- Status
[citation][nom]sna[/nom]what is the purpose of this if u cant live 150 years ?[/citation]
How little do people know.
First off, death is NOT inevitable... saying that it is, only puts a very strong perception/suggestion into ones brain that it will carry out.
There are many ways to stop, reverse or just slow down to a crawl the ageing process.
It involves proper nutrition (which very few are getting), regular exercise (which is not done by everyone) and targeted meditation (meditation used for specific purposes - Tibetan monks aren't using it for life extension, they use it for the purpose of enlightenment).
Combine all 3 aspects and incorporate them into your daily life, and you might end up pleasantly surprised.
Of course, I make no statements that could be perceived as 'absolute' or 'truths' - you have access to the wealth of info at your fingertips, so you can do your own research.
Also... to simply ignore scientific advancement is a bit short-sighted.
We've already been reversing ageing in mice for the past 20 years... dabbled with stem-cells for the purpose of organ/tissue regeneration and many other applications - and have developed nanorobots 20 years ago.
We already had the ability to start with practical usage in humans at least in several areas - by now, what people perceive as the 'average life expectancy' could have been easily extended to a very large degree using technology alone (never-mind the premise it can be also be done with my first explanation extensively as well - if not even a lot more).
People seem to forget that our science and technology are advancing exponentially.
The problem lies in the monetary system which refuses to release such technologies out the moment they are developed because they can be 'cost prohibitive' (even though it can be made in abundance)... and lets not forget how many such technologies could easily dispense with the current money structure the pharmaceutical (and medical) industry at large has (and they aren't the only ones).
Think of how much money would be lost, how many jobs would be lost with such powerful technologies - because its far more profitable to treat the symptoms, but never the cause (also to keep the general population ill-informed because it prevents them from looking up alternatives that might actually work).
How little do people know.
First off, death is NOT inevitable... saying that it is, only puts a very strong perception/suggestion into ones brain that it will carry out.
There are many ways to stop, reverse or just slow down to a crawl the ageing process.
It involves proper nutrition (which very few are getting), regular exercise (which is not done by everyone) and targeted meditation (meditation used for specific purposes - Tibetan monks aren't using it for life extension, they use it for the purpose of enlightenment).
Combine all 3 aspects and incorporate them into your daily life, and you might end up pleasantly surprised.
Of course, I make no statements that could be perceived as 'absolute' or 'truths' - you have access to the wealth of info at your fingertips, so you can do your own research.
Also... to simply ignore scientific advancement is a bit short-sighted.
We've already been reversing ageing in mice for the past 20 years... dabbled with stem-cells for the purpose of organ/tissue regeneration and many other applications - and have developed nanorobots 20 years ago.
We already had the ability to start with practical usage in humans at least in several areas - by now, what people perceive as the 'average life expectancy' could have been easily extended to a very large degree using technology alone (never-mind the premise it can be also be done with my first explanation extensively as well - if not even a lot more).
People seem to forget that our science and technology are advancing exponentially.
The problem lies in the monetary system which refuses to release such technologies out the moment they are developed because they can be 'cost prohibitive' (even though it can be made in abundance)... and lets not forget how many such technologies could easily dispense with the current money structure the pharmaceutical (and medical) industry at large has (and they aren't the only ones).
Think of how much money would be lost, how many jobs would be lost with such powerful technologies - because its far more profitable to treat the symptoms, but never the cause (also to keep the general population ill-informed because it prevents them from looking up alternatives that might actually work).
Noe that I don't want this to happen, but "2022: US Presidency held by third-party candidate."
I stopped reading after that.
I stopped reading after that.
The Venus Project is intriguing. Does mankind have the cajones to make that kind of radical societal change?
We'll probably have to transition through a one world government first, and that's going to be costly. Sustainable fusion power would be a major game changer, on par with the discovery of oil. That would help speed the transition.
We'll probably have to transition through a one world government first, and that's going to be costly. Sustainable fusion power would be a major game changer, on par with the discovery of oil. That would help speed the transition.
[citation][nom]Tehol[/nom]Noe that I don't want this to happen, but "2022: US Presidency held by third-party candidate."I stopped reading after that.[/citation]
The 2 party system we have now isn't even close to a democracy, but it would only change after major civil unrest. Like when the banking systems collapse.
The 2 party system we have now isn't even close to a democracy, but it would only change after major civil unrest. Like when the banking systems collapse.
RADIO_ACTIVE
Distinguished
- Jan 17, 2008
- 897
- 0
- 18,990
Going to see alot in my lifetime, as to what I see, no one knows the future, but technology will envolve for sure....
[citation][nom]Fulgurant[/nom]No incentive = no technology, and no one to maintain it. Someone's been watching too much Star Trek.[/citation]
Curiosity and boredom are rather large incentives. When your basic needs are met without question you are free to be creative as humanly possible.
It's inevitable for humanity to survive in the long term. The Earth will only last so long and planetary terraforming/colonization isn't possible at the nation state level.
Curiosity and boredom are rather large incentives. When your basic needs are met without question you are free to be creative as humanly possible.
It's inevitable for humanity to survive in the long term. The Earth will only last so long and planetary terraforming/colonization isn't possible at the nation state level.
[citation][nom]Fulgurant[/nom]No incentive = no technology, and no one to maintain it. Someone's been watching too much Star Trek.[/citation]
How interesting, because your post makes it appear as if you hadn't heard of 'technological automation' nor studied what actually motivates humans to work.
First off, money is NOT the only incentive to work - and today, working for a living (or having a job) is completely invalidated/useless in the face of how much can be automated.
Money was not the cause of technological development... technology developed in spite of it.
Einstein, DaVinci and Tesla (to name a few) were never motivated by money to develop theories and practical models that they did - they were motivated by a desire to learn, expand their knowledge and see what's possible.
There were actually several scientific studies done over the past 150 years or so on the concept of 'human nature' (and all of the research done in that area to today indicates that 'human nature' is a myth - but human behavior, something that can be changed and has changed throughout history, is instead responsible - and behavior comes from the environment you live in).
Studies were also done in the recent times trying to determine the motivational factor beyond money.
Daniel Pink actually made a pretty good analysis of it on TED talk citing research in the past decade... which showed, money was a good incentive for repetitive work, but becomes an inhibiting factor for creativity, problem solving and critical thinking.
We already have machines that make other machines and can maintain themselves.
Most of the production industry was already automated to a VERY large degree.
With the technology in circulation today, we can automate 75% of the global workforce tomorrow (most of the global workforce works in positions that are utterly useless/unproductive to society and exist for the sole purpose of moving money around).
Star Trek has nothing to do with resource based economy.
It may have been where Roddenberry got his idea for a moneyless economy, but you don't need replicators or transporters, or 'general AI' that pass the Turing test to automate everything.
Computers surpassed humans in specialized tasks over a decade ago.
Humans do specialized jobs... no 'general intelligence' necessary.
And besides, when you breach into areas of science, research and development, etc... actual creative jobs that drive our civilizations... most people are never in it for the money, but for the desire to work in those jobs.
And, as Cazalan also mentoned: curiosity and boredom are rather large incentives.
Money is a mere byproduct of an outdated system that wasn't working for over 100 years now (this is the second time its heading for a big crash in the last 100 years).
Its becoming easier and cheaper to automate jobs than to wait for humans to get trained to do them (and Humans are expensive because of medical care, need rest, sick days, etc... machines don't have such restrictions).
So please do yourself a favor and instead of making statements that its 'science fiction', educate yourself on what our technology is actually capable of, where are latest scientific knowledge stands (along with practical applications of it), and also do some studying on what is a motivational factor for humans (money is NOT the only thing that motivates us - especially in technological development - you just have to dig through heaps of garbage to find it).
How interesting, because your post makes it appear as if you hadn't heard of 'technological automation' nor studied what actually motivates humans to work.
First off, money is NOT the only incentive to work - and today, working for a living (or having a job) is completely invalidated/useless in the face of how much can be automated.
Money was not the cause of technological development... technology developed in spite of it.
Einstein, DaVinci and Tesla (to name a few) were never motivated by money to develop theories and practical models that they did - they were motivated by a desire to learn, expand their knowledge and see what's possible.
There were actually several scientific studies done over the past 150 years or so on the concept of 'human nature' (and all of the research done in that area to today indicates that 'human nature' is a myth - but human behavior, something that can be changed and has changed throughout history, is instead responsible - and behavior comes from the environment you live in).
Studies were also done in the recent times trying to determine the motivational factor beyond money.
Daniel Pink actually made a pretty good analysis of it on TED talk citing research in the past decade... which showed, money was a good incentive for repetitive work, but becomes an inhibiting factor for creativity, problem solving and critical thinking.
We already have machines that make other machines and can maintain themselves.
Most of the production industry was already automated to a VERY large degree.
With the technology in circulation today, we can automate 75% of the global workforce tomorrow (most of the global workforce works in positions that are utterly useless/unproductive to society and exist for the sole purpose of moving money around).
Star Trek has nothing to do with resource based economy.
It may have been where Roddenberry got his idea for a moneyless economy, but you don't need replicators or transporters, or 'general AI' that pass the Turing test to automate everything.
Computers surpassed humans in specialized tasks over a decade ago.
Humans do specialized jobs... no 'general intelligence' necessary.
And besides, when you breach into areas of science, research and development, etc... actual creative jobs that drive our civilizations... most people are never in it for the money, but for the desire to work in those jobs.
And, as Cazalan also mentoned: curiosity and boredom are rather large incentives.
Money is a mere byproduct of an outdated system that wasn't working for over 100 years now (this is the second time its heading for a big crash in the last 100 years).
Its becoming easier and cheaper to automate jobs than to wait for humans to get trained to do them (and Humans are expensive because of medical care, need rest, sick days, etc... machines don't have such restrictions).
So please do yourself a favor and instead of making statements that its 'science fiction', educate yourself on what our technology is actually capable of, where are latest scientific knowledge stands (along with practical applications of it), and also do some studying on what is a motivational factor for humans (money is NOT the only thing that motivates us - especially in technological development - you just have to dig through heaps of garbage to find it).
Fulgurant
Distinguished
- Nov 29, 2012
- 585
- 2
- 19,065
That's nice in theory. You're also free to sit around playing video games all day. Oh, sure; some people would want to keep their brains stimulated with real, weighty matters -- but there's a difference between the curious dilettante and a cog in an organization. The former role requires engaging your brain when you feel like it; the latter requires getting out of bed every morning at a time set by someone else, and then complying with the demands of that same authority during the long day.
There is a vanishingly small slice of humanity that will volunteer for the latter duty if there's no pay involved, if all of their wants and needs are met regardless. More to the point, there's an even smaller sliver of humanity that would volunteer for that duty if all of their neighbors were lying around on the couch, or vegging out in the holodeck, or doing whatever it is that deksman envisions for the rank and file member of our futuristic utopia. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Even if you look at the most accomplished and driven amateurs in history, they often needed to hire people to carry out their plans. So monetary incentive still played a role, just not necessarily at the very top. And those precious few who've done great deeds in the name of justice or peace or whatever grand goal you want to name, purely with volunteer help? Can we even speculate as to how those people would act if there were no obvious suffering in the world with which to do righteous battle?
But leaving the fundamental question of human nature aside, deksman's claim that we are currently capable of creating an infinitely bounteous and self-sustaining automated utopia for all of humankind -- but for the resistance of a small-minded business community that can't get past the petty notion of cost-efficiency -- is seriously screwy. Cost-efficiency, after all, is intimately related with scarcity. You can't say that the former is artificially taking precedence over the latter; if it really were practical to provide the wonders that deskman describes, then providing them wouldn't be cost-prohibitive. The reward would outweigh the risk.
Are there some corporations, some industries, that deliberately hold back the development of new and promising areas of technological development because it's more profitable for them to stall? Absolutely. Is there a world-wide conspiracy to keep the people from discovering that technology has been capable of filling every need, for every person, for free and forever ... ever since the industrial revolution? No.
What deksman really means, I suspect, is that if some sort of globe-spanning central authority were empowered to confiscate all of the assets available to every corporation on earth and put those assets towards the creation of a utopia -- if all of the world's people were willing to submit to an act of tyrannical hubris to beggar the imagination -- then we might be able to work out some sort of automated system to ensure the health of humankind going forward. Maybe. Perhaps, if you squint real hard. But are you willing to agree to such an arrangement to find out for sure? Who are we to elect as our new supreme leader(s)?
Realistically, we're not even close to glimpsing the kind of infrastructure deksman describes. And rest assured, if some enterprising engineer or group of engineers managed to design even a small fraction of that infrastructure, they'd be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. (Infinitely self-sustaining automation is valuable even on a small scale, donchaknow!) People are working extremely hard, even as we speak, to advance technology to the lofty standards that deksman envisions, in part because doing so earns them a living. Let's not belittle or diminish their efforts by pretending that what they do is all part of a grand farce -- or worse, by pretending that all of those professionals, having honed their respective and specialized skills over a lifetime, could easily be replaced by a bunch of boredom-motivated amateurs.
The TL;DR version: your phrase, "basic needs," tells the whole story. If you're asking me whether a society can thrive when all of its members are kept alive by default, but have to work a little to achieve the luxuries that they covet -- then I'd say yes, that's probably true. But keep in mind that we're discussing the abolition of money altogether, which necessarily requires that there could be no meaningful difference in the lifestyle of one citizen to the next, whether the citizen works or not. That second scenario is a whole nother kettle of fish.
Fulgurant
Distinguished
- Nov 29, 2012
- 585
- 2
- 19,065
(emphasis mine)
As noted above, the bolded phrase is the key. If you want human beings to work efficiently and in concert, to organize into the hierarchical structures required to address large projects, then you can't rely on curiosity alone to motivate them. The singular genius drawing up grand theories is one thing; the low man on the totem pole is quite another.
Oh, and I have heard of automation. I just think you vastly overestimate automation's current capability to work without human support (that is, maintenance, supply, etc).
Exactly right. Which is why I question your assertion that the business world is deliberately hiding the miraculous technology you describe. It would be profitable right now to design it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to try your immortality-bestowing meditation technique.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Would I be better off upgrading my current PC or should I get a whole new PC?
- Started by CattyCatt
- Replies: 8
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram