Post yfw you realise that in just a few hundred years, today's

>>8233986
hmm

>>8233986
long time ago
posthumanist here

>transhumanists
shiggy diggy

>>8233986
Dont make me post the graph

I doubt they'll change a crazy amount. We've began to reach a peak of knowledge, it's a matter of finding more efficient ways to use our current tech at this point

>>8234003
do it

>>8233992
i know right

this really made me think .

>>8233986
Actually it won't.

We've not really advanced all that much and we are not going to advance much further. Most science needed for humanity has been discovered and everything is just engineer's work now.

File: Planck.jpg (27KB, 344x427px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 344x427px

>>8234041
Philipp von Jolly pls

>>8233986
>quaint
Some of those are still among the most practical tools for the tasks they were designed for.

>>8233998
please do not confuse posthumanism and transhumanism, it`s a common layman mistake
I am not for forcing humanity to change, I just know it`s going to
I would rather postpone this process

>>8233986
unless biotech and ai don't flop I don't think we'll be going very far. A lot of people think that progress is a given mainly because it's what they're always told.

http://casnocha.com/2010/05/slowing-rate-of-change-and-tech-innovation.html

>>8233986
>in just a few hundred years, today's tech will seem as quaint as stone tools seem to us
Proofs?

>>8234102
our synthetic descendants will smile at your ignorance

>>8234102
While I agree that a lot of the low hanging fruit has been picked and thus further development will be more challenging, I feel there is still much history defining tech to be had.

>>8234222
Yeah, I think the bigger fallacy is that because it is "progress", it will be good for us or make the world a "better place". It can be very easily the exact opposite.

>>8234102
AI is going to stall till biotech catches up, but i think gene editing is going to be the next arms race.

>>8234008
Prove your statements.

>>8234226
>Prove your statements.

What does it mean to "prove" a statement that is not a well-formed sentence in an axiomatic system with consistent rules of deduction?

Hmm, depends

Those are picks and an axe, which are tools that still in use today, except we use more durable materials in them now

Couldve made more convincing argument with other stuff that hasnt existed for a long time, like mass sequencers or artificial satellites (shit that didnt exist before the last century)

Capitalism is fucked if there soon is nothing left to innovate. Gets me worried. Especially if we can't leave this planet.

Technology from a few hundred years ago doesn't seem like stone age tools to us, so no. It's futurist hyperbole.

>>8234250

It's rather simple if the statement is made out of words, just analyze the sentence's words and see if they are true or not at all. In math this is obviously easier.

>>8234331
>Technology from a few hundred years ago
S-such as?

>>8234331
Pretty much anything from before the industrial is good as stone wedges to us

>>8234250
You're a faggy cunt mate

>>8233986
I'm still in post-hype about the wheel desu