Once upon a time there was a great subpar jedi 
His great exploits were known far and wide through out the Galaxy
However one day he came to realise the truth
So he had to be destroyed
I am really glad that at least 1 of the people in this forum (IrationalFear) knows the truth, and is not fully integrated into the "system" 
I am not sure what you mean by the scientist comment, but if you mean that I thought of all that (The Venus Project), it wasnt me, LOL. It is a man named Jacque Fresco. But that doesnt mean that he is some kind of very smart or wise human being. he's a person like you and me, he just sat down and thought of ways that we can make this world a better place. And if you mean the Zeitgeist movement, then I didnt start this either, it was a man named Peter Joseph.
I didnt realise anything of this on my own, but the blindfold came out of my eyes when I saw that documentary. And when I did, I felt a lot of shame that I hadnt realised all that before, but hey I am sure most people felt the same way 
IFear, if you havent watched that documentary, I suggest you do, because it answers many questions, and honestly everything that I have read or heard from the zeitgiest movement, I fully agree with, while making me want more people to be motivated by all this.
Altaux, we dont need to argue with anything. I am not sure what you mean by "impossible", because we have the technology to eliminate ANY kind of labor work. The only work that humans would do, would be research, computer programming, inventions, new ideas, and generally lending a hand wherever needed. We dont need to work as slaves for a living anymore. Anything that is on this earth is our heritage, not just of a few elite group of people, but of all humans.
About arguing, there is NO argue with science. Science is not a belief, not an institution (goverments, military etc), these things would not exist. For example: We have a system to monitor the earth's resources, via computers and the internet. We see that oil is almost depleted as an energy resource. Nobody can argue with that, so we look for the most efficient, renewable, and plentiful of energy resources. Lets say for instance that through a computer analysis, we find out it is the solar energy. Nobody can argue with numbers. Since it would be the best energy resource, we would use that for our needs, very simple.
I am sorry to everyone if I seem like I am trying to force anybody to see things "my way", but its merely just an attempt to make people at least consider: "why the hell is the world so screwed up?".
http://www.thevenusproject.com
I was referring to the whole collective consciousness thing. And it doesn't seem like your forcing. we are just chatting in an aptly named room. However, the mere fact they we all seem to view this topic differently proves to me that a collective consciousness would not work. People need to think for themselves come to their own conclusions and do what they feel is right. For this reason I doubt a collective consciousness to be the answer to anything.
In my opinion, there is nothing to argue. And there is nothing to argue, because all roads lead to a dead end. We are heading towards our own destruction, and there is no other way to avoid that, except start thinking as one, and not just for ourselves aka collective consciousness.
But what is saddens me greatly, is that people will realise that, only after we get closer to the end, after the wars happen, after people die from hunger, after humankind suffers greatly, after all that, then people might finally start thinking for everyone, for all human beings, for the earth that supports us.
My only fear is, that until then, it might be too late.
I just want to say 1 last thing:
Imagine if intelligent alien creatures, came to earth, as explorers of space, and were curious about our world. We would provide them with various "earthly" knowledge, and also common knowledge, mentioning that 15 million children die from hunger each year, while there is a LOT MORE than enough food for them and the rest of the world, and that every 3.6 seconds someone dies from hunger. Aliens: "But why do you let them die? Are they not humans like you?" Us: "Because we spend our money in killing even more of them. Thats more profitable for us. Why feed them? We do not gain anything from it."
I am referring to the general process of creation.
It starts as something that someone desires, but is missing because it does not yet exist (client, demander). The lack of this "thing" is brought to someone with the resources and manpower to make it (distributor, employer). This person then brings the "thing " to people who'll figure out what "it" exactly is, how it can work, and why (scientist). When completed with their branch of work, their progress is sent to those who will simplify/uncomplicate the "thing" and make it practical for mass consumption or production (engineer). The thing, now completed, is brought back to the distributor, who in turn supplies the common people who wanted "it" in the first place.
Its nothing too complicated, so there is no need for "engineers", these are simply facts and truths, that everyone needs to realise, and in order for this to happen, people need to wake up of their never-ending slumber, see whats in front of them. Not what the people on top of the pyramid want you to see, but what really matters.
Some people say: "What BS is that? No money? We cant live without money or without different nations, or without wars and conflicts, domination over our own kind."
Thats what they have been taught, and they dont want to think differently, they are loyal to the system, and they will FIGHT to protect it.
To put it very simply, right now it is: "Everyone for themselves". The Venus project is: "Everyone for Everyone".
morph, what I think your not getting about what I'm saying is that- man is depraved. Because of this, there will always be conflict. Thus, man's nature is to always cause conflict.
Even if you don't believe in God, and man's depraved nature, 1) man's depraved anyways. People have sex with corpses. That's depraved. And 2) if you believe in evolution, then you subscribe to the "survival of the fittest" policy, which breeds conflict of it's own.
Even if everyone were united as a single "nation", without money, then they'd still fight with each other. Quite honestly, I am quite a bit different in my thinking in reference to my parents. I believe in the usefulness of human "enhancement", that is, genetically altering the human body to be different from what is at present "normal"; a good example would be genetically replacing the calcium skeleton with one composed of a carbon-based material, incorporating genetic material that allows DNA repair from radiation damage, enhancing the human eye to have better depth perception, and wider view of the light spectrum, and even Brain-Computer Interfaces for those who desire them.
All that would probably be met with quite a bit of criticism and critique by my parents.
People are also selfish. Without God, man is simply a selfish, depraved beast. Without God, Man is no better than an animal. And I'm not talking Catholicism (which isn't worshipping God; it's worshipping what they think is God, as well as the saints and the mother of Jesus, ad nauseum).
A black man and a white man are different; they have different skin colors, different interests, personalities, skills, families. All people are inherently different from everybody else. The problem comes when people think that "black people are one race and white people a different one..." etc. etc. That is a problem that can easily turn into racism.
What I think is the root of what you're saying is that "all people of the human species/race are born equal". This is simply not true. A wealthy aristocrat, poverty-stricken laborer, middle-class office worker ad nauseam were all born unequally. The aristocrat was born into his station, power, and wealth; the laborer is likely but another in a long line of poverty-stricken people, and the office worker was almost certainly born into a family that is used to middle-class living.
The ultimate reason why the world is so f***ed up, is that Man is a depraved, sinful animal without God. Man's depravity knows no bounds, thus, you get people who have no problem allowing millions to die every day, while they live the most opulent and expensive and obscene lifestyles.
And unless we run into some alien species that does happen to be within 5000 years of us technologically, or happens to have a far inferior technological level, we will continue to war with ourselves, because we're the only good enemy that we can present ourselves with. And this just goes back to man's depravity. And the likelyhood of finding intelligent alien life out there is probably a lot lower than we think. A lot lower.
"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war..."
It's all the same to me man. A bunch of bullsh*t that some idiot decided would be a good idea to apply to "social sicence".
"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war..."
PS anybody know how to disable the ease-of-access center on Vista? It's been giving me conniptions today.
Alot of what whiskey says is true. You see morph whay you are saying isnt wrong. Man doesn't HAVE to fight or argue. But man always WILL. Something that has gone forever no matter where you look or what your beliefs are. For christians the prime example is Cain and Abel.
For those who do not believe in the Bible, turn to any of the first recorded History and you will see it. To give my own country as an example. Truth be told it was only a little over 2 decades ago my country last experienced violent conflict. People were displeased with the obvious corruption of the government at the time. But the politcal leader had taken control of the elections. So revolutionaries fought a battle to overthrow the govenrment. Several conflicts litter the past of MY own country. An island no bigger than 400 square km.
The main problem with what your saying is this. I wont go as far as Whiskey did in his descroption of man, but the point remains the same you can try to unite all the people, but someone is gonna have to lead. People will always fight over positions of power. You can claim we dont need money, but barter doesnt and hasnt worked. Maybe if the desire for more than enough wasnt part of human nature then maybe it would work but it wont.
This, I even have a decent example...
For me at least, When I was in middle school (grades 6-8) I thought homework was terrible and took wayyyy too much time I was extremely unhappy with any homework I was assigned even if it was only 30 minutes. Later in highschool, when I was assigned 4+ hours of homework I realized how little homework 30 minutes was and every day that I got only 30 minutes of homework I was ridiculously happy. In that case I was only happy with the 30 minutes of homework because I knew how bad it could really be.
On this subject, I know of an American project that will allow humans to regenerate lost limbs. It uses the attributes of some reptiles and amphibians to allow humans to grow back flesh, bone and skin in the same way that a lizard would if it lost its tail. This is being developed as a military project primarily due to the number of soldiers debilitated by IEDs, which was how I found out about it, seeing as I'm interested in joining the army. One soldier who lost several of his fingers has allowed himself to be a test subject, and the finger being used is already growing back.
But imagine that. The ability to regenerate damaged tissue. Imagine the good you could achieve. If you were to look at the disease that has physically debilitated Steven Hawking, and then think that future sufferers of this could have their nerves regrown. People who have been crippled could be allowed to move like they could before.
But then imagine the problems. With the army it's a different story, as it would be as part of the job. A repayment for the fighting, and of course the government wouldn't want all the money spent training a soldier to be lost if they can't fight. In this case, the process would only be available to those who genuinely needed it and were in the army. It could also be released as a state-funded project that helped those who needed it, and no more. However, how do you define those who needed it? A soldier loses a leg: It's a lost limb, and it isn't natural to lose a limb, so you should probably grow it back. A 96 year old suffers a heart problem: It could be in some way replaced or repaired to be a healthier heart, but should you? If we keep repairing body parts, couldn't we live for ever? The old would continue to live off of the young's money indefinitely, unless the regeneration project went private, in which case, only the rich could live lengthened lives like this.
Tough choices I know. I would really like to see this project go through, as it would be a real comfort if I was in the army to know that losing a leg would be a reversable process, and it would be good to see that those already debilitated by the Taliban's less-than-clean methods of murder can return to a normal life.
No, I don't think we would be able to live forever. Even my most wildestly optimistic dreams/ideas would create a human lifespan of ~100,000 years; but that's about it. With a BCI, you could download all your knowledge, experience, memories for future generations to learn from. Some believe that the sum of a person is there memories and experiences, but that's only part of it. Each and everyone is different at birth.
I didn't know about that project; I'll add it to my list of ideas to explore in SF writing (others include=does sentient AI have a "soul", and does it even need one; the extreme wrongness of theocracy in the modern world, and some others). But if current trends continue, by the time such a thing is heavily widespread, my guess is people would have lifespans of several centuries on average.
Additionally, what if the method of dealing with player death in the popular MMORPG game EVE:Online actually becomes feasible; not only that, but economically viable and the subject retains all memories/experiences. If you're unfamiliar with the player-death mechanism in EVE, it's something like this- your ship gets blown up, and you end up in a "pod"; if this pod is destroyed you die and then respawn in a station you have a clone in (clones must be updated regularly so that upon player death skillpoints aren't lost).
Probably the biggest thing however, is the ethical and religious impact; will "normal", unmodified people fear those who have undergone DNA-enhancement, allowing lost limbs to be regrown, DNA to recover on it's own from the effects of radiation damage, enhanced vision spectrum, hearing, sense of smell/touch/taste, improved reflexes/responses? Will they consider them to be "abhumans"/"meta-humans"? Or are they still human?
Incidentally, this brings me to another idea I was going to explore in the SF I'm working on intermittently- if an ancient race of highly advanced humans genetically experimented and blended human genetics with other non-sentient or even sentient life, would those beings be human, or not? They do have a common genetic origin; religiously speaking, the presumably still have souls. But are they human or not? I personally think so on the grounds that the clinical definition of human (IMO) is "a sentient being with a genetic ancestry that can be traced back to humankind". Or at least something along those lines.
"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war..."
i want to live forever but the universe is going to end but we don't know when yet.
I never answered this before, I actually didn't notice it. I'm not sure why it would list them as "Blood Marines"; you are probably referring to a specific chapter of Space Marines. I'm guessing Blood Ravens (featured in the Dawn of War games) or the Blood Angels.
/begin Warhammer 40,000 history lesson (NOTE: all the "his glorious name"/"his angels of death" is 40k atmosphere, and what the Imperium of Man believes. Just part of the background!)/
So, the Space Marines were created by the God-Emperor of Man. They were His Angels of Death, His elite warrior-monks; when the normal men and women of the Imperial Army could not prevail, the Emperor's Chosen would arrive, bringing death to His enemies in His glorious name. The Space Marines were led by the 20 (or was it 12? can't remember) Primarchs; each Primarch is the son of the Emperor (no idea how that happened TBH). Each Primarch led an entire legion of Space Marines; many great warriors under the command of one man.
But in the Horus Heresy, when the God-Emperor's most trusted warrior, Horus, betrayed him, and turned to the Chaos Gods, some of the Primarchs turned and sided with Horus; a great and bloody war broke out. In the end Horus was defeated, but at great cost- the God-Emperor Himself was mortally wounded, and entombed in the Golden Throne; He is daily sacrificed a thousand psykers so that He may never truely die.
Because of the great power one man could wield in the form of a Space Marine legion, the legions were broken into smaller groups, known as Chapters. Each Chapter is composed of a thousand men, and is each a self-sufficient army capable of causing great loss to the enemy. Thus, were the Chapters of the Space Marines, the God-Emperor's Chosen, formed.
/end lesson/
EDIT: CRAP!! Why did I forget this, at the most important time!
"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war..."
Here; let me show you all something.
| 
Now: Answer honestly: Which half is normal and which half is weird?
Xer0 \^/
Neither and Both. Much like Shroedinger's Cat; now we must wait for the Quantum Wavefunction to collapse.
This same kind of thing happend to Yahtzee, of Zero Punctuation (google it and/or "The Escapist Magazine", a video game reviewer (Yahtzee RARELY complements a game; and he's always impartial). To be precise, it was his Xbox360, which existed in a "bricked/not bricked" state before finally frying. He then says that he'll have to re-review Halo 3 by playing it in/with a microwave.
"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war..."
Right.
Continuing with the questionnaire:
|
Now: Which half do you consider yourself a part of?
"To the heart and mind... ignorance is kind."
Xer0 \^/
I have a question.
What do you guys think is more dependable
Hard Work or Natural Ability
Hard work. Doesn't matter if you have a talent if you're too lazy to use it.
Neither and Both simultaneously.
Neither is worth anything if the person in question is not willing to render aid.
How true.
Hard work, but I both favor and have Natural Ability.
In a group, it's hard work, but alone, it can depend.
I actually took a personality test to determine my future career oppourtunities in Civics on Friday. According to it, I am a
1. Thinker, who
- enjoys working alone
- enjoys thinking thru his own problems
- prefers to work alone
- and is inventive and original
and 2. A Persuader, who
- enjoys leading others
- responds well to competition and challenges
- willing to take risks
- values status, power, money and material possessions
- and is ambitious and energetic.
In summary: It said I was born to lead others, yet work alone...
Anyway, Hard work is more dependable, yet Natural Ability is more valuable. (To me, anyway)
"To the heart and mind, ignorance is kind"
Xer0 \^/
Ifear: Can you take the questionnaire?
1: Which half is normal and which is wierd? |
2: Which half are you a part of? |
3: Why do you think that the halves are seperate in the first place?
Xer0 \^/
Well actually I thin we can, as long as my culture is the one everyone lives by cause that other culture is brutal and opressive... oh wait thats what they think too...
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Sins Forums
Demigod Forums
Stardock Forums