Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Thorn on May 31, 2002, 02:16:16 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/31/kashmir.attack/index.html
not good.. not good at all...
-
Only worry if they actualy go and do it.
-
Uh-oh... That's bad... Real bad... Really bad... It could have effects that would reach all over the world in time.
-
this India-pakistan thing is going to get worst before it gets better. i don't think it rumsfield will have any effect on this one bit.
-
Note the title of the artical "Nuke war would kill millions" - no ****?
pete
-
:sigh:
-
I am actually quite for this, but my opinion is obviously subjective as I am of Indian origin, although I would be supporting any such war even if it involved some other nations in a similar situation. I am no patriot and am not all that proud to be from India in the first place, but I have other political reasons for supporting this from a world perspective. ;) Still, 17 million is a fairly small number compared the combined population of the two nations, which numbers over a billion, and whenever two nations of relatively equal technology are in conflict with each other, the Mao doctrine has an application. ;) This war should have happened about 50 years ago in my opinion and it's about time now, but the Indian government has always been full of crap elements. (like Gandhi :p) I doubt there will be any nuclear aggression though, as the Indians have always been the cautious types and they will probably go in and disarm the Pakistani nukes, which only number around 20, before attempting anything.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am actually quite for this, but my opinion is obviously subjective as I am of Indian origin, although I would be supporting any such war even if it involved some other nations in a similar situation. I am no patriot and am not all that proud to be from India in the first place, but I have other political reasons for supporting this from a world perspective. ;) Still, 17 million is a fairly small number compared the the combined population of the two nations, which reaches over a billion, and whenever two nations of equal technology are in conflict with each other, the Mao doctrine has an application. ;) This war should have happened about 50 years ago in my opinion and it's about time now, but the Indian government has always been full of crap elements. (like Gandhi :p)
Are you serious?
17 million? That's excluding radiation poisoning, which would probably effect most of the region - probably even Europe too. (Chernobyl irradiated some parts of Scotland, albeit not to a life-threatening degree).
not to mention that China has an interest in Kashmir - what happens if they decided to take action whilst the 2 sides have crippled each other? What happens if the Us or its allies decide to react?
A nuclear war kills the world. simple as that. not only in the direct effects, but the geo-political impact of sustained nuclear weapons. Once one country crosses that line, it is no longer a barrier.
-
aldo's right on this one. China has hundreds of nukes and the only thing that stops them from using them is their supposed no-first-strike policy.
[sarcasm]A nuclear war will bring our nuclear arsenal down to the levels that bush and putin wanted in relatively short order[/sarcasm]
-
Are you serious?
17 million? That's excluding radiation poisoning, which would probably effect most of the region - probably even Europe too. (Chernobyl irradiated some parts of Scotland, albeit not to a life-threatening degree).
Doesn't mean much when you think of the human social machine as a whole. :p Besides, these are older and more primitive nukes that don't have the power to affect anything outside the immediate area. (there are many kinds of nukes)
not to mention that China has an interest in Kashmir - what happens if they decided to take action whilst the 2 sides have crippled each other? What happens if the Us or its allies decide to react?
I would not put it past them, but it is not very likely either, as the outsider countries do not have all that much to gain by sacrificing men for this. The only reason that India is going for this is due to a number of terrorist attacks in recent years, which is similar to the US policy; the poverty ratings in Pakistan are higher than even that of India, the land is useless for agriculture, and the only reason that there is any order is because of the military rule, so a conquest would not yield much.
A nuclear war kills the world. simple as that. not only in the direct effects, but the geo-political impact of sustained nuclear weapons. Once one country crosses that line, it is no longer a barrier.
That would become an issue if a couple hundred of the newer kinds were used simultaneously, which is not really the case here. Also, the Pakistani nukes are thought to be conventional bombs rather than ICBMs, making them harder to use directly, while the Indians have that no-strike policy.
[sarcasm]A nuclear war will bring our nuclear arsenal down to the levels that bush and putin wanted in relatively short order[/sarcasm]
lol :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Doesn't mean much when you think of the human social machine as a whole. :p Besides, these are older and more primitive nukes that don't have the power to affect anything outside the immediate area. (there are many kinds of nukes)
I would not put it past them, but it is not very likely either, as the outsider countries do not have all that much to gain by sacrificing men for this.
That would become an issue if a couple hundred of the newer kinds were used simultaneously, which is not really the case here. Also, the Pakistani nukes are thought to be conventional bombs rather than ICBMs, making them harder to use directly, while the Indians have said that they will only launch nukes if the other side does first. :p
1) Doesn't mean much!? If you would live in the effected area you wouldn't think like that!
2) Politics... Can't predict it.
3) Eeeerrr...
-
1) Doesn't mean much!? If you would live in the effected area you wouldn't think like that!
It all ties in to philosophy; just like I said in the other thread, all these ideas are holistic and tie into each other. ;) I am not thinking from the primitive scale of the personal human here, but from the point of the entire "machine" of human civilization. ;)
2) Politics... Can't predict it.
You can assign events some sort of probabilities, though. ;)
-
I gotta go so :
I do not agree with them but I do respect your ideas.
-
Okay, that's cool. :D I also have some respect for the opposing ideas here, since I can definitely see what is to be gained by the Gandhi system, but I think that there are more benefits in a midline position. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am actually quite for this, but my opinion is obviously subjective as I am of Indian origin, although I would be supporting any such war even if it involved some other nations in a similar situation. I am no patriot and am not all that proud to be from India in the first place, but I have other political reasons for supporting this from a world perspective. ;) Still, 17 million is a fairly small number compared the combined population of the two nations, which numbers over a billion, and whenever two nations of relatively equal technology are in conflict with each other, the Mao doctrine has an application. ;) This war should have happened about 50 years ago in my opinion and it's about time now, but the Indian government has always been full of crap elements. (like Gandhi :p) I doubt there will be any nuclear aggression though, as the Indians have always been the cautious types and they will probably go in and disarm the Pakistani nukes, which only number around 20, before attempting anything.
Hah. I bet your "subjective opinion" would be changed if you would happen to be one of those 17 million.
Nuclear weapons are political weapons that don't even serve their purpose on the political climate of today's world. They are not conventional military weapons and not to be used as such, especially between nations that act like two children fighting over a candy bar.
-
Hah. I bet your "subjective opinion" would be changed if you would happen to be one of those 17 million.
You really don't know my whole philosophy, do you? Just wait for ten years. ;) And besides, if this is the case, I wonder why most Indians and a moderate number of Pakistanis are much more fanatical about this. :D I don't think there is much to be gained out of a total war system, but I think that the same could be said about absolute pacifism as far as today's world goes, and considering the history of the two nations, there is sufficient reason to warrant an armed conflict of some sort (probably not a nuclear war, but even that would not be all that bad), and one that will definitely benefit many other parts of the world in the long run.
Nuclear weapons are political weapons that don't even serve their purpose on the political climate of today's world. They are not conventional military weapons and not to be used as such, especially between nations that act like two children fighting over a candy bar.
Well, who defines what they "are to be used" as and what not? :p :D That changes with the world conditions.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You really don't know my whole philosophy, do you? Just wait for ten years. ;) And besides, if this is the case, I wonder why most Indians and a moderate number of Pakistanis are much more fanatical about this. :D
No, I don't know your philosophy. I didn't say I do. I do know my own philosophy, and I know that it contradicts wildly with yours :)
Indians and Pakistans are fanatic, yes. That's what I referred to them as children. Think and reason has left them long time on this matter. They don't understand that one war would do nothing but lead to another. Not to mention the overall effects of usage of nuclear weapons.
Well, who defines what they "are to be used" as and what not? :p :D That changes with the world conditions.
Of course nobody defines them. Political weapons they currently are, that is a commonly accepted fact. What else can a weapon that has been used only twice in the history be but political? India and Pakistan can of course see it other way, but that doesn't justify possible usage of them. They can fight their silly wars just fine without them.
-
"Make love, not war..."
:thepimp:
Seriously, war aint a fun thing, no matter what the scale is. I mean look at human civilization as a whole. For over 5000 years we've been at war with each other. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" so to speak. We progress in science, but not in culture. We just learn new ways to kill each other, instead of new ways to live with one another. So, what am I saying? I dunno, maybe that after 5000 years we should blow ourselves up. God knows how many chances we had to fix things, and then blew them off. :sigh: I really don't care anymore how the world will go, cause if there'll ever be a nuke war, atleast most of us won't really suffer that much, cause we'll be burned to a crisp before we know it. But I aint a pacifist. Just a realist. Bah, I'll get back to playing some Freespace. :D
-
No, I don't know your philosophy. I didn't say I do.
Well, I could say that you implied you did by saying that I would think differently if I lived elsewhere, but never mind that. :p :D As I said before, I am no warhawk, but I don't like the Gandhi principle either, as we have seen how well that worked in the real world. :p
Of course nobody defines them. Political weapons they currently are, that is a commonly accepted fact. What else can a weapon that has been used only twice in the history be but political? India and Pakistan can of course see it other way, but that doesn't justify possible usage of them. They can fight their silly wars just fine without them.
Yeah, the situation does not justify them just yet from a world perspective, but it is not going to do much even if they are used compared to the potential benefits.
Seriously, war aint a fun thing, no matter what the scale is. I mean look at human civilization as a whole. For over 5000 years we've been at war with each other. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" so to speak. We progress in science, but not in culture. We just learn new ways to kill each other, instead of new ways to live with one another. So, what am I saying?
I think that will change over the course of the next few millennia, seeing as we subtly headed towards a world government, and in the very distant future, a combined physical system. Also, our prehistoric ancestors fought wars as individuals, while the wars of today are fought by cohesive groups formed out of ideologies. ;)
Bah, I'll get back to playing some Freespace. :D
That's always a good idea. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I think that will change over the course of the next few millennia, seeing as we subtly headed towards a world government, and in the very distant future, a combined physical system. Also, our prehistoric ancestors fought wars as individuals, while the wars of today are fought by cohesive groups formed out of ideologies. ;)
Yeah, that may be true, but it still proves the point of "The more things change, the more they stay the same". See, we are STILL FIGHTING. Just differently. The key is to STOP fighting.
But yes... It'll happen one day. When people discover the therapeutic properties of Freespace... :D
-
But the human society works over somewhat discrete quantites as far as politics goes, and so if we keep following this trend into the future, we can see that the group will eventually compose of just one "group." ;) We have not changed in the respect of fighting because it is commonly considered to also be a very discrete true/false quantity, but if it is taken to be a continuous system instead (closer to the real thing for computational purposes), the rate of change is seen to be positive. ;)
But yes... It'll happen one day. When people discover the therapeutic properties of Freespace... :D
The whole world playing FS, and the PXO lobbies constantly full, and an FS3 in sight due to popularity; that would indeed be a great experience. :D
-
Hopefully... :)
But right now, it aint looking like it.
-
Oh come on guys tell me about it. WAR sucks! :no:
I felt it on my own skin. :(
-
It is just another component of human affairs as far as the entire system of civilization goes, though. ;) (very undesirable for individuals of course, but that can vary for the system)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Doesn't mean much when you think of the human social machine as a whole. :p Besides, these are older and more primitive nukes that don't have the power to affect anything outside the immediate area. (there are many kinds of nukes)
up until september 11 last year, you could have said the same thing about terrorism.... but the impact of that has shaken the very foundation of the western world.
And that was 3000 dead - what would over 17 million do?
I would not put it past them, but it is not very likely either, as the outsider countries do not have all that much to gain by sacrificing men for this. The only reason that India is going for this is due to a number of terrorist attacks in recent years, which is similar to the US policy; the poverty ratings in Pakistan are higher than even that of India, the land is useless for agriculture, and the only reason that there is any order is because of the military rule, so a conquest would not yield much.
Outsider countries? China actually holds a portion of Kashmir currently, even if the world is focused on the India - Pakistan line of control.
The reason for this stand is solely to distract attention of the public from the crippling poverty of both countries. It's exactly the same as Hitler - for example - starting World War 2 because his economic policy was unsustainable without taking the resource - and slave labour of - other nations. not as blatantly evil, but still god-damn wrong.
Kashmir was always supposed to be - based on a referendum - and independent nation when the British Empire withdrew from India. This crisis could be settled in a heartbeat if that were allowed to happen.
That would become an issue if a couple hundred of the newer kinds were used simultaneously, which is not really the case here. Also, the Pakistani nukes are thought to be conventional bombs rather than ICBMs, making them harder to use directly, while the Indians have that no-strike policy.
You need an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to hit your neighbours. Pakistan has already proven it has nuclear missiles capable of being fired into India with the recent tests.
Also, a first strike policy is no guarentee.... how many of those nukes are under total control of the Government? There was already worries during the height of the Afghan war, that rouge fanatcial elements of the Pakistan army could easily secure and use nuclear missiles.
-
up until september 11 last year, you could have said the same thing about terrorism.... but the impact of that has shaken the very foundation of the western world.
And that was 3000 dead - what would over 17 million do?
Actually, it shook the world much more because people were unprepared for it rather than it actually damaging the infrastructure a lot. The civilized world had not yet seen such an event on a large scale. And 3000 is again a vanishingly small number compared to entire world population, as is 17 million. (btw, WW2 casualities exceeded this by a considerable amount) And the recent rise of terrorism is probably the main reason this war is being fought in the first place.
Outsider countries? China actually holds a portion of Kashmir currently, even if the world is focused on the India - Pakistan line of control.
The reason for this stand is solely to distract attention of the public from the crippling poverty of both countries. It's exactly the same as Hitler - for example - starting World War 2 because his economic policy was unsustainable without taking the resource - and slave labour of - other nations. not as blatantly evil, but still god-damn wrong.
That is quite an uninformed statement, if I must say so. As I said earlier, India has nothing to gain in terms of resources or material from such an effort; I suppose Pakistan does, but the chances of them being victorious in such a war are not worth it. The objective is basically the same as that of the US: to take revenge for terrorist activities, especially since a good portion of the Pakistani government is directly funding and supplying the terrorist groups that operate out of the nation. (it is hard to tell what Musharraf's motives are, but he definitely does not have the government entirely, or even mostly, under his control) Most of the world's terrorist groups are based in Pakistan and the main reason that they are able to carry out violent acts is that they recieve lots of government support.
Kashmir was always supposed to be - based on a referendum - and independent nation when the British Empire withdrew from India. This crisis could be settled in a heartbeat if that were allowed to happen.
These national boundaries change over time; if you want to follow the path back far enough, Pakistan was a section of India, along with some of the other surrounding countries. You cannot really rely on that type of thing. :p
You need an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to hit your neighbours. Pakistan has already proven it has nuclear missiles capable of being fired into India with the recent tests.
I'm not sure about that, but you could be right. Still, as I said before, India will probably attempt to secretly disarm the weapons first using commando teams due to their generally cautious nature.
Also, a first strike policy is no guarentee.... how many of those nukes are under total control of the Government? There was already worries during the height of the Afghan war, that rouge fanatcial elements of the Pakistan army could easily secure and use nuclear missiles.
Actually, I meant the Indians there; Pakistan has no first-strike policy, and in fact they have officially stated that if their country is on the verge of collapse they will attempt to take down as many people with them as they can. However, as you said, there is a big threat, especially now more than ever, that the terrorist groups (which have many links in the government) will be able to grab a nuke or two regardless of any war, which would be a dream come true for them, and launch it on some place like Washington.
-
The Fallout would be less than the Russian disaster, well for those in Europe and the Americas. Also its India who have the policy that they wont strike first, not Pakistan. This means that nukes probably wont be used, as if Pakistan did use them, the rest of the world would hate them. Here a series of quotes i know somewhat. Also Commando units couldnt just walk into a launch facility and disable thermies, they'd use airstrikes.
War is Hell
You cannot win a war, only survive it
It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it
-
Originally posted by CP5670
And 3000 is again a vanishingly small number compared to entire world population, as is 17 million. (btw, WW2 casualities exceeded this by a considerable amount)
hmm.. 9/1/39 to 9/2/45 50-70 million dead over 6 years
or 17 million in about an hour.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
hmm.. 9/1/39 to 9/2/45 50-70 million dead over 6 years
or 17 million in about an hour.
Good point dude.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, it shook the world much more because people were unprepared for it rather than it actually damaging the infrastructure a lot. The civilized world had not yet seen such an event on a large scale. And 3000 is again a vanishingly small number compared to entire world population, as is 17 million. (btw, WW2 casualities exceeded this by a considerable amount) And the recent rise of terrorism is probably the main reason this war is being fought in the first place.
I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. you say the world has never seen a major terrorist attack. True. But it has never seen a nuclear war exterminate half a subcontinent - 17 million dead in one hour (or less), not to mention the fallout, and the destruction of the ecosystem.
That is quite an uninformed statement, if I must say so. As I said earlier, India has nothing to gain in terms of resources or material from such an effort; I suppose Pakistan does, but the chances of them being victorious in such a war are not worth it. The objective is basically the same as that of the US: to take revenge for terrorist activities, especially since a good portion of the Pakistani government is directly funding and supplying the terrorist groups that operate out of the nation. (it is hard to tell what Musharraf's motives are, but he definitely does not have the government entirely, or even mostly, under his control) Most of the world's terrorist groups are based in Pakistan and the main reason that they are able to carry out violent acts is that they recieve lots of government support.
Uninformed? i suppose your infromation is direct from the Un, or the state department. correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in the Us - half a world away. You know as much as I do.... you say you are of Indian descent (IIRC). fair enough.... but how does that make you in any way more informed.
Also, the objective of a war would not be to take revenge.... bpth sides have been on tenterhooks for decades. this is simply a justifciation for war, nothing more. Regardless of any tenous excuse of 'terrorism' - this would not justify massacaring a civillian population with nuclear arms, or even killing soldiers.
These national boundaries change over time; if you want to follow the path back far enough, Pakistan was a section of India, along with some of the other surrounding countries. You cannot really rely on that type of thing. :p
[/b]
It's an easy (easier than war) solution. give the people what they want, and neither side can argue.
I'm not sure about that, but you could be right. Still, as I said before, India will probably attempt to secretly disarm the weapons first using commando teams due to their generally cautious nature.
[/b]
It's unlikely India even know the locations of all the silos....
Actually, I meant the Indians there; Pakistan has no first-strike policy, and in fact they have officially stated that if their country is on the verge of collapse they will attempt to take down as many people with them as they can. [/B]
Granted, it's an ugly statement - but it's true for everyone.
In WW2, churchill planned the use of mustard gas if the Germans invaded. I'd feel it was justified, so it's not as condemable as you think.... it's certainly a deterrent, is it not?
John Lennon
"Give peace a chance"
-
hmm.. 9/1/39 to 9/2/45 50-70 million dead over 6 years
or 17 million in about an hour.
Still, the rate of change is itself variable, and the total is all that counts really. It's like comparing the integrals of 1/Ö|x| and Ö|x| from -10 to 10. ;)
I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. you say the world has never seen a major terrorist attack. True. But it has never seen a nuclear war exterminate half a subcontinent - 17 million dead in one hour (or less), not to mention the fallout, and the destruction of the ecosystem.
Yes, the world has never seen any of that, but that does not mean that it will have any major effect of things. Also, the ecosystem will be of no importance in about a century at the latest with the exponential advance of technology, as we will have to begin living on our own creations regardless of whether there is any war or not.
Uninformed? i suppose your infromation is direct from the Un, or the state department. correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in the Us - half a world away. You know as much as I do.... you say you are of Indian descent (IIRC). fair enough.... but how does that make you in any way more informed.
Well, your argument is that the countries are doing this simply to "get attention" and to gain more territory, so yeah, I can safely say that my thing is a bit better than that, even if it is not wholly accurate. :p :D
Also, the objective of a war would not be to take revenge.... bpth sides have been on tenterhooks for decades. this is simply a justifciation for war, nothing more. Regardless of any tenous excuse of 'terrorism' - this would not justify massacaring a civillian population with nuclear arms, or even killing soldiers.
Yes but the same could be said of the histories of any nations in the world, including the ones involved in the US/Afghanistan and Israel/Paestine conflicts today, so that would not be saying much. Also everything is justified and not justified when it comes to international politics. I said this before: nations have their own interests, and the justification thing is of no importance outside these interests. I agree that it would not benefit the world much to use a bunch of nukes, but staging a conventional battle is definitely worth it in the interests of the social machine.
Time for me to go again, but I will be back in six hours to continue with this. :D ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Still, the rate of change is itself variable, and the total is all that counts really. It's like comparing the integrals of 1/Ö|x| and Ö|x from -10 to 10. ;)
Dude, were talking about PEOPLE here, not numbers! That sounds like something Stalin would say. Like his infamous quote "Kill one person, you're a murderer, kill a million its a statistic." Or something like that. Its still wrong. Who cares about rates of change and such? Be it 17 million or 17 thousand, what difference does it make? Its still people, and people should'nt be killed just like that.
-
Dude, were talking about PEOPLE here, not numbers! That sounds like something Stalin would say. Like his infamous quote "Kill one person, you're a murderer, kill a million its a statistic." Or something like that. Its still wrong. Who cares about rates of change and such? Be it 17 million or 17 thousand, what difference does it make? Its still people, and people should'nt be killed just like that.
People are equal to numbers as far as the social machine goes. :p (people are just as abundant as nonliving materials, making them similar economically) Remember: don't think with the human instincts you were brought up with, but rather with logic.
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
"Make love, not war..."
Goddamn straight....
*puts on hemp clothes, rolls a joint*
:thepimp:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
People are equal to numbers as far as the social machine goes. :p (people are just as abundant as nonliving materials, making them similar economically) Remember: don't think with the human instincts you were brought up with, but rather with logic.
Uh-huh. Sure. :rolleyes:
Dude, stop watching Star Trek, and look at the world as a person for once. We aren't Vulcans, come on. What will it accomplish, looking at the world with logic? Its not even possible. There's nothing logical about the world. Logic can even be considered a mental phenomenon in which the brain tries put non coherent events into some sort of perspective, trying to make sense out of it. But in the end its just the brains way of fooling itself, so that it doesen't have to worry so much.
And people ARE NOT equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are numbers is just a way to dissasociate oneself from the truth. Basically thinking so is like saying, "Oh, well, if 17 million people will be killed, if they're equal to numbers, thats not to bad. See I don't really care about numbers, and if people are like numbers, I don't really care out them either." Now how does that sound? Some one thinking with logic, or someone trying to just close their eyes to the horrors of the world?
!7 million deaths is a horrible thing. 1 death is a horrible thing. And trying to trivialize it by turning it into math equasions, isn't a good way of handling it. Try going outside and look at people. Look at how they live. They are living people, with lives and families. Can you really look at them as just a number? A part of a social machine? Not as an individual? Can you really just shrug off 17 million deaths as just a statistic? I know I can't.
I'm my humble oppinion, we should look at the world with that "human instinct", becasue its there for a reason.
-
Okay, I thought you were quite a reasonable guy until that last post, and even people that do not have the same viewpoint as I do will agree that the post was completely illogical and therefore unsuited for any sort of argument. :rolleyes:
Uh-huh. Sure. :rolleyes:
Dude, stop watching Star Trek, and look at the world as a person for once. We aren't Vulcans, come on. What will it accomplish, looking at the world with logic? Its not even possible. There's nothing logical about the world. Logic can even be considered a mental phenomenon in which the brain tries put non coherent events into some sort of perspective, trying to make sense out of it. But in the end its just the brains way of fooling itself, so that it doesen't have to worry so much.
I haven't seen a single episode of Star Trek in my life. :D And looking at the world as individual people is exactly what has kept us down for so long. Almost every stupid action of human experience can be explained by this lack of a universal perspective and going by the foolish common sense instead. And there is nothing logical about the world? Where did that statement come from? If that is true, why do the laws of science work with such accuracy today?
In fact, intuition is the brain's way of fooling itself and limiting itself to an extremely narrow perspective, because while logic is something that all humans can agree on, intuition is completely dependent on life conditions and therefore varies from person to person.
Also, we not only think by logic, but also argue by logic, so in other words, you are essentially trying to mask the fact that your stance cannot stand up to an argument. :p
And people ARE NOT equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are numbers is just a way to dissasociate oneself from the truth. Basically thinking so is like saying, "Oh, well, if 17 million people will be killed, if they're equal to numbers, thats not to bad. See I don't really care about numbers, and if people are like numbers, I don't really care out them either." Now how does that sound? Some one thinking with logic, or someone trying to just close their eyes to the horrors of the world?
The first part of that is just silly; it is just like something from the religion thread. :p People ARE equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are anything but numbers is just a way to disassociate oneself from the truth. :D
And the entire concept of "horror" has no meaning outside the individual. :p Bin Laden did not find his recent act horrifying at all - in fact, he said that it was the work of god - while most of the world despised it. Therefore, this is concept is to subjective at least to some extent. The universe can be said to operate on indifference.
!7 million deaths is a horrible thing. 1 death is a horrible thing. And trying to trivialize it by turning it into math equasions, isn't a good way of handling it. Try going outside and look at people. Look at how they live. They are living people, with lives and families. Can you really look at them as just a number? A part of a social machine? Not as an individual? Can you really just shrug off 17 million deaths as just a statistic? I know I can't.
I can look at them as sentient individuals for the purposes of daily life, but when dealing with higher issues that require logical thought, they certainly are just parts of a much larger machine, and since there are so many of them, they can be numbered for easier computations. You need to carefully observe them and look much more deeply at how they live, and then you too will be able to form a set of logical rules for explaining their affairs. And why is one death so horrible anyway, considering that people are dying every second? (and others are being born to take their place)
Think of the cells in your body, for example. Each cell obviously has some level of sentience, but it cannot quite match the capabilities of the body as a whole. Similarly, the entire human civilization can be thought of as a great organism in itself of which humans form the constituent parts, and one that is much more powerful than the individuals.
I'm my humble oppinion, we should look at the world with that "human instinct", becasue its there for a reason.
That is really nonsense; just ask anyone who is in the field of science or math right now. :p Instinct is exactly what people should avoid at all costs, as it frequently turns out to be wrong, and people can base just about any crazy actions on this "instinct." The reason that this intuition exists is that every human grows up under different conditions and has a different perspective of his or her surroundings, and the system of knowledge assimilation has its subtle effect on the thinking processes. Where do you think Hitler came up with some of his ideas?
One counterintuitive thing I can think of is that it can be proved that all geometric lines, regardless of their length, have the same number of points on them. Not only that, but all 2D planes, 3D cubes and nD objects in general of any size all have equally as many points as a short line. This sounds kind of strange going by our common sense, but it is mathematically and logically sound. Also, if we go by our intuition alone (which by the way is formed by our life experiences, and not anything that we are born with), both the quantum physics and the general relativity theory would be really nonsensical. Are you telling me that you contest both of these theories simply because they do not fit with your "intuition?" :rolleyes:
-
Mmm... the sweet smell of biocide. :drevil:
There was an article in the newspaper today that the government (U.S.) is warning all Americans to leave India... immediately. Same thing happened in Cambodia in the late '70s...
An while we're handing out quotes:
There is no "winning" in wars. There are only degrees of losing.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is really nonsense; just ask anyone who is in the field of science or math right now. :p Instinct is exactly what people should avoid at all costs, as it frequently turns out to be wrong, and people can base just about any crazy actions on this "instinct." The reason that this intuition exists is that every human grows up under different conditions and has a different perspective of his or her surroundings, and the system of knowledge assimilation has its subtle effect on the thinking processes. Where do you think Hitler came up with some of his ideas?
Easy. What's going to make the economy go up? Giving people a cause or a reason to work. Where do you get that reason? By tapping into people's hatreds, fears, or passions. How do you do that? Giving them something to hate, fear, or be passionate about. Very logical reasoning there.
I doubt Hitler just one day decided "I don't like Jews. I think I'll massacre all the Jews because I don't like them."
Logic is not a way of life, but a tool. Look at a computer; it is incredibly good at logic, but without a goal it has no purpose.
The point people are trying to make is that you can't just say "17 million people" as a statistic. You can have two groups of 17 million numbers that are the same, but you can't have two groups of 17 million people who are the same within a reasonable margin. One of those 17 million people might turn out to be a skillful diplomat who stops a nuclear war from taking place. One of those 17 million people could be a mass murderer. Until you've gotten to know every last detail about every one of those people, you can't just sum the whole situation up with "17 million people"
-
Easy. What's going to make the economy go up? Giving people a cause or a reason to work. Where do you get that reason? By tapping into people's hatreds, fears, or passions. How do you do that? Giving them something to hate, fear, or be passionate about. Very logical reasoning there.
I doubt Hitler just one day decided "I don't like Jews. I think I'll massacre all the Jews because I don't like them."
Logic is not a way of life, but a tool. Look at a computer; it is incredibly good at logic, but without a goal it has no purpose.
First part sounds fine to me, but I never really disputed it. :p :D And regarding Hitler, that is precisely what he did: "I see that everything that is bad in the world is linked to Jews, and I see these Jews everywhere. The first time I saw one, I thought 'Is this a Jew?' and was immediately filled with disgust. I can always tell a Jew from anyone else, and so they must be an inferior race." :p These ideas arose in his mind through basically the same instinct principle we are talking of here during his days as a tramp in Vienna. The massacre part came later on as part of his "final solution," but the the racial hatred all started as an impulsive motivation for the most part.
Logic can indeed not be not only a way of life, but a whole philosophical system of thought as well if the other assumptions are kept to a minimum, and it can be thought of as life itself as far as the absolute perception goes, as all phenomena in that realm can be described as sets of logical constructs. And regarding final objectives, the goal of anything that can be considered as "intelligence" must be the analysis of all knowledge and a general progression of science and technology (the exact reasoning is pretty long and I won't state it here); the end is basically to become the gods we speak of in terms of knowledge.
The point people are trying to make is that you can't just say "17 million people" as a statistic. You can have two groups of 17 million numbers that are the same, but you can't have two groups of 17 million people who are the same within a reasonable margin. One of those 17 million people might turn out to be a skillful diplomat who stops a nuclear war from taking place. One of those 17 million people could be a mass murderer. Until you've gotten to know every last detail about every one of those people, you can't just sum the whole situation up with "17 million people"
Yes, you can. Remember that we are talking about averages here. Some of those men may be the next great scientists, political leaders, criminals, whatever, but the thing is that 99.9999% of the people will be just more of the usual masses that constitute most of humanity. So yeah, one group of 17 million is indeed roughly equal to another. We cannot say with any certainty that one man is equal to another, but that is no longer the case for large groups. (heck, that's how sociology works)
Hey, if you want to argue with me, come on over to the religion thread! I want to see if we can get it pass 1000 posts. We can continue this over there. :D :D ;7
-
all i know is if the pakistani leader feels hes gonna be overwhelmed, ur gonna threaten to use whatever weapons u have that can killl off ur enemy in one blow rather then seven. i think if "push came to run-over", he might just deploy a small amount against an attacking indian battlegroup or army. otherwise, pakistan is outnumbered PERIOD. i think in a one on one battle, india has a numbers advantage with everything but its nuclear capabilities.
-
Yeah, that's kind of the situation as I see it as well. Also, Musharraf is in a sort of no-win situation here. He obviously wants to avoid war as he will probably lose such a conflict, but he is under intense pressure from the extreme right (both the religious terrorist groups and elements within his regime) to instigate the war himself by launching several nukes. If he does this, Pakistan will lose such a war and he will consequently be thrown out of power. If he decides to maintain the peace and try to silence the right-wing extremists with whatever portion of the army is still under his control, they will waste no time in taking his life and gaining control of the whole nation. The only reason they have not done so yet is because he has probably promised them that he will cooperate if they do not try anything against him, but then he has also promised the US to cooperate with them, so he is balanced on the tip of a sword, so to speak.
-
Ugh. I wrote some more in reply to your topic, but then I accidentally opened a link in the window...so I'll just cut to the meat of the topc
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, you can. Remember that we are talking about averages here. Some of those men may be the next great scientists, political leaders, criminals, whatever, but the thing is that 99.9999% of the people will be just more of the usual masses that constitute most of humanity. So yeah, one group of 17 million is indeed roughly equal to another. We cannot say with any certainty that one man is equal to another, but that is no longer the case for large groups. (heck, that's how sociology works)
Let's say I take the top 17 million influential people in the world, while you take the 17 million least influential people in the world. Those groups are very likely not equal by any means except for physical properties. This is, however, assuming that there is a way to calculate those 17 million people. One of those least influential, simply by intuition, could suddenly beat all of my group of people by intuition. Certainly, it's not likely, but the probability is there.
The odds are in favor of having roughly equal groups if the groups of people are randomly chosen, but it's impossible to calculate the precise value of those people compared to another. It's comparable to having two groups of 17 million random integers. There isn't any way to say they're "roughly equal to each other"
EDIT:Hey, if you want to argue with me, come on over to the religion thread! I want to see if we can get it pass 1000 posts. We can continue this over there. :D :D ;7
No, I doubt that will be time spent productively, anywa-hey, wait a minute, is that anticipation I see? Isn't that an emotion? :p ;)
And you might want to check out Star Trek...something tells me you'd like the Vulcans :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, I thought you were quite a reasonable guy until that last post, and even people that do not have the same viewpoint as I do will agree that the post was completely illogical and therefore unsuited for any sort of argument. :rolleyes:
I haven't seen a single episode of Star Trek in my life. :D And looking at the world as individual people is exactly what has kept us down for so long. Almost every stupid action of human experience can be explained by this lack of a universal perspective and going by the foolish common sense instead. And there is nothing logical about the world? Where did that statement come from? If that is true, why do the laws of science work with such accuracy today?
In fact, intuition is the brain's way of fooling itself and limiting itself to an extremely narrow perspective, because while logic is something that all humans can agree on, intuition is completely dependent on life conditions and therefore varies from person to person.
Also, we not only think by logic, but also argue by logic, so in other words, you are essentially trying to mask the fact that your stance cannot stand up to an argument. :p
The first part of that is just silly; it is just like something from the religion thread. :p People ARE equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are anything but numbers is just a way to disassociate oneself from the truth. :D
And the entire concept of "horror" has no meaning outside the individual. :p Bin Laden did not find his recent act horrifying at all - in fact, he said that it was the work of god - while most of the world despised it. Therefore, this is concept is to subjective at least to some extent. The universe can be said to operate on indifference.
I can look at them as sentient individuals for the purposes of daily life, but when dealing with higher issues that require logical thought, they certainly are just parts of a much larger machine, and since there are so many of them, they can be numbered for easier computations. You need to carefully observe them and look much more deeply at how they live, and then you too will be able to form a set of logical rules for explaining their affairs. And why is one death so horrible anyway, considering that people are dying every second? (and others are being born to take their place)
Think of the cells in your body, for example. Each cell obviously has some level of sentience, but it cannot quite match the capabilities of the body as a whole. Similarly, the entire human civilization can be thought of as a great organism in itself of which humans form the constituent parts, and one that is much more powerful than the individuals.
That is really nonsense; just ask anyone who is in the field of science or math right now. :p Instinct is exactly what people should avoid at all costs, as it frequently turns out to be wrong, and people can base just about any crazy actions on this "instinct." The reason that this intuition exists is that every human grows up under different conditions and has a different perspective of his or her surroundings, and the system of knowledge assimilation has its subtle effect on the thinking processes. Where do you think Hitler came up with some of his ideas?
One counterintuitive thing I can think of is that it can be proved that all geometric lines, regardless of their length, have the same number of points on them. Not only that, but all 2D planes, 3D cubes and nD objects in general of any size all have equally as many points as a short line. This sounds kind of strange going by our common sense, but it is mathematically and logically sound. Also, if we go by our intuition alone (which by the way is formed by our life experiences, and not anything that we are born with), both the quantum physics and the general relativity theory would be really nonsensical. Are you telling me that you contest both of these theories simply because they do not fit with your "intuition?" :rolleyes:
Ok, I might have been a bit overboard in disagreeing with you're point of view. So I apologize. :) I am usually a very agreeable person. But for some reason, I just can't see how some people can think so "plainly".
And come on dude, attacking the integrity of my statement? Bah, there was no need for that. You basically tried to pull it down with you're own oppinion and claiming that other people thought so to. There's no proof of that, so it can't be put into as evidence. Bah, But I guess it's granted. I was harsh, you were harsh in return I suppose...
So let us throw down our pitchforks and Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers and be happy again! :D
-
I have two things to say:
1) Wow. I'm sure troops will make a difference when they start firing nukes.
2) If you're going to do a long quote:
Use the friggin SIZE tags!!!!!
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, the world has never seen any of that, but that does not mean that it will have any major effect of things. Also, the ecosystem will be of no importance in about a century at the latest with the exponential advance of technology, as we will have to begin living on our own creations regardless of whether there is any war or not.
that's just idiotic. We have already done untold damage to the world by altering our natural surroundings - the destruction of the ozone layer being the major part... everything is balanced...if you kill or alter a massive animal / plant population, it will have a knock on effect. And as the dominient predators, that will reach us, and hurt us.
Talking about living with our 'own creations' is not likely for many, many decades - we can barely clone an existing animal to a degree of success.
What you're advocating is a 'dead world', with no life other than us. If that happens, I'll kill myself rather than live in it.
Well, your argument is that the countries are doing this simply to "get attention" and to gain more territory, so yeah, I can safely say that my thing is a bit better than that, even if it is not wholly accurate. :p :D
[/b]
Actually, my argument is that both countries are using Kashmir as a distraction from the crippling poverty large sections of the population live in.
Yes but the same could be said of the histories of any nations in the world, including the ones involved in the US/Afghanistan and Israel/Paestine conflicts today, so that would not be saying much. Also everything is justified and not justified when it comes to international politics. I said this before: nations have their own interests, and the justification thing is of no importance outside these interests. I agree that it would not benefit the world much to use a bunch of nukes, but staging a conventional battle is definitely worth it in the interests of the social machine.
Time for me to go again, but I will be back in six hours to continue with this. :D ;7
A conventional war will only increase the chances of further war. Did the 2 Worlds Wars further the 'social machine'? I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
1).What you're advocating is a 'dead world', with no life other than us. If that happens, I'll kill myself rather than live in it.
2).A conventional war will only increase the chances of further war. Did the 2 Worlds Wars further the 'social machine'? I doubt it.
»»»»:nod:««««
-
Let's say I take the top 17 million influential people in the world, while you take the 17 million least influential people in the world. Those groups are very likely not equal by any means except for physical properties. This is, however, assuming that there is a way to calculate those 17 million people. One of those least influential, simply by intuition, could suddenly beat all of my group of people by intuition. Certainly, it's not likely, but the probability is there.
The odds are in favor of having roughly equal groups if the groups of people are randomly chosen, but it's impossible to calculate the precise value of those people compared to another. It's comparable to having two groups of 17 million random integers. There isn't any way to say they're "roughly equal to each other"
Well, we are talking about 17 million randomly selected people. Obviously the rules would fail to apply if you only pick from certain groups. Now, the people were indeed randomly selected, then the probability of them being a mix of influential and non-influential people will be much higher than that of everyone being in either set. And yeah, the probability is there that someone with their "intuition" could invent a whole new science or something, but the probability of more people with Hitler-like views coming up in the world and basing it on their instinct is much higher. It is indeed possible to say that two random sets of integers are equal to each other within a certain margin as long as the integers are randomized with constraints. Suppose that we take one thousand integers randomly selected from 1 to 15. The average sum of these numbers could be estimated to be around 800 without knowing the values of the actual numbers, because while we do not know what any of the individual numbers are, we can still use the rules of probability to estimate the value of a large mass. (there are an equal number of integers from 1 to 8 and 8 to 15) This same principle can be extended to people.
No, I doubt that will be time spent productively, anywa-hey, wait a minute, is that anticipation I see? Isn't that an emotion?
Okay, you got me there: I am still limited to a human mind and therefore have am susceptible to these emotions if I am not consciously thinking about it, which is frequently the case during daily life affairs. I try to keep the emotions out of any reasoning though, and maybe I will even be able to drop them altogether in the future. ;)
Ok, I might have been a bit overboard in disagreeing with you're point of view. So I apologize. I am usually a very agreeable person. But for some reason, I just can't see how some people can think so "plainly".
Hey, no problem. I have gotten used to it from the religion thread anyway by now. :D Still, I must thank you for being totally frank with me, as I like to know the true methods of how people react. ;) Remember that when going by intuition, everyone has a different view.
And come on dude, attacking the integrity of my statement? Bah, there was no need for that. You basically tried to pull it down with you're own oppinion and claiming that other people thought so to. There's no proof of that, so it can't be put into as evidence. Bah, But I guess it's granted. I was harsh, you were harsh in return I suppose...
Okay, I admit I may have gone too far there, but the "it is fact, it is truth" bit was really pretty silly. :p Anyway, we can forget it now, and I too apologize if you were "offended" by any of that.
Although the logical view of things can indeed be proved to be correct (using an elimination procedure), at least partially, and I plan to do that later on. ;)
So let us throw down our pitchforks and Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers and be happy again! :D
And instead lets go pick up some Kaysers and Harpoons to blow up some Shivans in FS2! :D
Okay, time to deal with you now. :D
that's just idiotic. We have already done untold damage to the world by altering our natural surroundings - the destruction of the ozone layer being the major part... everything is balanced...if you kill or alter a massive animal / plant population, it will have a knock on effect. And as the dominient predators, that will reach us, and hurt us.
We already have the capability to survive on other planets without any ozone layer (i.e. Mars) by simply staying under conditions, and in a couple decades the system become quite feasible. Also, humans are not really a good case of the predator/prey system; this "knock on effect" you speak of only has an application to species for which technology is a non-player, and that cannot be said of humans. Humans depended on their environment far more in the past than they do today because of this technological advance, and besides even today humans have the capability to live more or less artificially. People have been able to grow fruit and vegetable plants that are genetically altered to allow them to thrive in artificial conditions (which also act as oxygen processors), and there is enough water in streams and such to last for a couple more centuries, by which time we will not depend on it so much more. That covers all our basic requirements.
Environmentalism just for its own sake is frankly very stupid; I am an advocate of "saving the Earth" and all that for the moment, but only because we still depend on the environment to some degree. In the long run (beyond 100 or so years) it will be a difficult and pointless task.
Talking about living with our 'own creations' is not likely for many, many decades - we can barely clone an existing animal to a degree of success.
That translates to about to six or seven decades. You think that the entire industrial economy will suddenly collapse when the world's oil runs out around 2050?
And just like every technological advance, cloning is as of yet an imperfect technology because it is very new, but if history is any indicator, that will change with time much more rapidly than you seem to think. The computers back around 1950 were very large, slow and quite unreliable due to constant hardware failures. Once the core system is build together, the components are built up and perfected over time, and there is no reason why the same should not happen with cloning.
What you're advocating is a 'dead world', with no life other than us. If that happens, I'll kill myself rather than live in it.
Effectively, yes. That is what we are headed for if the society progresses at even a fixed rate. It is not a matter of whether individual people "like" it or not anymore, but whether the social machine benefits from it.
Actually, my argument is that both countries are using Kashmir as a distraction from the crippling poverty large sections of the population live in.
eh? What in the world would they have to gain by this "distraction from poverty?" :wtf:
A conventional war will only increase the chances of further war. Did the 2 Worlds Wars further the 'social machine'? I doubt it.
They certainly did. If the Allies had surrendered immediately simply to avoid a war before WW2 for example, Hitler's empire would be spanning the entire globe to this day. Science would definitely not be where it is today, seeing as the academic world in the Reich outright rejected most of the important theories of modern physics, claiming that it was a plot to spread false ideas or something, making the social machine stagnate. In this campaign, the objective is to disband as many terrorist groups as possible, because as you yourself said earlier, if these guys gets their hands on some nukes, they won't waste a second in launching them on the major cities of today and instituting a reign of terror throughout the world. The 9/11 event is very, very insignificant compared to what they have the potential to do in the future, and look how much that shook up the world. And even if the nukes are disabled first, the threat of countless more 9/11s still remains. (as I said earlier, around 70-80% of terrorist groups in the world are Pakistan-based and more importantly, are backed up the Pakistani government; same thing as what was happening in Afghanistan some months ago)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
And instead lets go pick up some Kaysers and Harpoons to blow up some Shivans in FS2! :D
Aye! :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
We already have the capability to survive on other planets without any ozone layer (i.e. Mars) by simply staying under conditions, and in a couple decades the system become quite feasible. Also, humans are not really a good case of the predator/prey system; this "knock on effect" you speak of only has an application to species for which technology is a non-player, and that cannot be said of humans. Humans depended on their environment far more in the past than they do today because of this technological advance, and besides even today humans have the capability to live more or less artificially. People have been able to grow fruit and vegetable plants that are genetically altered to allow them to thrive in artificial conditions (which also act as oxygen processors), and there is enough water in streams and such to last for a couple more centuries, by which time we will not depend on it so much more. That covers all our basic requirements.
In case you hadn;t noticed, water is a fundamental requirement for human life - our very body is 70% water. We can't grow 'less dependent on it', and more than we can grow less dependent on haemoglobin.
And what technology has been developed that can grow and feed a cow (for example) without some form of natural process - be it grazing, grain feedmeal, etc?
The principle reason this planet is slowly dying - due to pollution, etc - is because the human race is blinded towards the rest of this planet. i'm not advocating we go all luvvy-duvvy and become hippie, but we have to recognise we are slowly killing what is, really, a wonderful place to live.
Environmentalism just for its own sake is frankly very stupid; I am an advocate of "saving the Earth" and all that for the moment, but only because we still depend on the environment to some degree. In the long run (beyond 100 or so years) it will be a difficult and pointless task.
It becomes a small step from not cvaring about those thing we don't need, to destroying those we don't want. If we are willing to destroy the natural world because we don't need it, waht's to stop us exterminating the disabled, or the low-Iq, or the simply average because they do not 'enhance the gene pool'?
hitler believed in social Darwinism, you know.........
That translates to about to six or seven decades. You think that the entire industrial economy will suddenly collapse when the world's oil runs out around 2050?
At the present state, yes. There has been no real attempt to find & promote an alternate fuel.... instead, the countries that can (i.e. Alaska, Middle Eastern oildfields, etc) just desperately try to gain influence over the oil producers.
And just like every technological advance, cloning is as of yet an imperfect technology because it is very new, but if history is any indicator, that will change with time much more rapidly than you seem to think. The computers back around 1950 were very large, slow and quite unreliable due to constant hardware failures. Once the core system is build together, the components are built up and perfected over time, and there is no reason why the same should not happen with cloning.
Certainly, from a Pc perspective, chips are far from 'perfected'.... they are simply altered for marginal performance and maximum sellibility.
For example, Intel gave the Pentium 4 a 16-stage pipeline. At this number of stages, there is no benefit from the pipelining - handling hazards actually slows down the Pc so that many more cycles are required per instruction. But it gives a bigger GHz rating, so Intel went ahead and did it.
Perfection? i don't think so.
Effectively, yes. That is what we are headed for if the society progresses at even a fixed rate. It is not a matter of whether individual people "like" it or not anymore, but whether the social machine benefits from it.
I'd like to think the human race can rise beyond considering itself parts of a solely self-interested machine, that we can be more than 'parts' in the system.
eh? What in the world would they have to gain by this "distraction from poverty?" :wtf:
[/b]
Let me think. Several hundred million people living in abject, squalid conditions. Billions going into weapons programs. If it wasn't for the 'evil enemy', what would justify this expenditure?
Give the people a warm and you keep them loyal. Look at Bush's ratings in the US - skyrocketed after the war in Afgahnistan began, despiute his questionable election and policies.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Give the people a warm and you keep them loyal. Look at Bush's ratings in the US - skyrocketed after the war in Afgahnistan began, despiute his questionable election and policies.
The word "lemmings" comes to mind....
-
Oooh, another debating topic!
Originally posted by CP5670
If the Allies had surrendered immediately simply to avoid a war before WW2 for example, Hitler's empire would be spanning the entire globe to this day.
Bull. America was desperate as hell to avoid getting involved in World Wra 2 and had Britain fallen sooner, and declaring war on Japan not meant declaring war on Germany, they wouldn't have become physically involved in Europe. America's economic might was bound to crush the Japanese; inevitably they would lose (as Yoshimoto himself acknowledged). In such a situation I doubt that the Americans would have been so willing to help their bosom buddies the Communists. Germany faced an insurmountable hurdle to invasion of the Americas: the sea. No plane could travel across it to bomb it, and beach landings would have been impractical given the distances involved. The US also had an ace up its sleeve: the atom bomb. Events would have developed into stalemate, so although Hitler would have controlled Europe, Africa and East Asia he wouldn't have 'ruled the world'.
By the same token progress would not have stagnated, because the conditions you specify would never have occurred. The presence of great rivalry often tends to push scientific progress forwards (although I have reservations that America would not have found a Nazi regime so disagreeable as a pan-Continental Communist one :p ).
Originally posted by aldo_14
Actually, my argument is that both countries are using Kashmir as a distraction from the crippling poverty large sections of the population live in.
Agreed; they have much to benefit by focusing the attention of the public and the world on Kashmir.
1. The domestic situation will be frozen - opposition to the government seen as inappropriate (see the cessation of suffragette actions in 1914). People will be focused on something else other than their grinding poverty and not bringing down the government.
2. Military action represents a show of force to potential dissidents that they'll be crushed too.
3. The government has someone else to blame for said grinding poverty.
4. They might lose, which would take the problem of the poor out of their hands entirely. :D
===
Finally, for now... ;)
Rather than replying to CP's comments about 'humans as numbers' via quotes, I'll just post what I believe here. There are too many instances of his...unique...take on humanity to bother quoting.
Human beings are people first. They are numbers second. True, they form numerical units (not in values like mass though). However, really they are being expressed as numbers. They are not the same as numerical values except for purely statistical values. As has been said before, they have lives, potential and so on. You cannot justify killing humans for the 'greater social good' - if that has to be the case, then the social machine itself is faulty. As aldo said, disabled people do not benefit the social machine in ways that able-bodied people do; should we thus kill them?
Have you heard of the concept of empathy? It might help you to understand why one shouldn't kill others, or commit crime. Empathy training is very effective against repeat offending, and should be the true basis for a just society of happy individuals. I'll explain that a little more if you wish but it should explain itself really.
By your definition, a perfect society would consist of indivuals engineered towards efficiency in all 'useful' aspects. You have already spoken of your disdain for emotion and love; they would be out of the door. However, unproductive tasks such as producing art would also be removed by your system - as would unused space, which is unproductive. You would destroy the Earth (or rather transform it) simply because you can, in order to make it more economically and academically productive.
That's monstrous. :sigh:
CP, I know that you will view this as so quaintly flawed, human and emotionally-dictated, but that's the way I like it. :)
===
PS. Your randomly selected sample of people isn't ever so random - a nuclear war would target specific areas of value - ie. cities, because they contain not just workforce, but the government and intelligentsia.
-
"I haven't seen a single episode of Star Trek in my life."
Bull****, that's like not paying income tax.
"The first part of that is just silly; it is just like something from the religion thread. People ARE equal to numbers. It is Fact. It is Truth. Trying to believe that people are anything but numbers is just a way to disassociate oneself from the truth. "
Shows your lack of experience in warfare, and shows your lack of maturity. You don't view yourself as one of these people that would be affected, so you don't know how it is not be threatened by someone. Not saying I have either, but you have to look at it like that. It is affecting them, not you. Lets see you fight in a war, and see if you think differently afterwards.
"Well, we are talking about 17 million randomly selected people. Obviously the rules would fail to apply if you only pick from certain groups. Now, the people were indeed randomly selected, then the probability of them being a mix of influential and non-influential people will be much higher than that of everyone being in either set. And yeah, the probability is there that someone with their "intuition" could invent a whole new science or something, but the probability of more people with Hitler-like views coming up in the world and basing it on their instinct is much higher. It is indeed possible to say that two random sets of integers are equal to each other within a certain margin as long as the integers are randomized with constraints. Suppose that we take one thousand integers randomly selected from 1 to 15. The average sum of these numbers could be estimated to be around 800 without knowing the values of the actual numbers, because while we do not know what any of the individual numbers are, we can still use the rules of probability to estimate the value of a large mass. (there are an equal number of integers from 1 to 8 and 8 to 15) This same principle can be extended to people. "
You still refer to humans as just things. Would you like it if somebody took a gun and shot you in the head?
"I'm not sure about that, but you could be right. Still, as I said before, India will probably attempt to secretly disarm the weapons first using commando teams due to their generally cautious nature. "
Not Likely, I doubt even British SAS or the American Delta Force could do that.
"Actually, I meant the Indians there; Pakistan has no first-strike policy, and in fact they have officially stated that if their country is on the verge of collapse they will attempt to take down as many people with them as they can. However, as you said, there is a big threat, especially now more than ever, that the terrorist groups (which have many links in the government) will be able to grab a nuke or two regardless of any war, which would be a dream come true for them, and launch it on some place like Washington."
There is no ICBM that has that sort of range. 10,000 is about as far as they can go.
"We already have the capability to survive on other planets without any ozone layer (i.e. Mars) by simply staying under conditions, and in a couple decades the system become quite feasible. Also, humans are not really a good case of the predator/prey system; this "knock on effect" you speak of only has an application to species for which technology is a non-player, and that cannot be said of humans. Humans depended on their environment far more in the past than they do today because of this technological advance, and besides even today humans have the capability to live more or less artificially. People have been able to grow fruit and vegetable plants that are genetically altered to allow them to thrive in artificial conditions (which also act as oxygen processors), and there is enough water in streams and such to last for a couple more centuries, by which time we will not depend on it so much more. That covers all our basic requirements. "
None of this technology is proven. Especially on a distant planet, and by the way. How do you plan to get these people there?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
We already have the capability to survive on other planets without any ozone layer (i.e. Mars) by simply staying under conditions, and in a couple decades the system become quite feasible. Also, humans are not really a good case of the predator/prey system; this "knock on effect" you speak of only has an application to species for which technology is a non-player, and that cannot be said of humans. Humans depended on their environment far more in the past than they do today because of this technological advance, and besides even today humans have the capability to live more or less artificially. People have been able to grow fruit and vegetable plants that are genetically altered to allow them to thrive in artificial conditions (which also act as oxygen processors), and there is enough water in streams and such to last for a couple more centuries, by which time we will not depend on it so much more. That covers all our basic requirements.
This is just so utter crap. We do not yet possess technology for any of the things you say we do, atleast not in the scale needed. Just because we can support a dozen astronauts in orbit with a funding of billions of dollars isn't enough. The technology doesn't only need to exists; it also has to be reliable, efficient and cheap enough. These requirements won't be fulfilled before off-Earth missions become profitable.
Back in the 60's they were saying we'd be far off exploring the galaxy by the year 2000, and we all know how it ended up. It simply isn't worth it. Computer technology has developed as far as it has because there's been a viable demand for it. Exactly the same thing happens during wars with military equipment; there's the demand for it. The demand for off-world colonization and mining is off by atleast 50-75 years, if not more. Even then we probably won't have the ability to sustain complete populations.
Environmentalism just for its own sake is frankly very stupid; I am an advocate of "saving the Earth" and all that for the moment, but only because we still depend on the environment to some degree. In the long run (beyond 100 or so years) it will be a difficult and pointless task.
There's nothing stupid in environmentalism. It's one of the best ideologies in the history of mankind. Humans are very adjustable as a species, but we will never be independent of the environment. The fact is that we are just as dependable on the environment as we were 10,000 years ago.
-
envoronmental impact would be neglegable, I mean just how many nuckluar bombs did we set off in the atmosphere just for testing
-
Certainly, from a Pc perspective, chips are far from 'perfected'.... they are simply altered for marginal performance and maximum sellibility.
For example, Intel gave the Pentium 4 a 16-stage pipeline. At this number of stages, there is no benefit from the pipelining - handling hazards actually slows down the Pc so that many more cycles are required per instruction. But it gives a bigger GHz rating, so Intel went ahead and did it.
Perfection? i don't think so.
Define perfection. All that matters is the direction we are moving in. You can think of this "perfection" more as a limiting value than a true end, but the fact is, that more and more of the world is becoming dependent on these computers over time, and there is no reason why the same cannot be said of any other technological advance.
In case you hadn;t noticed, water is a fundamental requirement for human life - our very body is 70% water. We can't grow 'less dependent on it', and more than we can grow less dependent on haemoglobin.
And what technology has been developed that can grow and feed a cow (for example) without some form of natural process - be it grazing, grain feedmeal, etc?
The principle reason this planet is slowly dying - due to pollution, etc - is because the human race is blinded towards the rest of this planet. i'm not advocating we go all luvvy-duvvy and become hippie, but we have to recognise we are slowly killing what is, really, a wonderful place to live.
I did mention water in there. By the time we actually run out of fresh water on Earth (which will take a long time) we will have the technology at least to move around in our star system, which is quite abundant in water for our needs. Why would we need cows at all? And a wonderful place? Sure, it's better than some other locations in the universe, but it is really nothing right now compared to what it could be.
I'd like to think the human race can rise beyond considering itself parts of a solely self-interested machine, that we can be more than 'parts' in the system.
Well, you can "like to think" anything, but the ideas need to be backed up by logical proof for use in an argument. When it comes to this level, how indeed are we any different from the cells that make up our bodies? And to rise beyond a "self-interested machine" is to have a large collection of less advanced self-interested machines?
It becomes a small step from not cvaring about those thing we don't need, to destroying those we don't want. If we are willing to destroy the natural world because we don't need it, waht's to stop us exterminating the disabled, or the low-Iq, or the simply average because they do not 'enhance the gene pool'?
hitler believed in social Darwinism, you know.........
Hitler believed in a system of "races" based on birth, and only his random instincts determined which race was "superior." But we are going by thinking capacity and cognitive ability here. Effectively, that's how the world is working even today. People do not have to be physically strong, as the machines are beginning to take over those tasks, but look at the way that the social systems of today operate: the people with the mental ability get to the top, while the people without it stay at the bottom of the social ladder. (this can include many types of capacities, including political acuteness) This is inevitable in any civilization that is made up of components that all have different thinking processes. Still, the average mental capacity of each individual is similar to some extent; it is the core assumptions that differ.
Let me think. Several hundred million people living in abject, squalid conditions. Billions going into weapons programs. If it wasn't for the 'evil enemy', what would justify this expenditure?
Are you kidding me? The people are poor because the governments are spending money into military affairs? Look into the history of the two nations more closely and you will see that this factor is the least of their problems; India isn't spending all that much on military affairs at all when compared to other things, while Pakistan is, but even if they did spend the money on public welfare it would not amount to much considering the monmental task before their and their dead economy. In fact, the only countries where one could have said this would be Nazi Germany and the USSR, neither of which exist today. But none of this has anything to do with "justification;" why would either country feel the need to justify anything they do in the first place? Remember that there is little overall opposition to the governments (especially the Indian one), and people in the rural villages are quite content with lives despite any poverty.
Moving on to the next person...
Human beings are people first. They are numbers second. True, they form numerical units (not in values like mass though). However, really they are being expressed as numbers. They are not the same as numerical values except for purely statistical values. As has been said before, they have lives, potential and so on. You cannot justify killing humans for the 'greater social good' - if that has to be the case, then the social machine itself is faulty. As aldo said, disabled people do not benefit the social machine in ways that able-bodied people do; should we thus kill them?
Well, biological cells have lives, potential and so on as well, but it cannot really compare to that of the whole. And you can justify killing humans if they are going to disturb the peace of others, which is what the terrorist factions of today are doing. What is a "disabled person?" Do you mean physically or mentally disabled? As I said earlier, physical work is unimportant at this point in time, and if they cannot do mental work, then they are doomed to stay at the bottom of the social ladder anyway. (again, this is a general group rule and cannot be applied to individuals, so don't start giving me examples :D) There are enough of them that if we try to get rid of them, they will revolt and just cause us trouble in the end. As long as these masses can coexist with the rest, I say to let them do so, as they will become a dead force in the social machine over long periods of time anyway. (i.e. there are still these groups of tribal savages in various parts of the world, but they have no effect on the world)
Bull. America was desperate as hell to avoid getting involved in World Wra 2 and had Britain fallen sooner, and declaring war on Japan not meant declaring war on Germany, they wouldn't have become physically involved in Europe. America's economic might was bound to crush the Japanese; inevitably they would lose (as Yoshimoto himself acknowledged). In such a situation I doubt that the Americans would have been so willing to help their bosom buddies the Communists. Germany faced an insurmountable hurdle to invasion of the Americas: the sea. No plane could travel across it to bomb it, and beach landings would have been impractical given the distances involved. The US also had an ace up its sleeve: the atom bomb. Events would have developed into stalemate, so although Hitler would have controlled Europe, Africa and East Asia he wouldn't have 'ruled the world'.
Wait, but we are going under the premise here that the nations attempt to avoid war at all costs and peace is the ultimate, and so they would continue with this appeasement policy. You think he would have been "content" with the territory he had in Europe and Africa? He would have told the Soviet Union to surrender or be destroyed, and going by that assumption they too would have surrendered. What would be there to stop him from taking all of Asia and the rest of the world as well?
1. The domestic situation will be frozen - opposition to the government seen as inappropriate (see the cessation of suffragette actions in 1914). People will be focused on something else other than their grinding poverty and not bringing down the government.
Opposition to the government? There is hardly any opposition to the government in India, as most of the people couldn't care less about the outcome of such a conflict, and in Pakistan, the only opposition is coming from the terrorist groups, seeing as anyone else who opposes the government will not be alive the next day. There are very few of these "potential dissidents" in either country; as I said before, the average Indian or Pakistani does not care, and both the intellectual world and the religious fanatics in both countries are heavily pushing for such a war and have been doing so for many years now. Who is to say that anyone is more "childlike" than anyone else here?
By your definition, a perfect society would consist of indivuals engineered towards efficiency in all 'useful' aspects. You have already spoken of your disdain for emotion and love; they would be out of the door. However, unproductive tasks such as producing art would also be removed by your system - as would unused space, which is unproductive. You would destroy the Earth (or rather transform it) simply because you can, in order to make it more economically and academically productive.
Absolutely correct. But I just happen to like this system; if you look at the trends today, it can be seen that this end is inevitable as a part of our advancing civilization. Technological progress is accompanied by social progress whenever dealing with people; we can see that the same was true for even life on Earth. When individual cells started to combine into larger organisms, they created something with far, far more potential than any of the individual units could have accomplished, and the same can be said to be true of human civilizations.
PS. Your randomly selected sample of people isn't ever so random - a nuclear war would target specific areas of value - ie. cities, because they contain not just workforce, but the government and intelligentsia.
Yes, alongside millions of common citizens. The lower and the upper classes would effectively cancel each other out when taking a sum, and the total would be roughly equal to that of any other city.
Next! :D
Shows your lack of experience in warfare, and shows your lack of maturity. You don't view yourself as one of these people that would be affected, so you don't know how it is not be threatened by someone. Not saying I have either, but you have to look at it like that. It is affecting them, not you. Lets see you fight in a war, and see if you think differently afterwards.
I bet I will, as my viewpoint will then be skewed further, but this "social machine" as a whole will not change one bit. I have said this numerous times earlier: do not think according to your common sense for this, as it will get you nowhere. And "maturity" is a matter of subjective definition, but it can boil down to having to be yet another member of the common masses, in which case I am quite glad I have at least tried to pursue a different solution and ditched this "maturity." :p Some of my instincts are telling me to go against this, but I have long since learned not to rely on those at all.
You still refer to humans as just things. Would you like it if somebody took a gun and shot you in the head?
I would not like it, but the society would not care much. This is comparable to asking whether a dying cell in your body "likes it" when you get a cut or something. When we talk in such terms, individuals with their petty ambitions are of little importance.
There is no ICBM that has that sort of range. 10,000 is about as far as they can go.
Terrorist don't need ICBMs; remember, they do not need to employ the same tactics used by governments. The suitcase nuke is still one of the US government's greatest nightmares, and it is probably why they are not putting as much pressure on the nations as they could have been. And although neither of those countries have any, there certainly are ICBMs that can traverse the circumference of the entire planet.
None of this technology is proven. Especially on a distant planet, and by the way. How do you plan to get these people there?
If it was not proven, how did people manage to survive on the moon? Getting the people anywhere else will not be much of a problem when the demand comes up, as that will lower manufacturing costs due to necessity.
And one more coming up...
Back in the 60's they were saying we'd be far off exploring the galaxy by the year 2000, and we all know how it ended up. It simply isn't worth it. Computer technology has developed as far as it has because there's been a viable demand for it. Exactly the same thing happens during wars with military equipment; there's the demand for it. The demand for off-world colonization and mining is off by atleast 50-75 years, if not more. Even then we probably won't have the ability to sustain complete populations.
So, um, what's that supposed to mean? Of course that's true, but the demand does not exist now because there is no need right away. When the need arises, popular demand will increase along with it.
This is just so utter crap. We do not yet possess technology for any of the things you say we do, atleast not in the scale needed. Just because we can support a dozen astronauts in orbit with a funding of billions of dollars isn't enough. The technology doesn't only need to exists; it also has to be reliable, efficient and cheap enough. These requirements won't be fulfilled before off-Earth missions become profitable.
That will change over time. Do you think that the first computers were all inexpensive enough for individuals to buy? This is precisely what people said about the computer about 50 years ago, and look where we are today as far as that goes.
There's nothing stupid in environmentalism. It's one of the best ideologies in the history of mankind. Humans are very adjustable as a species, but we will never be independent of the environment. The fact is that we are just as dependable on the environment as we were 10,000 years ago.
Total nonsense. This is true only as long as we do not have the technology to change ourselves, and that is finally starting to change. Read what I said earlier. You are right that we will never be independent of the environment, but that is the "environment" of the universe as a whole - reality, if you will - and it has little to do with the Earth's biosphere.
envoronmental impact would be neglegable, I mean just how many nuckluar bombs did we set off in the atmosphere just for testing
That's true; there must have been hundreds of tests done by now. :p
Okay, now let's have some more responses. :D But remember, it is harder to defend an emotional viewpoint rather than a rationalistic one when it comes to arguments, just as it is easier to accept the emotional one as an assumption. ;) (heck, emotionally, I do somewhat agree with all of you, but once again, I have learned to disregard those completely)
-
"If it was not proven, how did people manage to survive on the moon? Getting the people anywhere else will not be much of a problem when the demand comes up, as that will lower manufacturing costs due to necessity.
And one more coming up... "
Except for the fact that you are talking about long term travel and subjection to severe radiation, and the effects of long term wieghtlessness. There is a big difference between surviving for a few days on the moon or a few months in a space station that is NEAR Earth, especially when you can return back to Earth when your done, or if something goes wrong.
-
Except for the fact that you are talking about long term travel and subjection to severe radiation, and the effects of long term wieghtlessness. There is a big difference between surviving for a few days on the moon or a few months in a space station that is NEAR Earth, especially when you can return back to Earth when your done, or if something goes wrong.
What does that have to do with anything? All that is needed to show is that the core idea is possible. The various small complications can be dealt with over time, just as they were for every single technological advancement in history.
-
But these small implications can cost you ships and lives.
-
Okay, but even the little issues are corrected over time. That has never been a problem in the past in the long run, and there is no reason why it should be in the future. Are computers as prone to failures as they were half a century ago?
-
yes, mine crashes all the time. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
So, um, what's that supposed to mean? Of course that's true, but the demand does not exist now because there is no need right away. When the need arises, popular demand will increase along with it.
It means what it reads. The actual point of that piece of text was that you're justifying your anti-environmentalist attitude with utopia of the future. Perhaps I hide it too well.
That will change over time. Do you think that the first computers were all inexpensive enough for individuals to buy? This is precisely what people said about the computer about 50 years ago, and look where we are today as far as that goes.
I did not argue about the technology not becaming profitably available in the first place. I argued about your pukely-positive time taken to develop to that point. Even during the Moon Race the development of space technology was way slower than you're anticipating, and the research spending is much less these days. When the actual demand for it, which is probably a much longer time than your "few decades", the spending and progress will most definately be boosted. But that's just so far off, that's a fact.
Total nonsense. This is true only as long as we do not have the technology to change ourselves, and that is finally starting to change. Read what I said earlier. You are right that we will never be independent of the environment, but that is the "environment" of the universe as a whole - reality, if you will - and it has little to do with the Earth's biosphere.
What the hell is that supposed to mean, "the technology to change ourselves"? I thought we were talking about something even a little bit concrete here, not about someone's fantasies of becoming JC Denton.
And by "environment", I did not mean the universe. I meant Earth's biosphere. You've been doing nothing but focusing on biological dependancy, and haven't even done that right since you've dismissed a few very crucial points like gravity and microbic lifeforms. There are other kinds of dependancies, like for example mental and social effects of the biosphere to the human society.
-
:sigh: Getting into one of these again is a bad idea, but here goes...
Originally posted by CP5670
Wait, but we are going under the premise here that the nations attempt to avoid war at all costs and peace is the ultimate, and so they would continue with this appeasement policy. You think he would have been "content" with the territory he had in Europe and Africa? He would have told the Soviet Union to surrender or be destroyed, and going by that assumption they too would have surrendered. What would be there to stop him from taking all of Asia and the rest of the world as well?
I had already assumed that the Soviet Union would be utterly crushed without a second front in France, and a third in Italy (okay, so the order is mixed up. Who cares?). However, that victory would have been costly, even given the undivided attention of the Wehrmacht. The sheer numerical numbers of people to be killed (in defence of the USSR) make it a long-term and costly battle.
I also don't disagree that had the USSR fallen Hitler would be free to attempt a takeover of the rest of the joined Contnents - right across to Japan, and possibly Australasia. However, given the resources he had would there be a benefit?
Also, although I acknowledge that Hitler might have wanted the Americas, it was simply impractical given the technology of the time. It's not appeasement, but simply taking time out to repair - or an unrealisable goal because of physical obstacles.
Absolutely correct. But I just happen to like this system; if you look at the trends today, it can be seen that this end is inevitable as a part of our advancing civilization. Technological progress is accompanied by social progress whenever dealing with people; we can see that the same was true for even life on Earth. When individual cells started to combine into larger organisms, they created something with far, far more potential than any of the individual units could have accomplished, and the same can be said to be true of human civilizations.[/b]
I'm glad I can understand you logically. I just can't understand you emotionally. :p This end you describe is only inevitable if people liken you continue to push for this warped form of 'progress' - which isn't really progress at all, because you're distorting people's bodies and minds to fit the system you think would work. True progress should mould society around humanity. In effect what you are creating is some kind of twenty-xth century workhouse or slave system, where humans are just economic units - power sources, stores of knowledge to be tapped into. People would just be happy because they have been biologically altered and socially conditioned to feel that way.
What you have created is...The Matrix. :D
And as I said before, that is monstrous.
Okay, now let's have some more responses. :D But remember, it is harder to defend an emotional viewpoint rather than a rationalistic one when it comes to arguments, just as it is easier to accept the emotional one as an assumption. ;) (heck, emotionally, I do somewhat agree with all of you, but once again, I have learned to disregard those completely) [/B]
Perhaps then, the structure of an 'argument' is skewed in favour of a rational viewpoint to the detriment of emotional ones. This is just a suggeston, not a belief - but I know you'd want evidence, say I was clutching at straws, etc. :D
Finally...
Originally posted by Eternal_One
There are other kinds of dependancies, like for example mental and social effects of the biosphere to the human society.
I agree completely. Studies such as the Standford Prison experiment and various interrogation techniques, flawed as they are, show us the effects of artificial environments and stimulation on human minds. CP, although you might be right about efficiency in a theoretical sense, your idealised human minds do not represent the real thing: they don't have an intrinsic need for things like a natural biosphere. As a result, your theory is a little...removed from reality. :)
-
Originally posted by Kellan
I'm glad I can understand you logically. I just can't understand you emotionally. :p This end you describe is only inevitable if people liken you continue to push for this warped form of 'progress' - which isn't really progress at all, because you're distorting people's bodies and minds to fit the system you think would work. True progress should mould society around humanity. In effect what you are creating is some kind of twenty-xth century workhouse or slave system, where humans are just economic units - power sources, stores of knowledge to be tapped into. People would just be happy because they have been biologically altered and socially conditioned to feel that way.
What you have created is...The Matrix. :D
More like the Borg if you ask me... :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
You need an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to hit your neighbours. Pakistan has already proven it has nuclear missiles capable of being fired into India with the recent tests.
Incorrect. Tactical-range missiles such as SCUDs and the like are fully capable of tossing a nuke several hundred kilometers, more than enough to hit your neighbor. It's when you have an ocean in the way that you need ICBMs. ICBMs allow you to threaten anyone, anywhere, MRBMs let you hit targets within a thousand km or so, and tactical rockets let you hit things on the other side of the border.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/index.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/index.html
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
More like the Borg if you ask me... :p
The Borg aren't kept in a state of artifical happiness, but they are engineered to remove all emotion (unless you're those damn elitist Queen ones :p ) so I guess that would fit too.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Incorrect. Tactical-range missiles such as SCUDs and the like are fully capable of tossing a nuke several hundred kilometers, more than enough to hit your neighbor. It's when you have an ocean in the way that you need ICBMs. ICBMs allow you to threaten anyone, anywhere, MRBMs let you hit targets within a thousand km or so, and tactical rockets let you hit things on the other side of the border.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/index.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/index.html
And it would take a Saturn V rocket to hit Washington from Kashmir.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Incorrect. Tactical-range missiles such as SCUDs and the like are fully capable of tossing a nuke several hundred kilometers, more than enough to hit your neighbor. It's when you have an ocean in the way that you need ICBMs. ICBMs allow you to threaten anyone, anywhere, MRBMs let you hit targets within a thousand km or so, and tactical rockets let you hit things on the other side of the border.
er...that was a mis-type. :D :o
(I missed out the 'don't')
-
Okay, here we go again: :D
It means what it reads. The actual point of that piece of text was that you're justifying your anti-environmentalist attitude with utopia of the future. Perhaps I hide it too well.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and it is why I support environmentalism as a practical issue today but not in its full principle.
I did not argue about the technology not becaming profitably available in the first place. I argued about your pukely-positive time taken to develop to that point. Even during the Moon Race the development of space technology was way slower than you're anticipating, and the research spending is much less these days. When the actual demand for it, which is probably a much longer time than your "few decades", the spending and progress will most definately be boosted. But that's just so far off, that's a fact.
No, it is not as far away as you seem to think; I would say about another 150 years or so at the most. The demand will increase as soon as the Earth's resources are used up, which social analysts do not place all that far away actually with the rapidly increasing population. But even 150 years can be considered as "far off" in the lifetime of a single person, which is why as I said earlier, I support environmentalism in practice today but not in its entire principle value. (at some point, no matter how far away, there will come this time where the spending and progress are boosted)
What the hell is that supposed to mean, "the technology to change ourselves"? I thought we were talking about something even a little bit concrete here, not about someone's fantasies of becoming JC Denton.
And by "environment", I did not mean the universe. I meant Earth's biosphere. You've been doing nothing but focusing on biological dependancy, and haven't even done that right since you've dismissed a few very crucial points like gravity and microbic lifeforms. There are other kinds of dependancies, like for example mental and social effects of the biosphere to the human society.
I am talking about the various advances in biology that have been made in the last ten years. Most notably, cloning and genetic alteration. The history of human technology can be divided into a series of distinct technological eras for our purposes here (they can overlap, of course), and these biological advances can be considered as the beginning of yet another period. Also, I don't see what this has to do with JC Denton, seeing as he had views more like yours throughout the game. :p
And no, this concept of biological dependancy cannot be applied to the human all that well (the human is a very special case of species), or we would have been long dead by now considering how much damage we have already done to the global ecosystems.
And gravity or microbes are crucial points here? How do they have anything to do with what we are talking about here? As for mental and social effects, those can change over time with the varying cultural conditions; this is where I do agree with Kuhn's system of paradigm change. It is quite easy to convince someone that they "need" something for survival, which can range from water to a biosphere to the newest stylized clothing. At the dawn of humanity, I bet that people were concerned with completely different things than they are today.
I had already assumed that the Soviet Union would be utterly crushed without a second front in France, and a third in Italy (okay, so the order is mixed up. Who cares?). However, that victory would have been costly, even given the undivided attention of the Wehrmacht. The sheer numerical numbers of people to be killed (in defence of the USSR) make it a long-term and costly battle.
I also don't disagree that had the USSR fallen Hitler would be free to attempt a takeover of the rest of the joined Contnents - right across to Japan, and possibly Australasia. However, given the resources he had would there be a benefit?
Also, although I acknowledge that Hitler might have wanted the Americas, it was simply impractical given the technology of the time. It's not appeasement, but simply taking time out to repair - or an unrealisable goal because of physical obstacles.
But why would anyone but Hitler fight in the first place? We are assuming here that the Allied nations hold peace above everything, even in the short term, and are not willing to fight for any reason, even to bring about peace. And it is quite practical, very simple in fact, to take over a nation that offers no resistance whatsoever, which is the assumption we are going by here.
I'm glad I can understand you logically. I just can't understand you emotionally. This end you describe is only inevitable if people liken you continue to push for this warped form of 'progress' - which isn't really progress at all, because you're distorting people's bodies and minds to fit the system you think would work. True progress should mould society around humanity. In effect what you are creating is some kind of twenty-xth century workhouse or slave system, where humans are just economic units - power sources, stores of knowledge to be tapped into. People would just be happy because they have been biologically altered and socially conditioned to feel that way.
What you have created is...The Matrix.
And as I said before, that is monstrous.
To me, it is not monstrous at all, but the ultimate. But that is beside the point. People would indeed be happy because of what you say, but the exact same thing is happening today, and the only way to bring things back to a "natural state" (which has no real meaning, but we can assume it to be what we started off with) is to ditch all technology and science and instead go back to living like the animals we came from. Do you think that these social and psychological conditions and preferences are an inherent part of human nature? They change over time and are just as prone to outside influence as the other ideas I was talking about. For example, some of the opponents of capitalism today say that people are seduced into believing that they need certain things and when they get those things, it makes them happy, and the whole system is thus quite "unnatural." There is no such thing as "distorting a mind," because the brain has no "natural state" in the first place which can be considered as distorted; every distortion is distorting yet another distortion. As for why the social machine is headed towards this system and not another, I'll cover that in more detail in that publication, but it is mainly due to the way in which all the other major systems lead to some sort of fundamental contradiction. (this is sort of like Euclid's "exhaustion" and "reductio ad absurdum" systems)
Perhaps then, the structure of an 'argument' is skewed in favour of a rational viewpoint to the detriment of emotional ones. This is just a suggeston, not a belief - but I know you'd want evidence, say I was clutching at straws, etc.
In other words, you are conceding defeat. :D :D I am going against my own emotional viewpoint here, which mostly agrees with all of you, so talking about "skewed viewpoints" would actually be heavily in favor of my argument. Hey I don't blame you for trying to defend your point, because of exactly what I said in that part you quoted. :D
I agree completely. Studies such as the Standford Prison experiment and various interrogation techniques, flawed as they are, show us the effects of artificial environments and stimulation on human minds. CP, although you might be right about efficiency in a theoretical sense, your idealised human minds do not represent the real thing: they don't have an intrinsic need for things like a natural biosphere. As a result, your theory is a little...removed from reality.
Since when do people have an "intrinsic need" for anything? :p Besides, that is not a really good explanation for why a biosphere is required as far as a logical argument goes. These experiments probably revealed the current cultural conditions, but as I said earlier, those are subject to change. I would probably become "depressed" and all that if I did not have my computer stuff, my math and my legos to keep me busy all day but does that mean that these things are absolutely necessary to my survival? I think not. Not only that, but these "necessities" subtly change over time with other varying conditions.
Regarding the rockets, like I said before, the terrorist don't need ICBMs, as they do not care about losing some men as long as the other guys die out as well, which makes the suitcase nuke the ideal solution for them. :p
Alright, let's keep those arguments coming! :D Although one thing I should mention is that it might take me a little while to respond, as I am trying to cut back my time spent arguing here (which I have been lately spending lots of time on) and instead focus on finishing my FS2 project, which is nearly complete. ;)
-
But your computer and legos and maths is what makes living worthwhile, no?
To me its' almost the same thing.
There's no point in living (as a sentient being) if everything is, well....boring and apathetic.
Or worse, painful and depressing.
-
Quite true, but those things vary both between different people and over periods of time, so it definitely cannot be considered as an "absolute" or as having a "natural state." ;)
-
So let's make CP into our slave. :D That is what he wants isn't?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Quite true, but those things vary both between different people and over periods of time, so it definitely cannot be considered as an "absolute" or as having a "natural state." ;)
There are no absolute states, anything you say is a total generalisation if you nitpick it enough ;)
-
... But it seems like it will be war within just a few weeks. If Pakistan and India really start a war, and if it goes so far as to suing nuclear weapons, then this has any change of blowing up into WW3.
Many tousands, if not billions, will die if it comes to nukes. The radioactive waste and other hazards that will be generated by any nuclear weapon, has any change of spreading into other countries of the middel-east as well.
"In a nuclear war; there are no winners. In a nuclear war there are only loosers, and the loosers are those who die...." --- Albert Einstein; 1946.
I do hope it dont come to nukes, but if it does.....
Then there will not be only two countries that will die; so will the entire middel-east, as well as leaving the rest of the world devestated, with nuclear-waste being spread by the wind. Hopefully, this entire conflict we now see developing, will die out; but I have my doupts.
Stargazer.
-
I don't think this will escalate to a global scale, if they decide to toss a few nukes at each other. Don't get me wrong, its a horrible and dreadfull thing if they do. But if it does happen, I don't think the rest of the world will start shooting at each other. It might actually go the opposite. They might see the horror and devestation that its brought upon the two nations and strive harder to make the world nuclear free...
Thats just me I guess being hopefull. But thats all we got these days isn't it? Hope...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, here we go again...
That's how I feel too. :D
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and it is why I support environmentalism as a practical issue today but not in its full principle.[/b]
I agree wholeheartedly that environmentalism which aims for a 'return to the soil' and 21st Century Luddism should be laughed at heartily. However, rampant technological progress should not destroy the environment - as a link to the past, to the world as a whole outside of human influences, and so on. That shounds wishy-washy, but think of what you're suggesting about the environment: there's an opportunity cost in keeping it, in that we could use the land and resources for something more productive. However, the same could be said of art, history and even legos. As wEvil said, is life worth living without these simple pleasures? Not for societies; which probably don't care on the whole, but for individuals for whom these things mean a lot.
This is my main problem with your argument that cultural necessities change over time. I agree with that, but you're looking at it from some sort of global perspective removed from the necessities of individuals in society. If their so-called 'necessities' are not met, they may well feel that life really isn't worth living.
The changes in cultural attitudes you describe occur over a longer period than self-interested humans are capable of comprehending or being patient for, basically. ;)
Onto other things...
But why would anyone but Hitler fight in the first place? We are assuming here that the Allied nations hold peace above everything, even in the short term, and are not willing to fight for any reason, even to bring about peace. And it is quite practical, very simple in fact, to take over a nation that offers no resistance whatsoever, which is the assumption we are going by here.[/b]
I think that we're starting on different assumptions here CP. :) Basically, your starting point for this alternate history is about 1938, with appeasement, no ultimatums for war, and so on.
Mine is 1940-43. Germany has conquered Europe and the USSR but America, equally, is on course to defeat the Japanese. Therefore, both sides are, or have been prepared to fight to bring about peace. Your assumption that Hitler would invade a nation that would not defend itself is therefore inappropriate - not to mention hopelessly unrealistic - so my points in previous posts stand. :p
As a side note, The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick is excellent. America does get conquered in that one...
To me, it is not monstrous at all, but the ultimate. But that is beside the point. People would indeed be happy because of what you say, but the exact same thing is happening today, and the only way to bring things back to a "natural state" (which has no real meaning, but we can assume it to be what we started off with) is to ditch all technology and science and instead go back to living like the animals we came from. Do you think that these social and psychological conditions and preferences are an inherent part of human nature? They change over time and are just as prone to outside influence as the other ideas I was talking about. For example, some of the opponents of capitalism today say that people are seduced into believing that they need certain things and when they get those things, it makes them happy, and the whole system is thus quite "unnatural." There is no such thing as "distorting a mind," because the brain has no "natural state" in the first place which can be considered as distorted; every distortion is distorting yet another distortion. As for why the social machine is headed towards this system and not another, I'll cover that in more detail in that publication, but it is mainly due to the way in which all the other major systems lead to some sort of fundamental contradiction. (this is sort of like Euclid's "exhaustion" and "reductio ad absurdum" systems)[/b]
Long quote I know...but what the hell.
I agree with you that we begin 'distorting' perception from birth, and all that you said in that respect. However, generally these distortions should be viewed as beneficial and empowering. I guess I'm having difficulty accepting the nature of your set of distortions, because they're so at odds with my concepts of liberty and ethics.
BTW, I happen to be one of those anti-capitalists that say those things. On the one hand, it explains my disdain for capitalist methods. On the other, I should have realised that when I started talking about distorting the mind. :o However, you're putting words in my mouth by saying that there is a natural state for human beings - maybe it was implied, you will say, but such implications were accidental.
And for my belief on ditching all technology, see the comments above. It's a :ha: - worthy idea.
Anyway, I wouldn't expect you to think your own preferred system monstrous, that would be unrealistic of me. I retain my reservations about it though. To relate to the religion thread, in this instance society is dictating happiness to its citizens as some kind of enforced state. Therefore, it cannot be true happiness, just as forced love for God cannot be true. IIRC, both religious and non-religious sides agreed on that...
In other words, you are conceding defeat. I am going against my own emotional viewpoint here, which mostly agrees with all of you, so talking about "skewed viewpoints" would actually be heavily in favor of my argument. Hey I don't blame you for trying to defend your point, because of exactly what I said in that part you quoted.[/b]
Sorry, do you mean that the rules of debate are skewed in favour of emotionalism or logicalism (for want of better terms)? I'm also glad that you have some sort of emotional viewpoint. Whilst I don't think it should be prescribed and the logialist view proscribed, both have something valuable to say on a topic so human as society.
I am trying to cut back my time spent arguing here (which I have been lately spending lots of time on) and instead focus on finishing my FS2 project, which is nearly complete. ;) [/B]
Yes, do that instead! And I'll do BWO!
I should pass my exams first though...so studying beckons. :nod:
-
If anyone needs to write a sociology or religion essay you do know where i'm going to tell them to look, don't you?
:ha:
-
I was able to track down a critical bug in mission 10 and fix it! I think I will celebrate by arguing here once again for a little while. :D
I do hope it dont come to nukes, but if it does.....
Then there will not be only two countries that will die; so will the entire middel-east, as well as leaving the rest of the world devestated, with nuclear-waste being spread by the wind. Hopefully, this entire conflict we now see developing, will die out; but I have my doupts.
That sounds a bit exaggerated to me; only the latest hydrogen bombs are capable of having such lasting radiation, and the Pakistani warheads are older versions that use uranium and plutonium, which do not have nearly the same kind of power.
So let's make CP into our slave. That is what he wants isn't?
nah, I want to be a member of the great social machine, not these silly individuals. :p
There are no absolute states, anything you say is a total generalisation if you nitpick it enough
Well, you can have absolute states for static values. For example, everyone in a similar reference frame perceives the speed of light constant to be the same, and it is not going to change over time (well, at least we don't think it does yet), so it can be considered an "absolute quantity."
I agree wholeheartedly that environmentalism which aims for a 'return to the soil' and 21st Century Luddism should be laughed at heartily. However, rampant technological progress should not destroy the environment - as a link to the past, to the world as a whole outside of human influences, and so on. That shounds wishy-washy, but think of what you're suggesting about the environment: there's an opportunity cost in keeping it, in that we could use the land and resources for something more productive. However, the same could be said of art, history and even legos. As wEvil said, is life worth living without these simple pleasures? Not for societies; which probably don't care on the whole, but for individuals for whom these things mean a lot.
This is one subject I had to think about quite a bit before reaching a conclusion. The main problem comes up because everyone has their own distinct idea of "pleasure" and therefore we cannot define any "true pleasure." For example, your idea of pleasure might be to play FS2 while Hussein's idea of pleasure might be to have his political opponents shot. Then we need to think of what the effect of this "pleasure" has on the social machine as a whole, and here is where the real issue comes up. Obviously, not all "pleasures" are acceptable or scientific thinking and terrorism would be equal, and so we need to determine what we want as a result out of both the individual and the society. This then ties into the system of objectives, and happiness cannot be included because of its subjective nature. Why exactly do we exist? What would happen if we did not exist? And since we do exist, what, if anything, should we be doing during our lifetimes? This leads into arguments between the various possible goals that are too lengthy to post here in detail, but as I said earlier, every system except for this scientific advance (and in some cases, even that) has some sort of fundamental contradiction or problem in it that leads to the eventual demise of humanity. And so we need to find out whether we want to survive or not, and what we have to gain or lose by surviving, which leads to simple comparison of probabilities. I know that the meat of the proof is missing here, but you can find the real thing in nine or ten years. ;)
BTW, I happen to be one of those anti-capitalists that say those things. On the one hand, it explains my disdain for capitalist methods. On the other, I should have realised that when I started talking about distorting the mind. However, you're putting words in my mouth by saying that there is a natural state for human beings - maybe it was implied, you will say, but such implications were accidental.
That was just an example to show that this "happiness" and "necessity" that people were using to defend their arguments earlier have some inherent flaws in them.
So, just out of curiosity, what economic system are you for? I am currently a supporter of the usual capitalism, but only because it lends itself better to the current cultural "paradigm" present in human affairs. As a general statement of all human history, both past and future, I like quite a few of the ideas behind communism as well, even though it is not very useful for the contemporary humans. (not Stalinism, but rather the original Marxist ideas)
Anyway, I wouldn't expect you to think your own preferred system monstrous, that would be unrealistic of me. I retain my reservations about it though. To relate to the religion thread, in this instance society is dictating happiness to its citizens as some kind of enforced state. Therefore, it cannot be true happiness, just as forced love for God cannot be true. IIRC, both religious and non-religious sides agreed on that...
Sounds good. ;) But how can this "true happiness" even exist? Everyone has their own conception of happiness, and as long as people are living in this universal reality, the conditions that lead to happiness will change as well. The best conclusion we have is that there is no such thing as a true/natural/etc. happiness and it therefore lies in the perceptual realm only.
And for my belief on ditching all technology, see the comments above. It's a - worthy idea.
It would actually be fine if it were not for one glaring problem: we too would eventually fall to the system of evolution and all take our own paths, effectively breaking up both the individual and the social machine. So much for that. :p
I think that we're starting on different assumptions here CP. Basically, your starting point for this alternate history is about 1938, with appeasement, no ultimatums for war, and so on.
Mine is 1940-43. Germany has conquered Europe and the USSR but America, equally, is on course to defeat the Japanese. Therefore, both sides are, or have been prepared to fight to bring about peace. Your assumption that Hitler would invade a nation that would not defend itself is therefore inappropriate - not to mention hopelessly unrealistic - so my points in previous posts stand.
The whole sub-argument here was sparked though when I said that war can sometimes be necessary to deal with such elements of humanity, and yeah, that assumption is completely unrealistic, which is exactly the point I was trying to show in the first place. That is exactly the assumption of many people in the world today when it comes to these recent terrorism conflicts though, which is why I was using this WW2 analogy to show how nonsensical it would be. Q.E.D. :D
Sorry, do you mean that the rules of debate are skewed in favour of emotionalism or logicalism (for want of better terms)? I'm also glad that you have some sort of emotional viewpoint. Whilst I don't think it should be prescribed and the logialist view proscribed, both have something valuable to say on a topic so human as society.
I would say that logic has quite an edge there, because debates are essentially just an attempted construction of a new logic-based proof from two existing ones that contradict each other (the thesis and the antithesis ;)); people try to refute each other's statements by giving evidence, deductions, and other basic logical and scientific constructs, and everything can be broken into discrete logic commands. For example, nobody becomes a good debater with emotional statements: "No that's wrong! You're wrong! All of you! You made me cry! But you're wrong! The purple dragon and the god both exist because I can feel them inside me!! I'm going to tell the police about you and make the admins ban you!" :D It is possible to inject small amounts of emotional stuff by playing around with language, but these things proceed with logic for the most part.
If anyone needs to write a sociology or religion essay you do know where i'm going to tell them to look, don't you?
That is, a sociology or religion essay from the extremist's viewpoint. :D
Yes, do that instead! And I'll do BWO!
I should pass my exams first though...so studying beckons.
Right, this is getting pretty long, and I better get back into FRED2. Exams are over for me, so I can spend most of the day with math and lego stuff, and the nights with games and modding. ;)
-
CP5670: Stop distracting Kellan!! We need to get BWO finished before the sun explodes!!! :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
nah, I want to be a member of the great social machine, not these silly individuals. :p
And if we made you private sex slave to Natalie Portman?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This is one subject I had to think about quite a bit before reaching a conclusion. The main problem comes up because everyone has their own distinct idea of "pleasure" and therefore we cannot define any "true pleasure." For example, your idea of pleasure might be to play FS2 while Hussein's idea of pleasure might be to have his political opponents shot. Then we need to think of what the effect of this "pleasure" has on the social machine as a whole, and here is where the real issue comes up. Obviously, not all "pleasures" are acceptable or scientific thinking and terrorism would be equal, and so we need to determine what we want as a result out of both the individual and the society. This then ties into the system of objectives, and happiness cannot be included because of its subjective nature. Why exactly do we exist? What would happen if we did not exist? And since we do exist, what, if anything, should we be doing during our lifetimes? This leads into arguments between the various possible goals that are too lengthy to post here in detail, but as I said earlier, every system except for this scientific advance (and in some cases, even that) has some sort of fundamental contradiction or problem in it that leads to the eventual demise of humanity. And so we need to find out whether we want to survive or not, and what we have to gain or lose by surviving, which leads to simple comparison of probabilities. I know that the meat of the proof is missing here, but you can find the real thing in nine or ten years.
Don't worry, I get you - but I've had to think awhile about whether this answers my question. :D Let me explain...
If happiness is subjective then we can't tell what people will find pleasurable. However, society is going to have some written or unwritten rules on what one can and cannot find pleasurable in order to continue living in that society. Drugs are a good example. However, I think it unlikely that a society would remove all the sources of pleasure for individuals unless they were actually dangerous to society as a whole.
However, assuming it did - assuming everything that you found pleasurable was unavailable to you - would you see beyond your unhappiness to the benefit you still give to society, or reject the society that did this to you? Again, that doesn't sound as logical as yours but that's the nature of my examples. I'm not quite as logical and free of emotions as you... :p
Oh, and when you talk about 'survival' do you mean individual or societal survival? If it's the former, I contend that a person could live their whole lives in an unsustainable society, as is the case today and throughout history. If it's the latter you have more of a case, though you'd have to convince people that what you were doing was in the best interests of perpetuating society and tell them why this is a good thing, even when they are dead. Some kind of emotional appeal might be effective - "won't somebody please think of the children!" :D
So, just out of curiosity, what economic system are you for?[/b]
It would be destructive to say I'm an anti-capitalist first ;) so I will say that I do agree with some of Marx's original ideas as well. However, I'm enough of a realist to see that such a system will either never happen or will take a long time to come about. Still, if I (and others) don't try and make it, there's even less chance. So for the meantime some kind of social democracy in a capitalist system would do - a system that protects the poorest, ensures a cap on richness and reins in the worst excesses of capitalism.
Sounds good. But how can this "true happiness" even exist? Everyone has their own conception of happiness, and as long as people are living in this universal reality, the conditions that lead to happiness will change as well. The best conclusion we have is that there is no such thing as a true/natural/etc. happiness and it therefore lies in the perceptual realm only.[/b]
Oh, we're onto perceptual happiness again. I should choose my words more carefully when speaking to you. :D However, all of those subjective triggers to happiness result in a change in biological states in the brain which can be measured. This is the method I was assuming you would 'instil happiness' into people with (that or heavy conditioning) and thus happiness can be considered 'true' as in 'mechanically identical every time'.
It would actually be fine if it were not for one glaring problem: we too would eventually fall to the system of evolution and all take our own paths, effectively breaking up both the individual and the social machine. So much for that.[/b]
Yes, I guess society does forestall evolution. However, I was thinking more along the lines of lower quality of life as a result of poor medical care, lack of heating, shelter and so on. But technology should be in service of people, rather than the other way around. Whilst seeking new technology is cool for some, if it hasn;t got a practical application it's a little...useless. :p
Oh, and let's consider the WW2 alternate history thing closed. I agree it's unrealistic and more than a little fanciful.
I would say that logic has quite an edge there, because debates are essentially just an attempted construction of a new logic-based proof from two existing ones that contradict each other (the thesis and the antithesis); people try to refute each other's statements by giving evidence, deductions, and other basic logical and scientific constructs, and everything can be broken into discrete logic commands. For example, nobody becomes a good debater with emotional statements: "No that's wrong! You're wrong! All of you! You made me cry! But you're wrong! The purple dragon and the god both exist because I can feel them inside me!! I'm going to tell the police about you and make the admins ban you!" It is possible to inject small amounts of emotional stuff by playing around with language, but these things proceed with logic for the most part.[/B]
Agreed. That's what I thought you meant. The only way I can see to make an emotional message stick is either by talking to those who aren't good debaters (like the general public) or by playing on the emotional sensibilities of your opponent. Being human, they must have them... :p
Anyway, back to doing the BWO Demo tables. Thankfully I culled some useless missions, so we're another 5 or more missions closer to completion, and all without having to open FRED2.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
And if we made you private sex slave to Natalie Portman?
He won't be interested. Trust me. He's CP5670. :D ;) :D
-
Well, damn, if he ain't taking her, pass her over to me! :D
-
:lol:
Not if everyone else on the board except CP gets there first!
-
This is starting to look like the religion thread... :lol:
Long posts, and CP is one of them who posts a lot in it, and I don't. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Redfang
This is starting to look like the religion thread... :lol:
Posts like the Religion post 0wnZ j00! :D
-
It is 4 in the morning here and I did not sleep earlier so I am kind of tired, so I'll have to make this short, but I will put up more stuff later. :p
However, assuming it did - assuming everything that you found pleasurable was unavailable to you - would you see beyond your unhappiness to the benefit you still give to society, or reject the society that did this to you?
What would probably happen is that I would reject it for quite a while, but eventually get used to the changing conditions. Either that or I would never get used to it, but the next generation would grow up with it and thus would find it very easy to accept; heck, they would find our concepts of "happiness" quite repulsive compared to their new ones. Since these likes and dislikes of people change over time anyway, they could be changed yet again in the interests of the civilization, which are more or less static. ;)
Oh, and when you talk about 'survival' do you mean individual or societal survival? If it's the former, I contend that a person could live their whole lives in an unsustainable society, as is the case today and throughout history. If it's the latter you have more of a case, though you'd have to convince people that what you were doing was in the best interests of perpetuating society and tell them why this is a good thing, even when they are dead. Some kind of emotional appeal might be effective - "won't somebody please think of the children!"
Well, both in a way. It is true in that the individual can thrive in a dying society or without any society at all, but that is because the life of the individual is quite limited and the time periods over which evolution takes place go well beyond that. At some point, you will have individuals that are not doing so well, seeing as we physically are far from being a dominant species, and after even more time has passed, some humans will have evolved into something else and the rest would have died out, making the "life of the individual" of little importance anymore insofar as it applies to humans. So basically if the society collapses, the individual of the future falls as well, so indeed: "won't somebody please think of the children!" :D One of the reasons that I think the social machine is of more importance is that it could in theory last until the end of the universe and become a much more powerful force in the universe as a whole, compared to a pretty limited lifespan and ambitions for the individual person. Convincing people of just about anything is pretty easy, as history has shown. ;)
Oh, we're onto perceptual happiness again. I should choose my words more carefully when speaking to you. However, all of those subjective triggers to happiness result in a change in biological states in the brain which can be measured. This is the method I was assuming you would 'instil happiness' into people with (that or heavy conditioning) and thus happiness can be considered 'true' as in 'mechanically identical every time'.
Ah I see, but then all methods of happiness would be "true" more or less, so it wouldn't really matter what they were changed to.
Yes, I guess society does forestall evolution. However, I was thinking more along the lines of lower quality of life as a result of poor medical care, lack of heating, shelter and so on. But technology should be in service of people, rather than the other way around. Whilst seeking new technology is cool for some, if it hasn;t got a practical application it's a little...useless.
Yeah, I guess "technology" is a bit too generalized for our purposes here, especially since the needs of the people change over time; a scientific advance and an attempt at a better understanding of our universe makes more sense, and technology can be considered a means to that. Unlike some other aspects of the society, its knowledge can be said to lie in the combined knowledge of its components, the individuals. ;)
Sorry if I am rambling here, but I am half asleep at the moment. :p :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
At some point, you will have individuals that are not doing so well, seeing as we physically are far from being a dominant species, and after even more time has passed, some humans will have evolved into something else and the rest would have died out, making the "life of the individual" of little importance anymore insofar as it applies to humans. So basically if the society collapses, the individual of the future falls as well, so indeed: "won't somebody please think of the children!" :D One of the reasons that I think the social machine is of more importance is that it could in theory last until the end of the universe and become a much more powerful force in the universe as a whole, compared to a pretty limited lifespan and ambitions for the individual person. Convincing people of just about anything is pretty easy, as history has shown. ;)
Sorry, but how does individualism cease when society collapses? Are you saying that people return to baser instincts and therefore there is less potential to display one's individuality, or that evolution somehow removes individuality from humans? The former I could agree with; the latter I do not. Evolution wouldn't make people into clones with identical thoughts, likes and dislikes.
And I fully agree that society can perpetuate (as long as it changes to those within it) ad infinitum. Saying the "social machine is of more importance" though, suggests that we should act as society dictates - as though it is some frozen set of rules, which, of course, it is not. Society is made up of people, rather than being a 'thing' in and of itself.
Oh, and let's test your hypothesis: I am going to try and convince everyone in my school to give me all their money so I can spend it on myself. :D
Ah I see, but then all methods of happiness would be "true" more or less, so it wouldn't really matter what they were changed to.[/b]
I'm not saying it matters what they're changed to so much as the motivation behind changing them. Say a person wants to change themselves so they feel perpetually happy. Fine. Now, say society wants to change them so they feel perpetually happy. Not fine. There's no consent in that, and you have to question the motives of 'society' in this case. That's the impression I get from your "ultimate society" - that people's happiness is engineered to make them efficient and stifle discontent. Maybe I'm just paranoid... :nervous:
EDIT: Aiiee! Quoting madness!
-
I need to go so I have to write this in a hurry, but I will be back sometime later. (although, I am lately trying to stay away from these threads since they take up too much of my time :p :D)
Sorry, but how does individualism cease when society collapses? Are you saying that people return to baser instincts and therefore there is less potential to display one's individuality, or that evolution somehow removes individuality from humans? The former I could agree with; the latter I do not. Evolution wouldn't make people into clones with identical thoughts, likes and dislikes.
The second "choice" is possible, but I wouldn't vouch for it due to its largely unknown nature as of yet; the first is more along the lines of what I was thinking. What seperates the human from the animal is this sense of perpetual desire; the animals display some kind of desire as well, but they become happy when they get what they want, while humans in the large keep complaining and try to attain more things in an attempt to once again find the happiness. This is the everlasting process that can be said to have accounted for all progressions in human affairs: science, society, creativity, religion, morals, etc. And nothing happens to the individual at all immediately after the society collapses; like I said, the individual will still retain all of its properties. The problem comes up after many generations when the human has evolved enough that it can be considered a new species, because there is no guarantee that the new one will retain this characteristic that can be considered to "make" the human.
And I fully agree that society can perpetuate (as long as it changes to those within it) ad infinitum. Saying the "social machine is of more importance" though, suggests that we should act as society dictates - as though it is some frozen set of rules, which, of course, it is not. Society is made up of people, rather than being a 'thing' in and of itself.
Well, "being made up of people" and "being a thing in itself" are equal to exactly the same thing here, just as our bodies are made up cells and are yet something in themselves.
Oh, and let's test your hypothesis: I am going to try and convince everyone in my school to give me all their money so I can spend it on myself.
If you organize some rowdy orations Hitler-style, and tell them that you will use their money to do god's work, and keep repeating this procedure, I bet you will get some of their money. :D
I'm not saying it matters what they're changed to so much as the motivation behind changing them. Say a person wants to change themselves so they feel perpetually happy. Fine. Now, say society wants to change them so they feel perpetually happy. Not fine. There's no consent in that, and you have to question the motives of 'society' in this case. That's the impression I get from your "ultimate society" - that people's happiness is engineered to make them efficient and stifle discontent. Maybe I'm just paranoid...
Actually, you're quite right about that. This "ultimate society" should not feel happiness or sadness at anything, and should view everything with mathematical indifference. Regarding the consent of the people, I said before that forcing people into accepting may lead to rebellions and thus is not a good solution (but only because of that), but the few who accept it will essentially become the dominant beings in the course of history. The motivation behind changing things is that all the other systems lead to contradictions, as I said before.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
If you organize some rowdy orations Hitler-style, and tell them that you will use their money to do god's work, and keep repeating this procedure, I bet you will get some of their money.
That's not exactly what I've said. You've changed my words to make them more appealing to groups (as any fool can see):
"Your money will build new homes! Your money will educate your children! Your money will do God's work!"
Yeah, whatever, but that's not what I said. I said that I would tell them that their money would go to line my pockets, to build a speedboat made entirely of platinum and fuel my personal desires to go and visit the Vasuda system; and that none of this money would have any benefit to anyone except me. :p
As you can see, this changes the acceptability, and nature of, these statements considerably. :D
Actually, you're quite right about that. This "ultimate society" should not feel happiness or sadness at anything, and should view everything with mathematical indifference. Regarding the consent of the people, I said before that forcing people into accepting may lead to rebellions and thus is not a good solution (but only because of that), but the few who accept it will essentially become the dominant beings in the course of history. The motivation behind changing things is that all the other systems lead to contradictions, as I said before. [/B]
Okay - so because a group of people choose one route, say, genetic engineering of their children everyone else has to do so in order to "keep up with the technological joneses" and avoid becoming some excluded underclass in some weirdo technocracy.
Yeah, I can believe that. ;)
As it happens, forcing people to be perpetually happy wouldn't lead to rebellion if (big if) you could make it work 100%. If they were always happy and content, there would be no rebellion left in them.
-
get the opium out!
-
Originally posted by wEvil
get the opium out!
You're looking for another, ahem, medicinal remedy.... ;7
-
;) :D
-
I didn't say anything.
You ain't seen me. Roight? ;) :D
-
That's not exactly what I've said. You've changed my words to make them more appealing to groups (as any fool can see):
"Your money will build new homes! Your money will educate your children! Your money will do God's work!"
Yeah, whatever, but that's not what I said. I said that I would tell them that their money would go to line my pockets, to build a speedboat made entirely of platinum and fuel my personal desires to go and visit the Vasuda system; and that none of this money would have any benefit to anyone except me. :p
As you can see, this changes the acceptability, and nature of, these statements considerably. :D
But it is not all that much of a change from the original statement. :p You see, you need to tell them to give you the money so that it benefits them in some way, possibly intangible ("god will send you to heaven if you give me, his prophet, money!"), and that's the key part of the whole thing. Just about any demand can be twisted around slightly so that it gives the people some incentive.
Okay - so because a group of people choose one route, say, genetic engineering of their children everyone else has to do so in order to "keep up with the technological joneses" and avoid becoming some excluded underclass in some weirdo technocracy.
Correct. Of course, 99.9999% of the population will reject the idea, but they will not be able to even remotely compete and will become just like the islander tribes today compared to the few who do accept it. As the saying goes, the bar has raised; jump over it or be beaten with it. :D The principle applies to a variety of things, and the world today works on this principle in its economics.
Yeah, I can believe that. ;)
Cool! :D
As it happens, forcing people to be perpetually happy wouldn't lead to rebellion if (big if) you could make it work 100%. If they were always happy and content, there would be no rebellion left in them.
Yes, but it wouldn't be an easy task to alter the brain in the first place if the people are themselves violently opposed to it, which they will be for the most part. Just look at the ruckus the world is making on a simple step like cloning. :p
On a side note, I finally got that Mathematica upgrade I had ordered; time to go play around with that. ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But it is not all that much of a change from the original statement. :p You see, you need to tell them to give you the money so that it benefits them in some way, possibly intangible ("god will send you to heaven if you give me, his prophet, money!"), and that's the key part of the whole thing. Just about any demand can be twisted around slightly so that it gives the people some incentive.
It's a fairly big change. You've changed the focus of the sentence from me to them. If I try to convince them that all their money will benefit me not them, maybe I won't be successful.
But anyway, I'm being pedantic. I am well aware, after all of how to persuade people to give me their money. ;)
As the saying goes, the bar has raised; jump over it or be beaten with it. :D[/b]
Nice saying. :D
BTW, when I said I could believe it, I didn't say I agreed with it. Mind you, I can see this happening anyway, so it's going to happen whether I agree or not. Maybe I should just agree. As long as it doesn't lead to your bizarre future-society.
Yes, but it wouldn't be an easy task to alter the brain in the first place if the people are themselves violently opposed to it, which they will be for the most part. Just look at the ruckus the world is making on a simple step like cloning.[/B]
Surely the answer to this problem is just a little bit further up this post: persuade them! Just tell them what it will do for them, and once enough people have it the others will follow. Well that, or they'll die out and won't matter anymore.
-
Christ..this is turning into the CP and Kellan show. :D
And somehow, it's surprisingly entertaining.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Christ..this is turning into the CP and Kellan show. :D
And somehow, it's surprisingly entertaining.
*looks up at thread* :rolleyes:
Oh yeah.
;)
I'm gald you find me entertaining, though. I'm performing here all summer...because no-one else will take me... *sniff* ...
-
Apply for a national lottery grant.
They pay out stupid amounts of money on worse rubbish...
har har :p
:D
-
He was talking about you too... ;)
-
NO he wasn't...do you see a "CP, Kellan and wEvil show"
anywhere above there?
thankyou,
goodnite-aaa!
-
Oh yeah. :o
-
i am tempted to close this thread simply because it has way to much text for even a munk to read.
-
Originally posted by Carl
i am tempted to close this thread simply because it has way to much text for even a munk to read.
Yeah, 'cause reading is for idiots. :rolleyes:
:wakka:
-
I've always thought if we add two extra things to the post count -
Topics Started - far enough.
Topics Locked - this is so you can see how many useless topics the said user has started, kind of long-range moron identification.
-
And one more thing: number of ASCII characters posted, for people like myself who write insanely long posts. :D :D
-
This thread can drain a genius of all mental power, you people have WAY too much time on your hands to write posts like this. You all have great comments and counter-comments to your posts, now I wasted 25 minutes of my life looking at this thread. I would say something, but...I dont feel like joining the Essay Club.
Otherwise, I have one word that can sum up this thread for the world.
Meh.
-
Originally posted by TheVirtu
. I would say something, but...I dont feel like joining the Essay Club.
Guess what? It's too late.
Really... :rolleyes: