Will the rapid speed at which we are increasing in technological

Depends what you mean by "stability of the world."

>>6656688
"The long-term stability of the environment", in regards to humans living in it.

>>6656685
>rapid speed at which we are increasing in technological advancement
you mean moores law? its gonna end in 10 years, and no it wont do shit

>2014
>still no prototype EVA

Did the same technology that cursed humanity with nuclear weaponry also give us the ability to generate electricity on a mass scale?

>>6656782
except less than 1% of yellowcake actually gets used, so you dig up 1000 tonnes then discard 999 tonnes of nasty stuff

>>6656685
But no, the industrial revolution already did that...

>>6656685
>the world is stable
Politically, it is very fluid
Economically it is very dynamic
Rapid progression is only beneficial as it serves to quickly snuff more retarded conservative views before they can defend them.
>fetal testing
>muh babies
>discover the cure for cancer
>"Oh, then...well"
repeat ad finitum

>>6656906
The topic is the stability of the natural environment, not man-made human reality.

>>6656692
Graphene will speed things back up. Just wait till you can 3d print nano-scale circuits into rigid body structure of consumer electronics.

Why so much irrationality in this thread? OP is clearly talking about the advancement of technologies, and it's effect on the long-term stability of environment.

>>6656685
It may have the opposite effect OP

If you can use technology to produce massively more resources with no issue, then logically there should be less conflict over them. (speaking about food & healthcare mainly). If everyone can 3d print whatever they want from their homes, then there is less disparity between people, and hopefully less conflict again.

Of course, this relies on people being logical and moral (not wanting to fuck up the process so that they can obtain advantage from disparity), so who knows. On the other hand, in one of the countries I visit regularly, people were having 8-10 kids, and maybe 2-4 were surviving to adulthood. Now, thanks to foreign medicine, theyre all survivng, and theres a hell of a lot more competition. So it cuts both ways

>>6656965
The world OP sees and the world you see are different. What OP means is something along the lines of: Technology causes us to consume lots of finite resources as well as pollution to the Earth; is this consumption of resource going to one day cause Earth to digress to a uninhabitable state of decay, where in there would be food and drink shortages, difficulties breathing and anything that comes with a unhealthy planet?

>>6656971
I know, I strongly suspect it will just come down to which technologies advance faster. We get fusion, a lot of problems go away quite quickly. If we manage to go mine asteroids (long way away I know, but hypothetically), resource problems solved(ish), or at least moved off earth.

I believe if anything began to have too strong an affect on human comfort (at least, the ones who can afford technology), more and more money will be poured into it until it is solved. Eg, with AGW, I would imagine you could build machines to remove CO2 and other greenhouse gases out the atmosphere, until it was back to prerevolution conditions, but it would be prohibitively expensive. When bad things start happening, the line where prohibitively expensive is starts to move. As technology progresses, more and more power becomes available to those who couldnt afford it before, and are often those who have the most drive to see a change in their local environs.

At the worst, many many people will die, some will survive (thanks to technology I'd imagine), and the human race will continue in some fashion. What are your thoughts?

File: aetherfaggot.jpg (45KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 720x960px

>>6656971
>Manlet
>Skeleton
I can't take you seriously aether

>>6656924

Switching characteristics of graphene transistora blow. It is a dead end.

>>6656982
THANK YOU, SKELETON!

>>6656982

you just dont take a selfie without removing your pedo-stache

Can we stay on topic? This is supposed to be a scientific board, why is it filled with so many irrational people?

>>6656906
The planet's outlook is more important than the public's view, right?

>>6656685
what?
it already has.
we just have the capability to fuck it up more

File: 1 (15).jpg (308KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1024x682px

>>6658307
Then shouldn't we stop advancing technologically and focus primarily on the preservation of what nature we have left?

>>6656924
you don't know what your talking about, graphene makes shitty transistors and 3d circuits have a limited effect on moores, stop believing all the crap you see on popsci websites, electronics will slow down in a decade

>>6656924
Buzzword will buzzword! Just wait until you can buzzword popsci into buzzword!

>>6658607
Capitalism doesnt work that way.

>>6659122
Capitalism is not indefinite, humans are above capitalist society. It can come to an end; the world must unite for the preservation of the natural world. This is to prevent humanity going extinct, and being at the forefront of what seems to be like a never ending spiral of suffering on the way down.

>>6659159
Tell that to the people who make millions off of you, and run our society. Im sure they will listen.

File: buckyfuller.jpg (82KB, 452x433px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 452x433px

>>6656685
no because the ruling class already controls that. controlling technology is one of the ways it's done. that's why slavery and wage slavery is so important. you think that if the thresher, cotton gin, and combine had all been distributed on a widescale then it would have freed up some slaves in the u.s. to start their own free communities? if so, you'd be right.

>>6659397
Fuck you

>>6659414
you sound upset

>>6656685
We already have.

>>6659449
>>6659159

So scientists don't want to be rational and stop the planet from dying due to technological advancement?

The world has never been stable. Long term we see massive extinction events and short term we see volcanoes, storms, forest fires, diseases, etc.

Humanity is just another long term extinction event.

>>6660661
This is not good.

>>6656924
Does this mean real life waifus?

>>6656685
We can not get off the techno-ride. If we halt all advancement at today's tech our environment would suffer so much humanity would be threatened, going backward in tech and we would starve. We need to advance.. the faster the better

>>6662326
We are this techno-ride, if world education was directed towards beneficent environmental causes, and away from all non-beneficent technology, eventually technology would decrease, probably through the voice of the younger generations, and the future of the world would look more healthy.

Yes it will, related article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10881213/The-coming-digital-anarchy.html

>>6663731
And again, this is not a good thing, can we discuss possible ways to reverse the process?

File: 1405689906378.gif (973KB, 312x213px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 312x213px

lel....

>>6659316
can you elaborate please?

Who's "we"?

Most of the world is upgrading to fiber while I have the same internet speed as 12 years ago, because I am a Burgerland and the monopoly still has control over it.

Similarly, businesses, government, and medicine are still refusing to upgrade and digitize their shit, in 10 years I will still have to see a human being which writes a $300 prescription after doing a $500 examination, while someone across the planet will have a $10 test and the robot will sort out the most likely outcome, and their medicine will be $1 because, in America, even generic medicines from 30 years ago still cost $80 a bottle for a 30 days supply of not the max dose.

>>6659316
I don't know who is more retarded, Buckminster Fuller or you.

>>6666885
Buckie thinks that a population of starving scifags can support the world with inventions and discoveries made at a higher rate.

>>6656906
>politically it is very fluid
>economically it is very dynamic

Er, would it not be the other way around?

>>6656939
LMAO who cares

>>6666902
I care

>>6659159
the world isn't static. If its one thing about humans they wont sit still. People are constantly trying to improve their own lives and some even do it at the expense of others. You can't tell 7 billion people what to do. Change is inevitable.

File: images (1).jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>6667294
>You can't tell 7 billion people what to do.

>>6667294
A good leader would be able to revert the current forward motion into extinction.

>>6656924
No it won't you still have to deal with QM when working with scales of a few nanometers.

>>6669425
I agree.

>>6656685
Did you miss the industrial revolution? That pretty much depended on Eco-deadly power.
Thankfully technology is helping us recover from that big mistake.
Have you been aware of:
>rise in solar panel usage
>electric cars
>social negativity towards industry

>>6670579
Have you heard of:
>Evolution
>What life can possibly feel like, and be like.
>How everything gets old after some usage,
>When you have little, you make the most out of the things you have and it feels okay, and is ultimately good, or consistent. You adapt to your environment.

We as a species are intelligent enough to live and prosper without technology, or at least the technologies that aren't beneficent to the species, and therefore Earth, in some way.

>>6656685
probably

but

you know

like

yolo

i guess

>>6656685
> rapid speed of technological advancement
Nigga, we stagnant. Technology is getting more advanced and we're just using it to play flippidy birds and post on 4chin. Nothing significant has been put to real use in 15 years.

>>6656685
Change is not always detrimental, especially when it's change due to technological advancement.

The world will eventually find it's new equilibrium point.

>>6671461
>>6671458
HOPE

File: davidwalliams-anne.jpg (28KB, 396x396px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 396x396px

aa aa aaaaa

>>6671458
Well, having a smartphone in your hand has changed the game by a lot.

It can either make you a lot smarter or to reliant on the technology.

>>6665235
How is this not a good thing? Banks are nothing but a drain on society.

>>6656700
;_;

File: disgusting.jpg (20KB, 560x334px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 560x334px

>>6659316
>>6659159

>Capitalism doesn't work.

>>6656685
>the rapid speed

>some math problems remain unsolved since like 100 years
>"rapid speed"

>>6673561
What is a logical phallic y?

>>6656982
THANK MR SKELTAL

Sometime in the future, all of mankind will be extinct. In fact, every bit of life on our planet earth will eventually turn to ash and burn. It's just how the universe works

Our sun will eventually burn out. After all, it is a finite resource, just like everything else in existence. It may take billions of years, but it is a FACT that everything we know and love will someday be obliterated into individual particles of matter. Pretty depressing once you think about it.

On a more positive note, it's almost 100% likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe. So even if our little slice of life on planet earth is destined to be wiped out, there will probably be life elsewhere

>>6674469
Not exactly, the children of humanity will prosper. If we went extinct through an ice age or something massive, in billions of years the earth would have new species in life that have our genetics. You're nihilistic and egotistical. Live for today, mentality, forgetting about tomorrow. Plus, who knows, there may be afterlife. I think our opinions are not worthless if they are in support of our natural instincts, such as to preserve the world for our future children.

>>6675742
>in billions of years the earth would have new species in life that have our genetics

No guarantee, sounds like an egotistical assumption to me.

You're just as wrong as the person you're criticizing but in the other direction. We really don't know.

And unless some of our offspring develop viable space travel then all of our descendants really will be dead eventually.

>>6673561
100 years is nothing on the grand scale of things.

The speed of human progress is staggering. In the lifespan of a single human we've discovered nuclear energy/weapons, digital technology, superconductors, flown to the moon, sent probes out of the solar system, invented pacemakers and brain implants, invented magic scanners that can can virtually slice humans(MRI,CT), we've learned how to study nanomechanics, quantum phenomenon, we've built particle colliders of enormous size, we've created the internet and become able to render photorealistic graphics and countless, countless other things.

Today there's more universities, there's more people in research, there's better tools availible. We'll have fusion energy and AI soon, we'll have biological immortality soon.

Lets say "the wireless telegraph"(radio) to be the start of our era.
That's 1872 when the patent was awarded.
By 2119, the radio will be 1 year old if you've been living on Pluto.
By 2119, we might really have people living on pluto.

>>6675742
I agree

>>6656685
>will the rapid speed at which we are increasing

This is not the industrial revolution anymore. The rapid speed you see right now is only on menial entertainment products. Everything else is going slow, no worries.

>>6675992
>We'll have fusion energy and AI soon, we'll have biological immortality soon

I kek'd

>>6678334
You think too narrowly about technological advancement. Mass producing electricity or cars is just as dangerous to the environment as nuclear weapons, it's just in different, slower ways. How cars move can also be seen as the advancement of technology. Another question then, will all the cars spraying poisonous gasses into the air destroy or worsen our atmosphere, in the long term? Will Earth one day be destroyed by humanity and not a natural disaster?

File: Carolina craters.png (2MB, 1367x751px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1367x751px

It already has compromised us.

>Have any of you ever tried building a camp fire?
>Can you make fire without a lighter?
>Can you make an axe from stone to build a shelter?

These were the first technological advancements and, still, the most crucial to human survival yet no kindergarten, middle, or high school teaches it. You'd be lucky if your college has a course on this.

>>6660661
Hominids lived through many extinction events, however, that was due to knowing how to make fire from nothing and kill shit with rocks we broke by hand. That and being able to eat just about anything. I'm the post above and think these skills need to be retaught to the masses. It'd just be like a physical education class.

>>6680515
Post-scarcity society makes that information superfluous. Get btfo innawoods fags.

File: that wordm8.jpg (256KB, 500x656px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 500x656px

>>6680535
I know you weren't stating that your culture exists in a post-scarcity society now. I live in the first world too but that there is some bullshit.

>>6656971
>Technology causes us to consume lots of finite resources as well as pollution to the Earth

That's planned obsolescence... not technology.

>>6658607
>Then shouldn't we stop advancing technologically and focus primarily on the preservation of what nature we have left?

You seriously considering abandoning industrial civilization, and the knowledge, skill, expertise, and capacity to remove all of the giant industrial plants?

Not to mention agricultural equipment?

Running water?

Electricity?

Cars?

Commerce?

Telecommunications?

Medical Science?

.......


...
.
.
Defensive Armaments?

>>6681167
>Defensive Armaments?

For the bogeyman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuUFIBnXj4Q

It all depends to whom it's available.

No such thing as `Defensive' armaments?

>>6681297
True.

File: aetherfaggot4.jpg (54KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 720x960px

>>6656982
SPOOKY SCARY SKELETON

>>6682555
Aether, how does it feel you are nothing but laughing stock for the people here after seeing your photos?

>>6682570
>implying his photos we're laughing at.

>>6680515
I can and have done those things. Mostly because I grew up without access to a lot of entertainment and had to do other things to be entertained.

>>6682570
Anon, are you sure you aren't crying?

To be honest, I think humanity should stop advancing technology.
We had everything we needed by 1999.
The only thing technology is doing now is promoting degeneracy and other societal diseases as the internet gets more and more popular.
The only field that should be getting funding is Medicine.

>>6682796
>>6682796
>>6682796
You probably mean, 'humanity should stop misusing technology'.

File: lasigna.jpg (643KB, 1500x1069px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1500x1069px

>>6680515
If you took a physics class you will have no trouble starting a fire. Just more proof physics master race?

>mfw engineers try to make a fire

>>6682861
Yes.

>>6656685
Contrary to popular belief, a new iPhone every year does not mean a rapid speed of tech advancement.

>>6656685
Yes,
Read Ted Kaczynski's Dissertation on the technological advancement of man, also EMF levels in technological advances.

>>6683780
EMF?

technology is why we're here

>>6656685
Well as the G oogle(Magic eye) P lex('s law of penis.) says:
"Everybody is a Satan".

>>6684599
No it's not. I imagine humans very very prosperous in the natural world without technology.

>>6683778
this is the only correct answer in the thread

>>6682796
>The only thing technology is doing now is promoting degeneracy and other societal diseases as the internet gets more and more popular.
but what if this is unambiguously the thing i want the most from technology

>>6684648
No it's not.

>>6684659
What if the fulfilment of this want is against the needs of the population?

>>6684660
you're right on further inspection this one was also correct
>>6659316

>>6684665
well
a. i reject quasi-utilitarian optimization ethics, whether needs or wants
but also
b. let's say what you meant was "What if the fulfilment of this want is *UNAMBIGUOUSLY EVIL?*" then i guess what i wanted would be evil? but if i knew that i probably wouldn't want it.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that i think the internet's dissolution of shared cultural standards has been unambiguously good

Yeah but what's cultural doesn't account for everything else, such as the world around you.

>>6684665
>>The only thing technology is doing now is promoting degeneracy and other societal diseases as the internet gets more and more popular.

technology has not led to degeneracy; but merely opened the doors to anonymity which has led to an unfiltered explosion of new ideas - some of which may not be as agreeable with conservative values

>>6684698
4chan is okay because it can be used for a greater good.

File: 5174000_460s.jpg (50KB, 456x637px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 456x637px

itt: the usual gang of autists that is /sci/ read the word 'technology' in the op and then only take into account heavy industry and information tech/computing

you are all leaving the real upcoming technological revolution out of the picture: genetic engineering and manipulation, and you can bet your precious smartphones it will MASSIVELY disrupt the social, ecological, political and economic spheres.

autist faggots in your ivory towers jerking off over faster transistors... mfw

We will probably mess up the world bad but on the plus side we will take life off of our planet and onto another one and the earth will eventually go back to normal (after the death of thousands of species and millions if not billions of people beforehand though)

>>6685463
and then the sun will obliterate everything!

>>6685463
We will probably never terraform another planet, plus, just inhabiting other planets wont be as near comfortable and righteous as Earth.

>>6685455
Because GMOs and designer pets are a real game changer... What the fuck else is genetic engineering working on that's mass-marketable? Yeah that's not going to make money. No funding.

>>6687143
designer pets?

>>6687845
Yeah like imagine if you had a genetically engineered spider that was nondangerous to humans and pets but hunted down actual pests. Or you could modify a wasp for airborne version of the same thing..

>>6682641
Yes, of course i'm crying.
Because i laugh at aether trying and failing to be amusing.

>>6682570
what photos? share plz.

File: 3de49f5656c69529f8ba89f7531fee1b.jpg (53KB, 485x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 485x480px

>>6656685
Yes.

Corusant when?

>>6659316
Fuller was a brilliant man but this quote is not one of his more brilliant moves

The problem is that the great unwashed have to be occupied in some way or they will get up to all sorts of nasty business

>>6688158
People are like sled dogs. Give them food, training and tell them they are doing a good job and they'll take you anywhere you want to go.

>>6672665
>Banks are nothing but a drain on society
Proof positives that scientists should stick to their lab work and leave economics to people who actually know what they're talking about

>>6680515
>Have any of you ever tried building a camp fire?
Yes.

>Can you make fire without a lighter?
Yes, though not without flint.

>Can you make an axe from stone to build a shelter?
Yes

>>6685455
ethical concerns will shut down human genetic engineering and manipulation outside of the treatment of fatal disorders

>>6688160
Precisely.

>>6670723
>We as a species are intelligent enough to live and prosper without technology
We as a species aren't unintelligent enough to live without technology, that's called human progression. Weather you like it or not, humans are greedy and impatient and stupid, we want more, that's why instead of waiting for evolution, we combine technology with ourselves, our social life, our abilities and the planet we're living on. Everything is based on cause and effect when it comes to technology. We were intelligent and needed convenience, so we invented industry. We were intelligent and needed to make our lives safer, so we stopped using led. We were intelligent and needed our environment to stay clean, so we're trying to change industry with the use of eco-friendly technology. You can't just up and say "some technologies aren't beneficial to us and Earth" because that's completely wrong. Technology is humanities greatest invention.

>>6673551
Capitalism works, true, but It works better for greedy parasites.

>>6688313
>butthurt poorfag detected

>>6688313
so it works better for every single human being alive?

>>6688362
Capitalistic countries have higher standards of living, are more democratic, have their economies grow at faster rates, etc. The main drawback is inequality, but most people don't care that other people are richer than them while they themselves are sipping overpriced lattes from Starbucks.

The world isn't "rapidly progressing." Computer processors are increasing in operations/second. Is it really reasonable to assert they are "progressing" though?

Exponential progress is a metaphysical assumption and I always call people out on it IRL.

Why don't people say the world is progressing at the rate of (2^t^t)?

>>6656685
>metaphysics => trash can

>>6688896
>Why don't people say the world is progressing at the rate of (2^t^t)?
they do
john titor
one love

>>6656685
No one can possibly know this. There's no stopping this runaway train now though, so just sit back and watch what happens.

>>6656700
>Implying Evas are physically possible given square/cube law

Gr8 b8 m8

>>6688168
right, just like how ethical concerns shut down the nuclear weapons program and curbed carbon emissions and eliminated starvation