? "Reining in evolution is a feat that could only be accomplished by a singleton. " a worldwide nazi empire controlled by jew-kristians like bostrom. Funnily enough, he wants world wide tyranny to prevent the 'rise of the machines' that his world wide western nazi empire is currently executing. Then again, laughable contradiction is the 'founding principle' of statism.
however, I'd assume that intelligent beings wouldn't bother 'colonizing the universe'. So there isn't any 'paradox'. Just a self centered assumption made by some ppl.
Yeah, I hope so. That's the positive way to think about it, and how I hope shit plays out - how it would have to have played out, all over the trillions of galaxies with billions of stars and exoplanets that make up the universe, over the past ~14B years. Of course, its also possible the "Great Filter" could be something else entirely, or some other explanation.
Right, The 'fermi paradox' is wildly speculative stuff with tons of completely unknown variables.
Anyway, we'll likely be dead before humanity totally shits the bed, if it does happen, so who gives a fuck, right :)
I don't care about humanity per se. I do care about some people today. I do give a fuck for instance about the ruling class being shredd to pieces, like they deserve. And that has little or nothing to do with cosmic events spanning an eternal and infinite universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_%28global_governance%29 see, bostrom is one of the scumbags that must be shredded to pieces.
On July 25, 2019 1:14:58 AM UTC, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:13:57 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:02:13PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:34:40 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:08:39PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
What's the answer to the Fermi paradox?
< SNIP >
I was hinting at something simpler. Namely: any sufficiently intelligent life form will destroy itself
why?
It's a cynical way of looking at what seems to be a rapacious species, who seems to have its eye on short term gains,
is that the species, or the ruling class? Are you putting for instance wall street bankers and their victims worldwide in the same bag?
Yeah, probably so. But I'm not sure it's unfounded. Nation states and big business do, more or less, run the whole bag and make decisions for the whole species.
and is continually on the edge of unsustainable expansion or unintentional self-destruction.
Nick Bostrum has some other theories that aren't exactly existential ends, but "the gradual elimination of all forms of being worth caring about" (not talking about the simulation hypothesis).
"We then consider how such catastrophic outcomes could be avoided and argue that under certain conditions the only possible remedy would be a globally coordinated policy to control human evolution"
"globally coordinated policy to control human evolution" of course means world government by anglo-western-swede scum.
a closer look at the article shows a lot of pseudo scientific babbling including the completely unwarranted assumption that 'mind uploading' 'works'. But it also seems that bostrom is worried about humans being 'outcompeted' by 'machines'. Of course the idea is ridiculous, and bostrom like a good fascist completely ignores the existence of the ruling class (his employers), the ruling class being of course the people who happen to own the machines, and pretends that it's all a matter of 'evolution'. Watch out! Your microwave oven is going to 'evolve' and kill you while you sleep!
So we can assume that bostrom is a world wide wannabe tyrant of the 'benevolent' kind. (then again, what sort of wannabe tyrant would show his hand by acknowleding that he's evil - you know their motto : don't be evil!)
Lol! Yeah, he has some funny ideas. I haven't read any of his papers in years I just remembered him because someone at work was talking about the fucking simulation hypothesis today.
At any rate he favors something he calls "eudaemonic agents" which seems to be people(?) whith some morally worthy qualities. Then again, given bostrom's pseudo-scientific, reductionist, 'evolutionary' babbling, the distinction is pretty much arbitrary. Either 'evolution' favors 'survival of the fittest' - whatever 'fittest' means, or it doesn't. And then 'evolution' is either outside of 'human' control, or whatever 'humans' do is part of 'evolution' as well.
"Might not individuals acting in a free market allocate their resources optimally between eudaemonic “consumption” and non-eudaemonic “investment”"
What free market?
"Reining in evolution is a feat that could only be accomplished by a singleton. "
a worldwide nazi empire controlled by jew-kristians like bostrom. Funnily enough, he wants world wide tyranny to prevent the 'rise of the machines' that his world wide western nazi empire is currently executing. Then again, laughable contradiction is the 'founding principle' of statism.
however, I'd assume that intelligent beings wouldn't bother
'colonizing the universe'. So there isn't any 'paradox'. Just a self centered assumption made by some ppl.
Yeah, I hope so. That's the positive way to think about it, and how I
hope shit plays out - how it would have to have played out, all over the trillions of galaxies with billions of stars and exoplanets that make up the universe, over the past ~14B years. Of course, its also possible the "Great Filter" could be something else entirely, or some other explanation.
Right, The 'fermi paradox' is wildly speculative stuff with tons of completely unknown variables.
Anyway, we'll likely be dead before humanity totally shits the bed, if it does happen, so who gives a fuck, right :)
I don't care about humanity per se. I do care about some people today. I do give a fuck for instance about the ruling class being shredd to pieces, like they deserve. And that has little or nothing to do with cosmic events spanning an eternal and infinite universe.
Haha, I was making a little joke about my own evaluation of human nature :). I do care about freedom, and actually I do care about the future of humanity. I don't give half a fuck for the ruling class. I've heard it said that the Neolithic Revolution was the biggest misstep humanity ever took... I don't know if I agree, but there's something to the idea. Of course, it's not like there was any stopping it. Farmers started accumulating more than they could eat, wealth and cities and slave states were born, and the rest is just history...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_%28global_governance%29
see, bostrom is one of the scumbags that must be shredded to pieces.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:08:39 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/23/19, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
yeah because of blind faith in 'technology'.
There is a lot of blind faith in tech, a lot of hand waving about hard problems from ostensibly "smart" people.
Ray Kurzweil, who is 71, thinks he will live forever - he predicts by 2029 medical tech will be at a point where each year will add at least another year to your life span, effective immortality.
2029 could easily be possible with moonshot sized levels of cooperative research, and a "go" signal.
you don't seem to get it at all. Death is very important. It is very very important that supreme scum like kurzweil die ASAP. However, things are moving in the opposite direction. The worst scum on the planet 'might' become immortal, or at least even harder to kill. Don't you see how BAD that is? I mean, if you actually care about freedom...
The real obstacle right now is probably not money or science, but religion (as infused into politics), the "go" signal...
techno fascist bullshit. funnily enough, here's a self selected article by nutcase techno fascist bostrom deals exactly with that topic http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html it's a tirade whining about the government not wasting enough money to make the worst scum on the planet 'immortal' "While we still lack effective and acceptable means for slowing the aging process[1], we can identify research directions that might lead to the development of such means in the foreseeable future." bla bla bla - research directions to which "the king"(bostrom's own words) should allocate the resources he and the rest of the oligarchy steal from the peasants.
On 7/26/19, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
supreme scum ... immortal
Supreme good... immortal. Or scum potentially turning good if suggesting only scum have access to the injection.
immortal
Depends on if the masses of sheeple who might in fact end up rising against the scum if given another 50 years to develop their thinking away from their own slavery... are currently waking up too late, only to be killed off too early by nature to do anything about it. Immortality could put enough fraction of entire mass toward end scum.
peasants.
Whether your or anyone's proposed future is reverting to prehistoric, or continued advancing, still same problem... or uses gold or crypto... still same problem...... rulers over you. It's not the future or the coin that matter as much, they are but environments and tools, it's what you do with them to end the rulers. How are you going to get rid of the scum?
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 02:24:58 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/19, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
supreme scum ... immortal
Supreme good... immortal.
There are some decent people but I'm not seeing any supreme good deserving immortality. So this is the same wrong premise again. The premise is that technical development is neutral when in reality technical development controlled by the ruling class (what we have and always have had) favors the ruling class.
Or scum potentially turning good if suggesting only scum have access to the injection.
kurzweil, the rothschilds, goldman sachs and all the rest will N e v e r turn good. I don't understand your "if suggestiong..." clause.
immortal
Depends on if the masses of sheeple who might in fact end up rising against the scum if given another 50 years to develop their thinking away from their own slavery...
I suggest you look at reality instead of engaging in wishful thinking. It's pretty much a fact of nature and a fact of life that young people are rebellious and have little interest in the status quo. And as people get old they become more conservative, more indoctrinated, more attached to their fucked up ways, etc etc. In other words, making people live longer will make things WORSE, not better.
are currently waking up too late, only to be killed off too early by nature
you coulnd't be more wrong. The solution isn't to preserve the fucked up grown ups - the solution is to raise the new generations in a liberal/anarchist culture.
to do anything about it. Immortality could put enough fraction of entire mass toward end scum.
nope. On the contrary, the moment somebody says something the masters don't like he can't buy 'immortality pills' anymore.
peasants.
Whether your or anyone's proposed future is reverting to prehistoric, or continued advancing, still same problem... or uses gold or crypto... still same problem...... rulers over you.
Exactly. And the material circumstances aren't too relevant. I mean look at all the right wing gun nutcases in 'America' - have they ever lifted a finger againt their government? Of cours NOT. The right wing nutcases are the number one suckers of uncle sam's cock.
It's not the future or the coin that matter as much, they are but environments and tools, it's what you do with them to end the rulers.
Right.
How are you going to get rid of the scum?
Oh the plan is pretty easy. It's just a matter of there being enough people willing to stop them.
participants (3)
-
grarpamp -
John Newman -
Punk