There's a question thats always bothered me, and the movie interstellar really put a point on it. What will it mean if we can never leave earth? What if living in the clouds of Venus, or the caves of mars is impossible? It seems unlikely that we can avoid killing ourselves over the long term, and ultimately our whole species will die here, and none of our lives will mean anything. I don't mind dying, but I've always thought that we where building towards something worthwhile in the end.
What does /pol/ think that's stopping spcar progress?
I'd say feminism, proven by the probe expedition. They make small problems big enough that we lose focus of what we need to actually do.
We don't have the technology and likely wont because our entire species has been in a state of constant war now for thousands of years and likely wont stop. Even if we managed to escape this shitrock it wont be accomplished in our life times so just accept the fact that your entire existence will amount to knowing that amazing possibilities are just over a horizon that doesn't exist and that you will never see faggot.
Casuals man, they're the majority and the developers cater to them since that's their biggest source of income there are too few hardcore players left and most have quit or went to other games. It isn't even the same game anymore but that's also because the game outside has changed aswell and it too appeals to casuals more then ever.
We'll almost certainly colonize the solar system eventually
whether or not we can efficiently colonize outside the solar system comes down to if nature can throw us a bone with FTL travel, otherwise colonization would be limited to extremely slow trips that probably wouldn't be able to communicate to anyone else
>We'll almost certainly colonize the solar system eventually
No. It's always economically more feasible to stay on Earth. If we start running out of space, it's easier to kill some people instead of moving them to live inside some bubble in Mars.
Man won't wipe itself out.
And looking at how massive just our own galaxy is, which is a grain of sand on the beach that is the universe, it's pretty unthinkable that we won't at least venture outside of our solar system in the next millenium
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO LIVE "IN THE CLOUDS OF VENUS", OR "IN THE CAVES OF MARS"?
YOU SEEM TO BE PRESUPPOSING THAT BY LEAVING THE EARTH, YOU WOULD NOT BE EXPORTING THE PROBLEMS OF EARTH TO WHEREVER YOU GO.
WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SEEKING ESCAPISM TO AVOID CONFRONTING THE PROBLEMS THAT OUGHT TO BE RESOLVED, AND MASKING THAT ESCAPISM WITH A FACADE OF MAWKISH SCIENCISTIC INSPIRATION; UNDERLYING THAT FACADE, AND THAT ESCAPISM, THERE IS A DEEPROOTED PESSIMISM THAT IS EITHER INHERENT, OR ACQUIRED.
>believing that mankind won't reach the stars and bring them under our heel
The best we can hope to achieve is to create an AI that is smarter than us. Then let it wipe us into dust. In the end, it's just evolution. Biological lifeforms are fundamentally flawed and we must at some point face the futility of trying to prolong such puny existence.
>Wanting to be cucked by your own children
>not just turning humans into robots, rather than making robots to emulate humans.
HFY thread? HFY thread.
>Wanting to secure a future for civilization and humanity, as well as laying the groundwork for the exploitation of effectively limitless resources, is escapism and pessimism
>inability to bypass emotional / selective / collective bias
>butterzone temperatures require a very specific range which we can survive in
>inability to deal with conflict with our own species
>inability to live without water, oxygen, specific balance of nutrients
I could go on..
And the next part of the plan was to read the burial at sea religious passage of choice, let their wives say goodbye, and then cut communications to skip the gasping/begging/dying issue.
The same problems extend to artificial life to an extent, however
>nothing lasts forever
>nothing is invincible
>can't think outside of it's own programming, regardless of how sophisticated it may be
>can't survive in every possible environment
>existence is inherently full of conflict, and sentience allows us to realize this. They will come in conflict with each other, unless they are literally a hive mind
>inability to survive without the means to process and manufacture electrical components, energy sources, rare metals
If humans have one thing over any machine we can build today, is that a human can survive with a very, very low technology base to live off of. It'd be extremely challenging to create a species of artificial life that could be plopped down in a forest, and manage to maintain their population, repair as needed, and possibly even expand.
Nothing is impossible! Not if you can imagine it!
That's what being human is all about!
THE KIND OF MENTALITY THAT AFFIRMS RAMPANT EXPANSIONISM, AND EXPLOITATION OF RESOURCES AS IF THEY WERE "LIMITLESS", UNDER THE PRETEXT OF SECURING A PROSPEROUS & SECURE FUTURE FOR "CIVILIZATION AND HUMANITY", IS ONE OF THE PRIME CAUSES FOR THE DISASTROUS ECOLOGICAL, SOCIOPOLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC, PROBLEMS THAT PREVAIL IN THE WORLD TODAY.
YOU ARE TOO MENTALLY IMPAIRED TO REALIZE THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN YOUR RATIONALE.
Doesn't the fact that we are conscious outweigh all of those negative connotations? Sample most of the matter in our solar system, let alone in your room right now, and most of it is dead - inanimate. Yet we are perceiving, in time - at a frame rate -, applying logic and organizing our sensations and have the ability to affect action upon our surroundings. I don't know if mortality is the best price to pay for these abilities, but it may be a fair price.
None of that has stopped us from exploring inhospitable places before.
Humanity finds a way to survive.
>It's already been shown that man cannot survive to long without the earths gravity. Takes a toll on the body and it would take hundreds of generation to fix that.
Yeah you're full of shit. Little to no physical activity makes the body decay even on earth, heck I just came from a period of super weakness due to my NEETdom, currently attending a gym.
Same goes for people who are hospitalized for long times. They usually give you a wheelchair to roam around for a reason you know (staying in bed is 0G on the height axis, not to mention the lack of movement).
That 0G is unliveable for long periods is obvious even withouth visiting space. Fractions of G on the other hand we still don't know, should set a base on the Moon fisrt to be able to tell ...
Lack of public interest which, consequently, results in a lack of political support for long-term funding and timetables for space exploration.
We have the technology to establish permanent outposts on other bodies in our solar system NOW... just not in a manner which is remotely practical, affordable, or a sustainable model for long-term human colonization. We're getting there though.
There will always be problems on Earth. Ten years. A hundred years. A thousand years from now - there will still be problems on Earth. Some of them the same, some of them new, some of them maybe even things we thought we were already resolved. But there's no magical political ideology or technology that will magically get rid of every problem on Earth.
... so why put off doing other shit?
There are few things better.
I bet you're one of those people that accept the Georgia Guide stones as something to live by.
Regardless of whether or not non-human sentient life exists, sentience itself is a precious thing. As thinking beings, it is our duty, our obligation, to do everything in our power to ensure that the one spark of sentience we are aware of, us, will continue to glow.
If that means warring within ourselves, with the unfortunate effect of extinguishing some sentient lives, then so be it. The removal of selfish or self-destructive elements from society is a small price to pay to ensure that humanity continues on.
If the exploitation of resources is required to keep humanity, and all the wonders of civilization that have been borne of our sentience, then so be it.
If our continued existence requires that we destroy our ecosystem, then so be it. We'll figure out a way to live without it, or we'll rebuild it better.
Civilization is the most efficient means by which to expand and preserve sentient life, and therefor it's continued expansion and preservation is of utmost importance
>TL;DR: >>>VHEMT is that way, and stop yelling
Ignoring human's nature is not going to get you nowhere
Yes, we destroy everything we touch.
Yes, warfare and wealth are the motivators of progress
Yet, we either conquer space and keep trying to fix ourselves, or stay here and watch this world burn to the ground, with us stuck in it.
>As thinking beings, it is our duty, our obligation, to do everything in our power to ensure that the one spark of sentience we are aware of, us, will continue to glow.
What an arbitrary and silly opinion.
Name a few alternatives, and why they are better. The way I see it, thinking, and being able to continue thinking, and your descendants being able to think, is a worth while goal.
Our variables cannot be controlled whereas measures and adjustments to programming, development, etc can be made to combat each issue you've listed in order to mitigate potential issues that might occur. Humanity is simply too fickle and animalistic to get anything meaningful done outside of completely fucking the living shit out of the planet we live on.
Everything we hold near and dear to our hearts in this world that we feel brings some type of rhyme or reason and meaning to our lives means nothing to our universe, our existence is merely one of billions of various forms of life that exist and have the potential to exist. We are innately hampered by our evolutionary path being dictated by the planet we live on but we can design artificial life with these flaws in mind.
It's science fiction hocuspocus as of right now but the idea of traveling across the world at 600mph in a shiny metal tube was thought to be impossible only 100 years ago.
Several kilometers underground
The Abyssal ocean
Space is easy, just have a can strong enough to contain the air inside.
Underwater, though, you need to be strong enough to support several atmospheres of water pushing in on all sides.
Of course, but simply because we posses such unique traits doesn't negate that someday it may in fact be possible to code our likeness with these functioning processes into an artificial lifeform. Again it's hocuspocus now but reality is often stranger than fiction.
I have never heard something so utterly defeatist in my life. Why are you so sad, anon? Besides being Finnish, of course.
>Underwater, though, you need to be strong enough to support several atmospheres of water pushing in on all sides.
There are lots of fish and other life living in such conditions.
Well as it turns out there's only one alternative to living and that's dying. If what all of the armchair economists on this website tell me is true in our lifetimes all occupations will be obsolesced; we'll have robots to feed us, wipe our asses and even watch paint dry for us. All we have left to do is exist.
Is merely existing with extraterrestrial scenery enough to fling us into the stars? I posit that the obvious answer is that nobody cares, and nobody should care.
Fuck yeah, HFY, never get these outside of /b/ and /x/ (due to sheer amt of aliens in them)
When machinery makes all manual labor obsolete, all we'll have left to do is think. The humans that cannot think will eventually die out, and the remainder will be, for lack of a more humorous term, STEM master race. A species of historians, scientists, and engineers. A species of artists and artisans and musicians. The plebs who are left with nothing to do will eventually (hopefully) phase out, and what will be left is the apex, or as close as we can be to it, of the human race.
>If our continued existence requires that we destroy our ecosystem, then so be it. We'll figure out a way to live without it, or we'll rebuild it better.
>hurr humans are so cool and different from all the other animals, reality doesn't apply to us we can just bend it to our will
You're an idiot and I find your undeserved arrogance sickening.
>We have the technology to establish permanent outposts on other bodies in our solar system NOW... just not in a manner which is remotely practical, affordable, or a sustainable model for long-term human colonization. We're getting there though.
If we really had the capabilities to successfully venture into space and we felt the reward outweighed the risk we'd be doing it right now. The concept that money really controls everything on earth is ridiculous. Money is a man made concept that has no real influence on matters such as these. The idea that money limits our abilities and that in order for us to venture into space and that it must first be affordable is exactly the reason why we're still on earth. We limit ourselves by allowing a fictitious concept of 1's and 0's govern us to the extent that we're willing to risk the future of our species based on it? Sounds like some foolish ape brained shit to me.
That it means nothing to the universe is a vacuous statement...Unless you conjecture the universe to be conscious? Meaning can only be experienced by conscious beings.
As regards inexorably evolving at the mercy of the planet: humans have developed will enough to transcend these boundaries. Why do you think we have houses and grocery stores? Because we beat the perils of nature. Now the problem is we're beating nature into the ground
Yeah I agree. I wasn't trying to disregard the possibility of AI. I don't even think it's hocus pocus now. Not that I'm on the cutting edge of computing science and machine learning or anything, but things like neural networks and learning algorithms show great potential for the future of AI as they are further developed.
>I have never heard something so utterly defeatist in my life.
AN IRONIC STATEMENT, COMING FROM YOU.
YOUR PETTY INCHOATE MIND CAN ONLY RESORT TO REGARD ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOUR IGNOBLE ATTITUDES AS A FELLOW PESSIMIST, BUT OF A DIFFERENT KIND; YOU CANNOT CONCEIVE OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF EXISTENCE, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE.
Meh, that one's a bit poorly written, pacing and dialogue feel off. But hey, HFY is HFY.
>YOU SEEM TO BE PRESUPPOSING THAT BY LEAVING THE EARTH, YOU WOULD NOT BE EXPORTING THE PROBLEMS OF EARTH TO WHEREVER YOU GO.
Holy hell, this is the most redpilled thing I've ever read. Pls continue.
>WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SEEKING ESCAPISM TO AVOID CONFRONTING THE PROBLEMS THAT OUGHT TO BE RESOLVED, AND MASKING THAT ESCAPISM WITH A FACADE OF MAWKISH SCIENCISTIC INSPIRATION; UNDERLYING THAT FACADE, AND THAT ESCAPISM, THERE IS A DEEPROOTED PESSIMISM THAT IS EITHER INHERENT, OR ACQUIRED.
So it's a bunch of cowardice and denial, and under the facade they use to hide the cowardice, it's doubt, and a lack of confidence. I think you've said a lot about those obsessed with space exploration.
I never said that. If we cut down an entire forest to build a city, we'll learn to not use wood any more, or we'll replant all the trees in a way more conducive to further exploitation. Stay mad, hippy.
I do not conceive of alternate ways of living, because they are inferior. I place my faith and energy in the pursuit and expansion of civilization, rationality, and exploration. You'd see us exist in perfect harmony with nature because you are too weak to take what is needed to progress.
> humans have developed will enough to transcend these boundaries.
What boundaries have we actually transcended?
Houses and grocery stores are nothing remotely special.
Ants have hives.
Ants have larders.
I think you exaggerate the existential meaning of our accomplishments.
>and none of our lives will mean anything. I don't mind dying, but I've always thought that we where building towards something worthwhile in the end.
Human progress is a myth and you'd do well to be rid of it. despite all the tech advancement, civilization, and intelligence we're just animals and we'll most certainly become extinct in time, likely due to our own poor management of the planet we live on - this isn't pessimism or cynicism, it's simply nature.
You'd be better off finding a point in life otherwise.
Don't listen to the loud mexican, anon. He's not redpilled, he's just a small minded idiot who rejects progress and exploration because it scares him.
Answer me this. If those who promote space travel are so cowardly, how did we ever reach the moon? How did we do the one thing that no human has ever done before, and do it successfully? Sounds to me like everyone who has anything to do with it was pretty brave.
Progression needs planning. You make it sound like you don't care about the outcome of "progress". You should aim your gun before you fire it; otherwise blind fire could slay your allies.
We have successfully bent the natural world to our whims. We have domesticated, and utterly subjugated nearly every other species on this planet. We have managed to surpass our own natural senses, and can look into the farthest reaches of space, or into the smallest nooks and crannies. We have managed to create artificial stars, no matter how small and transient.
How in hell is it a myth? The very fact that you just typed that up, is irrefutable proof of human progress.
If the Soviets never challenged America, then America wouldn't have been assed at all, they'd just sit and wallow in their alleged superiority without an anatagonist doing better than them by putting Sputnik 1 up. Communism is shit, but this has been a good lesson in how occasionally, one should thank their enemies and those who antagonize them, for motivating them if that's what they've done.
Also, that tripfag is old, I've seen him around. He's the only anarcho-nazi other than myself that I know of.
>we'll learn to not use wood any more, or we'll replant all the trees in a way more conducive to further exploitation.
Those are some nice assumptions. You think we'll ever learn not to need energy or building materials anymore too?
kek this nigga...
I was referring to the boundaries imposed living "at the mercy of the elements" in regards to your statement about how we aren't in control of the earth's effects on us - because you said we are hampered by it. It definitely wasn't an insightful statement on my part.
>ultimately our whole species will die here, and none of our lives will mean anything. I don't mind dying, but I've always thought that we where building towards something worthwhile in the end.
We could launch unmanned missions that send organic life with human dna to faraway planets that could sustain it.
Like sending seeds out into the universe. Panspermia.
I'm not advocating for "cut down all the forests ever so we can build suburbs to cover the great plains", anon. I'm saying that if we do fuck up, we have the ability and the knowledge to rectify that in some way.
Just because we cut down a forest, doesn't mean we can;t replant it. Just because we use wood today, doesn't mean we need to use it always. We can adapt and thrive in nearly every single circumstance, and there are very few things, beyond pure malignancy, that could utterly destroy us.
>implying the Fed can't print enough toilet paper to fund going to Mars and moon
>tfw your global money system is run by a bunch of chosenite jews trying to make Israel run from the Euphrates to the Nile with eyes on the sand and not on the stars
>several kilometers underground
The largest man made hole to date is only 0.002% of the down to the core of the earth and it took us 24 years to dig.
>The Abyssal ocean
Sure exploring the ocean comes with a lot of challenges but not as many as space travel.. not even close
>Space is easy, just have a can strong enough to contain the air inside
And the food to sustain life; the need for artificial gravity, the ability sustain bone density in 0g, the ability to repair and manage any technical failures of the craft you're traveling in while in space, the sheer distance needed to be covered to go anywhere, the possibility of human error surrounding all aspects of space travel, problems with exposure to cosmic radiation, the list is piratically endless when you weigh all of the variables that need to be considered when traveling through space.
>If those who promote space travel are so cowardly, how did we ever reach the moon?
THAT QUESTION IS NOT ONLY FALLACIOUS, BUT NONSENSICAL ALSO.
YOU ARE PETTY, PATHETIC, AND OBSCENE; THE MAJORITY OF PERSONS ON EARTH HAVE A SIMILAR MENTALITY TO YOURS.
IT IS OBVIOUS FROM YOUR RESPONSES THAT YOU LACK THE MOST BASIC SELFAWARENESS, AND THE MOST BASIC SELFCONSCIOUSNESS, SO IT IS FUTILE TO ENGAGE IN DISCOURSE WITH YOU.
0.2% you illiterate
I have no idea what you're arguing but at least learn how to do percents.
How does this disprove anything I've said? If you read some of my earlier posts, I think I said that conflict and competition is a necessary and intrinsic part of sentient existence. Even if it's not so much a common theme for all sentients, it certainly holds true for humanity. All we need now is another big bad, whether that be USSR 2: electric boogaloo, the planet dying and us not being able to plant enough forests, or ayyliums, to kick our asses into gear.
So what, you want to be free to kill Jews and degenerates without fear of repercussions? The very term, Anarcho-Nazi, is an oxymoron
We have already left Earth.
>what are breakaway civilizations utilizing incredible technology hidden from 99.9% of the world population.
I like how this one goes with that proof that we're at the upper end of gravity.
>That it means nothing to the universe is a vacuous statement...Unless you conjecture the universe to be conscious? Meaning can only be experienced by conscious beings.
The universe isn't so much conscious as it is apathetic to the goings on inside it's self. What we perceive to be an experience of meaning is also in itself meaningless because we are the ones who've quantified the concept of meaning. It's like going to a casino and playing a game where the dealer makes up all the rules as you play and decides whether or not you win or lose. Just because we as conscious entities feel an attachment or somehow attribute some sort of weight in the form of meaning to an object, place, person, or thing doesn't mean that what we've decided to be meaningful is truly meaningful. The only thing in this life that has meaning is death. We are aware of its inevitability and it's absoluteness that is our most meaningful advantage in life, knowing that it will end.
It's not an oxymoron, it is a hybrid of anarchism combined with natsoc. It is natsoc without a government. It is anarchy with the principles of some who were fascist and authoritarian, while rejecting the authoritarianism.
And no, I just wish the Jews would stop being fascist and authoritarian assholes who cause inconvenience to others just to make sure Israel will be alright.
I don't know about how the tripfag reached his conclusion, but he says some interesting things sometimes, and he's been here for a long time.
It only took us a decade to reach the moon, so I'd say that digging that tunnel was a wee bit harder.
You need all those things as well underwater, except for distance, bone density, and radition.
If your space ship depressurizes, you can put on space-scuba gear so you can continue to breathe while you patch up the hole before you freeze and/or burn
In the abyssal zone, if you submersible depressurizes, that's it. You die. The crack will widen, and 1000 atmos of water will rush in and crush you to a fine paste, and your ship into a little ball. You can't ascend fast enough to escape, and if you did, you would undoubtedly be knocked unconscious from the nitrogen boiling away in your blood from the rapid decrease of pressure.
In space, you have a chance to fix immediately major problems. In the abyss, if it's a major problem that can kill you, and you're already 5, 6 miles down, that's it.
>ONLY I AM TRULY ENLIGHTENED
Yeah I understand. The key to all of these is counterbalancing the disruption of the inherent order on the planet. We cannot live in civilization without adhering to some codified set of regulations and in much the same way we can't live on earth without respecting the current imposed regulations. I don't exclude the possibility of terraforming. But we have to be careful en masse before we fuck ourselves out of existence by overstepping our current bounds.
It pisses me off that everyone is so fucking crazy about long-distance space missions. Mars, asteroids, Jupiter's moons. Mars to colonize and search for evidence of ancient life, asteroids to mine for resources, the Galilean moons for water to provide extra rocket fuel.
Meanwhile, our own Moon sits less than four days away. It has water ice at the poles and plenty of water-bearing minerals. There are abundant metals we could use to fabricate machinery and launch vehicles on-site. We could use the Moon to determine if human bodies really do need a full G to survive indefinitely or if low gravity is sufficient. A radio telescope on the far side could show us the Universe in unimaginable detail. The surface regolith is rich in tritium for when we get fusion figured out. With much smaller gravity well to fight, and no atmosphere to toss up air resistance, it would make an ideal spaceport that would act as a gateway to the rest of the solar system It's literally a big glowing target in the sky and we keep aiming for everything else.
We're crippling ourselves by going for the big-ticket, big-name missions first.
>And the food to sustain life; the need for artificial gravity, the ability sustain bone density in 0g, the ability to repair and manage any technical failures of the craft you're traveling in while in space, the sheer distance needed to be covered to go anywhere, the possibility of human error surrounding all aspects of space travel, problems with exposure to cosmic radiation, the list is piratically endless when you weigh all of the variables that need to be considered when traveling through space.
You're hitting the nail on the head here. People so often like the idea of "making the unbelievable possible: new continents, air travel, etc."
But so often these SciFi faggots ignore the very serious problems that are unique to space travel. You've listed lots of them, and as you alluded to, there're myriad more.
I think the "cosmic radiation" aspect is understated. Space is an incredibly hostile environment. It's not the the explosions during reentry that astronauts are concerned about. It's the leukemia.
It's funny that SciFi needs to be divided into hard science fiction that actually deals with these problems.
>We have successfully bent the natural world to our whims. We have domesticated, and utterly subjugated nearly every other species on this planet. We have managed to surpass our own natural senses, and can look into the farthest reaches of space, or into the smallest nooks and crannies. We have managed to create artificial stars, no matter how small and transien
Flowery rhetoric and humbug.
We have bent nothing.
We have subjugated nothing
Let me put things in perspective for you chap. All the finest and most brilliant advances in medical science boil down to holding broken parts of the body together and hoping they'll fix themselves.
Everything we do is on the terms of the natural world. You rattle of these "accomplishments" as if they mean something. As if there's someone out there keeping score going "GREAT JOB HUMANS KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!". It makes no difference to the universe whether we go to the stars or spontaneously decide to regress back to hunter gatherers.
Bending the natural world to our whims...
Meanwhile our biological processes are at the mercy of countless unintended consequences stemming from this whimsical "bending" you harp on about. Xenoestrogens effecting the onset of sexual maturity and sperm count in males. Mass societal lead poisoning leading to crime waves and chaos.
The only thing bending we're doing is to ourselves, and I guarantee you it will be US that breaks long before the natural world does.
The Universe owes us nothing. We should be thankful for what we have and stop frivolously spending out inheritance on nonsense.
hopefully you'll figure out that the world isn't our home, life is short, and Jesus is the answer. All this pondering of life elsewhere and/or living elsewhere is entirely irrelevant.
Heinlein's books are always good. There's a recent one which is an adaptation for a script he had but never got around to writing. It too is decent.
The image though? I have no idea.
if progress means constant advancement for the human race, better standards of living, health, spiritual contentment, and peace, then it certainly is a myth - we haven't come close to overcoming the nastier instincts and behavioral traits our species has, have instead reveled in our technological superiority, used it to devise more effective ways of killing each other, and recklessly dominated the planet with no real care for the future at all.
world population doubled in the last 40 years - you really think there's enough to go round ? that the biosphere can take it ? the last ten or so years should have been enough to convince you otherwise.
>all we'll have left to do is think
So utterly absurd it beggars description. There's plenty of things humans will do no matter the level of machinery doing manual labor. Fuckin a you're dumb.
Yeah, but we cant go back bc the moon is actually an alien spaceship that broadcast waves that hypnotize us into staying in a lower density so said aliens can feed off our emotions/auras, dumbass.
>if progress means constant advancement for the human race, better standards of living, health, spiritual contentment, and peace, then it certainly is a myth
People think technology serves us but they never stop to think about the fact that it's always us that are expected to work at the machine's pace and never the machine that's expected to work at our pace.
I guess I would say the key difference between ourselves and the universe you just anthropomorphized are that we can choose what is intelligible to us. Like you say, meaning is somewhat arbitrary.. but I would say only the medium is arbitrary through which we interact with it. Sure, you're staring at a string of markings on a screen. but you get something out of it because of the collectivized assignment of meaning to these "symbols". I know even symbols is a loaded term in the context.The universe...whatever it is: matter adhering to some sort of physical patterns, cannot choose meaning. It doesn't know. It doesn't think. It just is. We know. We think. It is meaningful in contrast to all that is dead around us. Meaningful in that we can collectively and internally experience things that we have conditioned ourselves to receive certain responses from.
What you are saying is patently false, and I'm amazed that you have managed to delude yourself into thinking this way.
Humanity holds, in it's hands, to instantly and irreversibly destroy most, if not all, of whatever life is currently on earth. We have the ability to make chunks of metal fly though the air at several times the speeds of sound. We are able to precisely target diseased portions of the body, and remove them through application of a beam of radiation.
I do not care what the universe thinks, and I don't think it cares that I don't. You are under the presumption that the only reason to go to space, is if the universe itself were some god that has vested interest in humanity. I do not care. I, and hopefully many others, will break the bounds of earth.
Humanity may hurt itself, but we always come out stronger for it. When we dropped the bombs on Japan, it resulted in a massive loss of life. Yet the research that led to those bombs, also led to a powerful and highly efficient mode of electrical power generation. If xeno estrogens are hurting us, which they are, sooner or later the people who are promoting them will die (one way or the other), humanity will learn it's lesson, and we will come out all the stronger for it.
What comes after those crime waves and chaos? A stronger people, a stronger nation, in some form or another.
I do not care that the universe does not care, and I will die fighting before I let humanity waste away its time banging rocks into the dirt because a few pessimists are scared of conflict and a challenge,
I'm not entirely sure what you're using to distinguish those. They're not particularly tragic, no. He's quite realistic with his descriptions and tries to keep a feeling of realism even hundreds of years in the future.
Yes, it can. If you truly know the principles of NatSoc, you can see how an anarchistic version of it could exist as well. It's not about hate of other people, I think they truly had a good set of principles. The thing they did wrong, was that their government was authoritarian. Even if the dictator was a great man, it was flawed simply by being an autocracy, since nobody is perfect, even if also things beyond his control caused him to lose the war. The issue of who was going to rule next was one they hadn't even resolved yet, and they weren't going to implement monarchy. To begin with, Hitler only wanted to be dictator for a while, to fix Germany, but then, to put it mildly, foreign politics proved challenging. They wanted the allies to side with them against the soviets, but the allies weren't going to be against the soviets until after the war.
Progress means the expansion of human knowledge, and the gradual mechanization and technologicazation of human society, and eventually humans. Better standards of living can only be achieve through which I just mentioned. Health has constantly been improved by what I just mentioned. Spiritual contentment is a sham, and you should feel bad for thinking it's ever a good thing. Peace implies a permanent end to conflict, which would spell death for progress.
How so? What absolutely necessary things will humans have to do when everything that can be roboticized, is?
Because the human pace is slower and not as efficient, so we reserve ourselves to doing things that we can do better than our creations. Is it bad that an oxen can pull a plow better than 4 men?
Just because exploring the ocean is dangerous doesn't make space any less hostile of an environment and the variables that exist within diving deep into the ocean are arguably easier to control simply because we understand what those variables are whereas with space we have absolutely no idea what problems to plan for. We can only plan ahead for what we expect not what will happen. Also the proximity of the ocean to earth vs deep space travel is a tremendous advantage when considering exploration.. it's one thing to send a test ship down into the ocean when we live right next to the water, space is a whole new ball game.
Also I'm not sure you're really giving enough thought to just how impractical and logistically impossible it is to be to dealing with an issues during a space flight especially when we're consider deep space.
An Anarchistic society lacks the over arching authority and direction required for the progress of civilization, regardless of the morals held by it's people. Sorry anon, but An-NatSoc isn't for me.
the fault isn't with the technology, it's with the user.
>“Today, for the mass of humanity, science and technology embody 'miracle, mystery, and authority'. Science promises that the most ancient human fantasies will at last be realized. Sickness and ageing will be abolished; scarcity and poverty will be no more; the species will become immortal. Like Christianity in the past, the modern cult of science lives on the hope of miracles. But to think that science can transform the human lot is to believe in magic. Time retorts to the illusions of humanism with the reality: frail, deranged, undelivered humanity. Even as it enables poverty to be diminished and sickness to be alleviated, science will be used to refine tyranny and perfect the art of war.”
― John Nicholas Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals
>Humanity holds, in it's hands, to instantly and irreversibly destroy most, if not all, of whatever life is currently on earth.
>We have the ability to make chunks of metal fly though the air at several times the speeds of sound.
>We are able to precisely target diseased portions of the body, and remove them through application of a beam of radiation.
What an awfully round about way of saying we can cut things out of the human body. We've been able to do that for thousands of years.
Please tell me you're not that immature that simply strapping a laser to something impresses you.
>You are under the presumption that the only reason to go to space, is if the universe itself were some god that has vested interest in humanity.
No my presumption is that it doesn't matter either way.
>Humanity may hurt itself, but we always come out stronger for it.
That's a neat assumption. Do you have any proof? Always is an awfully strong word.
> I will die fighting before I let humanity waste away its time banging rocks into the dirt because a few pessimists are scared of conflict and a challenge,
Obviously space has more variables to contend with, but what I'm saying is that space is less immediately dangerous than the deep ocean. With proper planning, anything can be safe, but when something goes "majorly wrong in a minor way" in space, you have a chance to fix it unlike in the deep ocean. If you need to deal with repairs in space, send more spare parts. Build in more redundant systems. It being deep space has nothing to do with it, as a depressurization around the moon will be just as dangerous as one around Titan. Hell, even in orbit around the earth, if you get a hole in your capsule, you're screwed just as badly. The only except is if you can patch up the hole, or survive long enough, for NASA to get a rocket on the launch pad within a day or two (if they even have a back up one)
Once you're far enough away that mission control can't rescue you within 24 hours, it doesn't matter if you're on the moon, or passing through the helioshock.
Im not real sure either. Apparently space opera is like wildly outragous and legit scifi is somewhat based on science fact. Some dude at the bar the other day was talking about it. Its a new concept to me as well
If we can't leave then fuck it all, the reason man should exist is to conquer the galaxy, anything less is beneath us and we should fade out if we are denied our birthright.
I'm not entirely sure what technology even is in the first place let alone whose fault it is.
Is all technology created equal?
What if is some technology is at fault but not all?
How would we know the difference?
Are we even qualified to know the difference?
Fuck if I know.
generally grouped under Humanity Fuck Yeah (HFY)
Just a bunch of anons, like the original creepypastas.
A nuclear winter would kill a lot of things, anon.
It is kind of a big deal, since metal generally doesn't fly, nor does it go faster than a falcon
Except we can do so in such a way as to not actually cut out pieces, and it allows us to kill a disease more effectively that can escape just being excised.
Lasers are pretty cool m8, but what matters is what you do with them.
So what if it doesn't matter any way? If that's so, why is staying on earth preferable to exploring space?
The fact that we're still alive and kicking means it's proven true so far
Because I can
Because while a human blacksmith can make one, maybe two shovels a day, a factory of machines can make hundreds, and supply a farm with tools so that they can grow food to feed a city. Artisinal craftsmanship will always be around, but you can't provide for a city with only hand stitched clothes. I don't think humanity should be phased out, I just think we should adapt ourselves and our mannerisms so that we can get the most good out of our creations.
> what are several thousand nuclear warheads?
> what is worldwide nuclear fallout?
> what is total ecosystematic collapse?
> big deal
We take a small piece of metal and make it lethal to almost every living creature. It's a big deal to them.
> cut things out
I think you missed the part about "beams of radiation", and, we can cut things out of the body MEDICALLY, which I hope you realize is completely different that haphazardly chopping away at a person like "We've been able to do...for thousands of years."
> fuck lasers
Well, for one thing, he didn't mention lasers.
But it is pretty impressive to harness the power of light, so that we may measure things like the distance of the moon from Earth. If that doesn't impress you, you're an edgy 15 year old cunt.
> it doesn't matter either way
oh, good job nihilist. Hey, since nothing matters, why don't you kill yourself? After all, even you agree your life doesn't matter.
> Do you have any proof?
> Always is an awfully strong word
> What is hyperbole?
Well, humanity has yet to die, through all the plagues, wars, and natural disasters.
Hell, there was a point in time where it's believed humans numbered in the thousands, and now we're close to 8 billion and growing.
> Why bother?
Why not, fuckwit?
/tg/ is the source of most HFY, but /tg/ has unfortunately died a slow death due to the cancer of quest threads.
well i think you'd have to look at the effect the technology has and how it's applied to judge whether it's good or not ? penicillin and antibiotics are obviously good things if you're in a country rich enough to afford them, fossil fuel usage is maybe not so great due to effects on environment, the wars it leads to, and the dependence our societies have on there being a constant supply.
Im not trying to escape the problems of earth, I'm trying to secure a future for humanity. Our time on earth is not a future. We won the stellar lotto, but we cant just keep living it up like kings indefinitely, some day the hat will drop.
>space is less immediately dangerous than the deep ocean.
>Once you're far enough away that mission control can't rescue you within 24 hours, it doesn't matter if you're on the moon, or passing through the helioshock.
Is exactly why space is more immediately dangerous than the deep ocean. From the second those astronauts step onto that craft and prepare for launch their lives are at risk. The same can't necessarily be said for those going into the deep ocean, of course problems and malfunctions can occur while you're down there and kill you quicker than Usain bolt runs the 50m, And the deep ocean is an incredibly hostile environment for any of us land-monkeys but the astronomical amount of risk that's involved with a mission in space is just exponentially greater than a trip to the bottom of the ocean and mainly because of ----
>If you need to deal with repairs in space, send more spare parts.
^You can't simply send spare parts with a spacecraft that it may never use. Every single square inch of that vessel matters. There are no space rescue missions. The supplies on board a ship regardless of where it's going are essentials, spare parts are not essential to the success of the flight. The space shuttle travels at 28,000km/hr you can simply pull over and do some repairs, you can't stop, you can't slow down, it's space that's how it works.
When you're going for a short jaunt past luna, sure. But when you're building a massive, generational interstellar that's assembled in orbit, space is at less of a premium. If you can afford to shuttle a thousand people over light years, you can afford a few extra wrenches.
If you would like a dose of optimism go watch michio kaku s video on levels of civilizations
Basically when we get past a certain point humanity will be impossible to eradicate
My personal prediction is that we will eventually become that alien from Oblivion, the movie, through advancement and them collective merging via technology
No, it's more likely that the tech required will be relatively cheap eventually
Your analogy could equate to exploring the oceans, meaning people will want that space dosh, and they'll make it happen
Hell you could attach 25 space shuttles together just in case #1 through #24 have some problems eventually and inevitably you won't have the materials necessary to deal with every possible issue and malfunction that could potentially leave you doomed floating off in space for the rest of your natural life. If even an extra 0.1% of thrust was accidentally omitted during take off the trajectory of the craft relative to it's destination over the vast span of interstellar space is massive.
You're implying there would be no way to correct that problem in flight. There are many problems, yes, but humans have the ability to forsee them, and think of ways to mitigate them. Steering and slowing down in space is included in that set.
He's saying human nature remains the same and won't ever change.
That may be true, but in that case we'll just stop being human, or humans will become irrelevant. A thing of the past.
We have never explored the oceans for just the sake of exploration. It's always been for looking for some new places to loot or finding shorter routes to places where we wanted to go.
>Our land is next to us, much smaller than the ocean, easier to access, easier to explore. It may be dangerous, but it is less so than the sea
There are no such things as limits, only obstacles
Relative to the state we were in before ocean exploration, it was not
Everything that had been said has equivalents
> possibly no return
> what if something breaks
> high death rate
> no way of contacting back
If anything space is going to be a cakewalk compared to ocean exploration with all the redundancy and computer calculations and regulations. We were reliant on trial and error rather than simulation back in the day
> looking for new loot
And this isn't applicable to space why?
We don't even need to explore, we already have an idea of shit we will maybe never get to go to
The problem isn't whether or not we can correct the problem in flight but whether or not we can recognize there was a problem at all. If 0.1% of extra thrust was omitted at take off it would be because of miscalculation or failure of a system to act in the way we designed or whatever ground control can't pin point where a shuttle is in relation to where they think it should be an extrapolate appropriate calculations GPS style it's just not possible. Of course systems likely monitor all aspects of flight including thrust but it doesn't make the situation any better. Hypothetically lets say that extra 0.1% does occur and that ground control does notice it, does the appropriate calculations and proceeds to radio the shuttle to make the appropriate adjustments now just as when they lifted off the slightest of human error in the correct of the flight path can result in a now third alternate trajectory that the craft will be taking. During Apollo 13 the crew had to deal with an oxygen tank exploding on their craft and ground control gave them the instructions on how to realign themselves and set their path to essentially slingshot around the moon but the slightest error in their correction would have resulted in them crashing directly into the surface of the moon at full speed, luckily they were successful in adjusting their space craft but no one could be for certain until they actually had done it. Extrapolate this problem into a deep space mission where an extra 1cm of correction can result in being thousands of miles off your mark. Again, this only begins to scratch the surface of what could go wrong and a deep space mission is a one way flight you've got one shot, one opportunity, moms spaghetti, to get it right.
.1% of thust is a pretty damn big miscalculation, and would be noticed. Also, I see what you're in the rest of your post, but please, for love of god.
No run on sentences.
Sorry anon, but I literally cannot read your post.
You realize that even if we manage to fuck something up, it isn't likely to happen again? And even then, we are in the shit stages of space exploration akin to using fucking sailboats to explore the ocean. The tech will settle, most likely when actual money starts to flow from it, and then boom.
Just think of it like this. People used to die by the thousands over the course of exploring the oceans. It took years to travel and years to get back. Now people bitch when their 4 hour flight has a shitty movie playing, and more ridiculous still, when the Wifi doesn't work
People will be bitching that the ride isn't smooth enough because meteors keep hitting the space ship
>Ugh... Dad are we there yet?
>No, sorry kids, we've got another two hours to Tau Ceti
>But we're boooooored! We already watched the movie we brought and I finished a whole coloring book! Why is it taking so long??
Developments in technology necessary to overcome the obstacles of space exploration are adapted into new functions in commercial markets.
This isn't something unique to space exploration either - any time you look at major research projects like the JWST, or the LHC, or HAARP, or whatever - 90% of the technology incorporated into the project is usually shit that had to be invented just for that project.
Construction of habitats and infrastructure
Construction of the ships themselves
Resources gained through exploitation
Rich people spending millions so they can fuck (around) in micro gravity (basically tourism)
>Born to late to explore the earth, too soon for the stars.
>Construction of habitats and infrastructure
You expect space jews to pay enough rent to make this whole thing profitable?
>Construction of the ships themselves
Construction of a vessel costs money, it doesn't generate it.
>Resources gained through exploitation
Such as? Most of the stuff can already be found from Earth and hauling heavy loads from planet to planet is very expensive.
>Rich people spending millions so they can fuck (around) in micro gravity (basically tourism)
This would be nothing but a fad. Besides, to make space exploration happen, we are talking about billions and trillions of dollars, not millions.
I learned a long time ago to stop trying to predict where technology would be.
20 years ago everybody thought we'd have flying cars by now... they also thought 56k modems would still be hot shit and that private spaceflight would never take off.
Why live? To see where it's all going and to see what developments surprise you.
obviously; the human population has tripled over the last 70 years - this would not have been possible without industrial extraction of petrochemicals and their application to just about everything we consume otherwise.
oil is a finite resource though and the population is still growing...
>pioneer of the waifu age.
The human race will for sure die out.
i like to imagine it sometimes, when animals retake earth and wander ruins. No more animals in unnecessary pain caused by the senseless greed of man.
the earth will probably be too fucked for animals anyway but I like to imagine it.
So why don't you just kill yourself now? Apparently you wouldn't be missing anything that mattered.
but you don't know when that day is. So everything from then till now does matter. And since you don't know when the end comes, it's pretty stupid to even let it affect your mind.
We'll just have to either develop a culture that can sustain living several hundred generations in a space-craft, battle-star galactica style, or we need to figure out how to live thousands of years.
Just because we may never be able to zip over to alpha centauri doesn't mean humans will never see it, if we built a ship that could go 50% the speed of light it would take about 1000 years to get the nearest known earth-like planet. That's only twelve generations of people if most everyone lives to be 100. If we can figure out a good way to synthesize food from raw carbon then we'll be set across the universe for life, assuming we don't forget how our own technology works or it doesn't completely crap out on us.
No, I don't think humans will perish on earth, unless we do it to ourselves. We writing on 4chan right now will almost certainly never explore the stars, and many of us may live and die floating to unknown lands, but theoretically we could make it.
>implying the Fed can't print enough toilet paper to fund going to Mars and moon
That's not how currencies work, idiot. Guess what will happen if we just shitted out more paper money?
>Hint: Germans after WW1 used their reichmarks as wall decor
its all faith based bruh
look at bitcoin
so yes currencies work like that, it is literally made up bullshit
the jew economics professor will say million words telling you its not without ever really saying anything
I believe life exists beyond our world. I believe that life is a natural immutable law of our universe, and although life comes from chaos, it is not a mistake. But I truly believe humanity is a mistake and that humanity should fall. That is my consensus after studying our past. Our future will be no different.
This is it, we have one planet that we can't leave. Now you know the importance of not putting up with any shit. We're stuck with these dregs and deadshits and it's up to us to manage a society that we can tolerate. If we let ourselves be led by pedophiles and inbred fuckwits we only have ourselves to blame. There is no getting off of this rock, we're stuck with all the cunts on it, either we come to grips with it and reinstate a rule of law or let ourselves be led by creators of fantasy and lies into a life of servitude and obedience.
Daily reminder for logic-worshipping autists that if we can't beat the Chinese Room then the only kind of AI we'll be able to create is p-zombies with massive IQ, and that a universe devoid of consciousness is as worthless as a non-existant universe.
Stop worshiping your own way of experiencing the world. There's more than one way of being conscious. Autistics are a perfect example of this. This is also why people on psychedelics have profound spiritual experiences, because for the first time they experience the universe with a different mind.
I mean, for the chinese room to work, you'd have to have some method of language and understanding to work the instructions, albeit completely different from what the people outside the box intended.
Besides intelligence doesn't sit on its ass inside a box, it breaks out of it. Which brings me back to my original question; what if we cant break out of our box?
Our minds are a Chinese room, except that we actually experience things instead a set of instructions and artificial boundaries, thats where real understanding comes from. Theres no magic pixie dust between your ears, its just a biological computer. And its through experiencing things and exploring in our development that we understand and apply value to the words we use, Chinese, binary, english or otherwise.
the point is we're getting more than just a set of instructions, we're getting a lot more information about the world around us which help our understanding. The poor AI is handicapped, and you're saying that you're better than it because of it. Its not a fair comparison to make. You have to give AI the same tools we use to learn, and then see if it actually understands.
Say you teach a computer the word tree. Now say it can see a tree, smell a tree, feel a tree, and have a whole family of memories associated with the word tree. If it can do these things. than its understanding the word in exactly the same way we do. To say that it can't understand the word because its a different kind of consciousness when it can do all the same things we can strikes me as kind of bigoted.
>the year would be 20,020 according to the calendars they left behind
>when we arrived in this system, we didn't take much notice of their planet-
>no life, nothing to study
>no spectral recordings present in magnetosphere, if a dead civ couldn't at least make those, what would they have to teach us?
>mostly water, why would we want half-finished ice?
>we finally checked it out, just to complete our survey of the system
>"earth" as it was called, sits in a dark spot indeed- orbiting a dim sun trailing on the tail of an outer-reaching arm of the galaxy
>the machinery left behind is spectacular to behold- but it's really no fault of their own they never had a chance at contact, considering their remoteness.
>Loneliness does things to a creature.
>We know now that loneliness can do things to a race, as well.
>They left their records in patterned holes carved in stones, and stains of dark fluids on sheets of tough, woven fibers
>It seems their primary occupation was to "brood"
>they recorded century-long reflections and analyzed their own reactions to stimuli, down to minute muscle contractions or moments of involuntary breathlessness.
>attention to detail is staggering
>they wrote, re-wrote, trashed, and created entirely anew countless systems of moral and social philosophy, all of them absolutely brilliant in machination, but none of them apparently good enough to keep.
>any space-faring culture might drool with envy at the understanding and agency each of these creatures possessed over their own reactions to sensory stimulation
>gazing into the void and seeing nothing, they turned inward again and set to gazing at themselves.
>given no barren planets to reform and no asteroids to mine, they reformed and mined their own species, over and over
>until the entire species had been mined to dust, and blew away in the cosmic wind
>What will it mean if we can never leave earth
Wat, we can already leave it, simply is not necessary actually...without using relativistic effects to travel faster than light around space we could simply build an huge spaceship with advanced space rockets and try to reach our closest solar system. Our main problem for the moment is not how to travel but where we can get enough energy.
We're slowly working on it. It's bound to happen, even if it is at a slow pace.
There are still issues like how we can give birth in space, but I think long term even if we end up with colonies of Martian-born humans who can't return to Earth without a pressure suit, it's still a successful colonization. Then as it evolves, conditions would improve.
What's stopping space exploration is people who can't see how incredibly small NASA's budget is, how unnecessarily large military spending is, and how stupid it is to say "Why should we visit that rock when we have problems down here?"
The universe is our world. There's theories that there could be multiple universes, but this universe is where our Earth resides. Our world should be seen as more than just "the Earth" or "the little city I live in". We're a tiny dot in a scary big unknown and there are people out there who don't think we should spend a good chunk of our time exploring it, which is insane. The universe is this generation's ocean.
Seriously, what's wrong if our first colonies are a bit temporary and crude?
They'll develop. And we're hoping to have some sort of long-term colonies set to see how we could survive. It's already happening, there's plans underway, it just takes a lot of time.
It'd probably be quicker with money. But nobody wants to spend money on NASA, but we sure love having Congress purchase things we don't need.
And then people cry about cutting military spending? How weak do you think America is? We're not at our peak, our military far surpasses every other nation that cutting it and spending money more wisely isn't going to make us extremely vulnerable.
>life is gonna end at some point so it doesn't mean anything
where we're at now is literally no better than any of the other types of life that have dominated the planet. If we don't break through the barriers put in front of us, we might as well have been content with just fucking and eating.
>We're crippling ourselves by going for the big-ticket, big-name missions first.
Meh, not really. The big name mission and the "firsts" are the ones that get all the press but the actual scientists are much more practical. If there were an unlimited budget, orbital and lunar construction would definitely be the biggest priority.