Conversation

Notices

1. Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 21:54:51 JST Judge Dread
   oof
   • pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Saturday, 27-Apr-2024 21:54:50 JST pistolero

     in reply to
     @judgedread Around the time the boomers reach reproductive age, the birthrate falls off a cliff. (Some facets of life cannot begin at 50.)
     † top dog :pedomustdie: and New Janny in Town like this.
   • pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 18:49:29 JST pistolero

     in reply to
     @judgedread The lady has a theory that the reason zoomers aren't screwing is that they are creeped out by teachers that overshare about their polycules. Apparently the highest rate of virgins over 20. (Not screwing is a great way to not have kids.)
     † top dog :pedomustdie: likes this.
   • Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 18:49:30 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • pistolero
     @p 5/5 Insightful
   • Ruru! 🦉 (lonelyowl@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 21:58:43 JST Ruru! 🦉

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • pistolero
     @p @houseoftolstoy @judgedread
     
     Why do we need to obey the blind idiot god if we ourselves can become the gods?
     Why do we need the biological human evolution if we have technology?
     Humans already rely on tech more than on anything natural. I am happily live in siberia at -40 not because i evolved into a walrus but because i have down jacket
   • Ruru! 🦉 (lonelyowl@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 21:58:44 JST Ruru! 🦉

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • pistolero
     @houseoftolstoy @p @judgedread
     
     I wonder why instead of constantly producing new humans we can't just develop something that will stop the existing humans from dying :thonk:
   • pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 21:58:44 JST pistolero

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • Ruru! 🦉
     @lonelyowl @houseoftolstoy @judgedread You'd like to freeze human evolution? We're done, that's it?
   • houseoftolstoy@merovingian.club's status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 21:58:45 JST houseoftolstoy

     in reply to

     • pistolero

     @p @judgedread in an age with birth control and abortions, simply having sex is not a guarantee to have children. The problem is that less young people have long term relationships and marriages, which are necessary to have children (raised in a proper home and not with a horrible single mother).

     Marriage is a bad deal for men these days. The deal needs to be better to solve the problem.

   • houseoftolstoy@merovingian.club's status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 21:58:45 JST houseoftolstoy

     in reply to

     • pistolero

     @p @judgedread speaking of sex not guaranteeing children, I recall some talk about how lock downs would lead to a baby boom since people "have nothing else to do." Well no surprise, there was no baby boom, since this is not like the 50s where we have more married couples, no birth control, and less electronic entertainment. The people who unironically thought there would be a baby boom were fools.

   • pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 28-Apr-2024 21:59:15 JST pistolero

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • Ruru! 🦉
     @lonelyowl @houseoftolstoy @judgedread
     
     > Humans already rely on tech more than on anything natural.
     
     Because you have mistakenly separated the two. Domesticating the dog was a hundred thousand years, and we end up with these things that we like, and they like us, and we work well together and make good friends. We've shaped each other's evolution. Cats, on the other hand, are just ten thousand, and they go feral much more readily than a labrador. But we have found barbecue pits created by Australopithecus, 2-3 million years old: ashes, flint knives, knife-scored bones. So twenty times as long as it took to turn a wolf into something you can leave a baby alone with, we've been crafting knives and using fire. The course of humanity is inseparable from technology, we have been creating and using tools since before we were recognizably human. Our arms face inwards and our fingers are designed for leverage and manipulating small objects in front of us. Drywall and copper repiping and cars and wool-lined jackets are as much our "nature" as an anthill is an ant's.
     
     > I am happily live in siberia at -40 not because i evolved into a walrus but because i have down jacket
     
     Well, I ask if you think we're done evolving not because there's anything either of us can do about it, but because I think you will frustrate yourself without accomplishing anything if you put yourself at odds with human nature.
   • pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 01-May-2024 18:02:37 JST pistolero

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • Ruru! 🦉
     @lonelyowl @houseoftolstoy @judgedread
     
     > I think human nature is something to consider. I don't consider it's holy.
     
     "Holy" is the wrong concept. If you spend your life trying to create Maxwell's demon or a perpetual motion machine, you will regret this to a greater extent than if you put the effort into cold fusion. There is a very good reason for this, and the reason is not that the laws of thermodynamics are "holy".
     
     So you talk about these things like you're talking to someone that is upset that Pepsi changed its logo and that the music kids these days listen to is all clicks and whistles. "Oh, why do we have to reproduce and die, why can't we just solve that problem?" is not something you're going to get done in your lifetime. Feel free to prove me wrong: I'd be delighted if you could. It seems pretty likely to me that we're going to keep screwing and then grabbing our chests and bargling after we run out of cartilage and collagen and if we're lucky, we snuff it while we can still wipe our own asses. If you have a concrete plan, by all means, do not let me get in your way and I'd be delighted to help, but if you don't, then it's purely philosophical. (I do mean concrete.) I'll go in the computer or let Dracula bite me or whatever, that's fine--if it works--but I'm not factoring it into my plans for the future until it's real.
   • Ruru! 🦉 (lonelyowl@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 01-May-2024 18:02:37 JST Ruru! 🦉

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • pistolero
     @p @houseoftolstoy @judgedread
     
     > "Holy" is the wrong concept.
     
     I agree, but it isn't a wrong concept, rather a wrong word.
     
     > There is a very good reason for this, and the reason is not that the laws of thermodynamics are "holy".
     
     You haven't said "making humans immortal is impossible because there is a physics law that prohibits it", and this discussion isn't about if it's possible.
     
     > I'll go in the computer or let Dracula bite me or whatever, that's fine--if it works--but I'm not factoring it into my plans for the future until it's real.
     
     This is okay, i also do not include it in my plans for the future. Maybe i got you wrong, i thought your point is "we shouldn't make humans immortal even if there will be a practical possibility to do it, otherwise bad things could happen" :thonk:
   • Ruru! 🦉 (lonelyowl@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 01-May-2024 18:02:38 JST Ruru! 🦉

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • pistolero
     @p @houseoftolstoy @judgedread
     
     > but because I think you will frustrate yourself without accomplishing anything if you put yourself at odds with human nature.
     
     Throwing shit at everyone you don't agree with you is absolutely normal and is the part of human nature.
     You have put yourself at odds with human nature by running this website, do you feel frustrated :thinking:
   • Ruru! 🦉 (lonelyowl@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 01-May-2024 18:02:38 JST Ruru! 🦉

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • pistolero
     • Ruru! 🦉
     @p @houseoftolstoy @judgedread
     
     I think human nature is something to consider. I don't consider it's holy.
   • pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 01-May-2024 18:03:14 JST pistolero

     in reply to

     • houseoftolstoy
     • Ruru! 🦉
     @lonelyowl @houseoftolstoy @judgedread
     
     > I agree, but it isn't a wrong concept, rather a wrong word.
     
     It's the wrong concept; I don't suggest these things be treated as sacrosanct but that people understand what they are doing before proposing broad, sweeping changes. Nothing to do with "the status quo should never change" but "There are things about the status quo that are beyond your understanding."
     
     You automate a business process, this involves encoding a large number of complex rules. (You might be astonished what happens when you try to put a business into the computer, or how complicated it is to run a warehouse.) Eventually the codebase gets old and crusty, it's the nature of these things, so someone proposes a complete rewrite and sometimes they get their wish and the new system takes years to catch up to the old, shitty one because there are things the old code accounted for and the new code does not. The old code fucked up, it was fixed to account for some implicit rule, it took years of refining, and the new code does not tend to account for any of those things, because it's not obvious what those things are. That's not to say that a rewrite is a bad idea in every case, but that it is something you have to do carefully and you have to understand the implications.
     
     > You haven't said "making humans immortal is impossible because there is a physics law that prohibits it", and this discussion isn't about if it's possible.
     
     You asked why; whether or not it's possible is possibly the most relevant point, because the answer to the actual question of why we have to cope with mortality is that it's the only game in town.
     
     > Maybe i got you wrong, i thought your point is "we shouldn't make humans immortal even if there will be a practical possibility to do it, otherwise bad things could happen"
     
     If I'm stating it briefly, the point is that if you change some very fundamental things about humanity, it is guaranteed not to go how you think it will go. Suddenly everyone in the Congo is missing a right hand and India is overrun with cobras and rats. Unintended consequences. Blame Leopold, blame the Raj, whatever, the actual thing to blame is a large, sweeping policy change, the thing to blame is top-down decision-making. And in the case of the cycle of birth and reproduction and death, it isn't just "We put a bounty on cobras to get rid of the cobras, but people started breeding them to get more money and now we have too many cobras", this is "You can't die any more" and that is a much bigger thing.
   • Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-May-2024 18:03:15 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • pistolero
     @p The ruling stratum was once instinctively opposed to life extension for various reasons. As it is a very difficult problem the lack of venture capital doomed even the attempt in the short term.
     
     I've mentioned Drexler and nanotech recently. I've seen the culture shift 180 from when Engines of Creation was released. Now AI, nanotech and life extension are the primary goals of billionaires like Peter Thiel. If a viable path can be demonstrated the cash is going to flood in.
     
     So if you want mankind to avoid developing it (assuming it can be developed at all) you need to become a fascist and ban it.