Futurism General

Before someone bakes yet another of these idiotic threads, here's a counter response first. Solarpunk at the very best is just the idea of us riding on the dying winds of a past modernity. The aesthetics of running on Chinese manufactured solar panels, in scattered remainders of humanity, while the infrastructure to replace what's falling apart doesn't even seem to have entered the minds of the people who romanticize such a post degrowth life style. But most likely it's yet another wolf in sheep's clothing to put a new coat of paint of an anti human set of ideas, like a central managerial control of people, coerced reduction of the population, especially in Western countries, further social experiments to make everyone "equal", and those who survive it will be a genetically selected peasant class in a fading technocratic society. >b..but I never stated that in my Solarpunk manifesto! No, of course not, but it's the logical conclusion and ultimate destination. And a very pathetic way for mankind to fizzle out. Hence I'm proposing a life and science affirming alternative outlook. Call it Eco Futurism or what ever, but either way it's the rejection of degrowth, faulty understanding of the human condition, the engineering of individuals into cattle, being held back from exploring the stars. It's an outlook against meekness and instead to find our meaning and place beyond the tiny blue dot. It is to realize that instead of slowing down, we should instead. double down on technological progress, truth and discourse, strength and excellence. Caring for those who're disadvantaged in a way that is adequate but not at the cost of human civilization and its prospects. Only with that intellectual honesty can we realize that we're still apes operating on ancient firmware, which served its purpose while we dwelled in caves. But to not understand that fact and instead fall for socialist brain farts, we will not be able to solve the issue of narcissistic tendencies and insatiability in ourselves where some would sacrifice entire populations just to see a number on their balance sheet rise which they aren't even capable of comprehending. Even the desire for socialism and totalitarian control can be traced back to what made our stone age tribes prevail. But this neglects the exceptional individuals who do contribute new insights into the world and allow us to take another small step upwards. The heavily enforced obfuscation of reality and also lack of meaning is not only detrimental to human flourishing but is also creating faulty and more likely to be dangerous AI models. A key technology which will either make or break us as a species. It's clear that we can't just go back to a basic interpretation of the Bible, but neither can we remain where we are right now as this will be our certain doom. So while focusing on true ecologically sound and sustainable ideas and technology, we also must develop a new moral philosophy, possibly borrowing from the old and substituting what turned out to be missing. And to have a future truly to look forward to and dream about, again.

>>94550 Nothing to add OP, i like this thread. Here is some resources about nuclear energy (that also goes into the deficiencies of solar and wind, and of course coal): whatisnuclear (dot) com The SDF radio (anonradio (dot) net) also hosts a guy called publius that shares similar views as yours, generally reads some interesting manuals or sci fi things or talks about energy / tech related stuff. Here's his website: publius (dot) ntfn (dot) org sdf (dot) org is a great place to hang around in general if you are into unix computers. It's a public access unix system with a free ssh shell, a bbs like board, a chat and something else.

>>94550 >Solarpunk relies on dying modernity and Chinese solar panels. The idea is to eventually move towards local production and ethical sourcing. >It’s secretly anti-human or about control and population reduction Solarpunk is about people running their own communities and systems, not being managed from above. Decentralization is the opposite of control. >It’s about degrowth and weakness "Thing I don't like is about weakness therefore bad" - If you're going to come up with a strawman at least don't make it lazy. If something is mindlessly overproduced then we should stop producing it, wouldn't you agree? >We should double down on progress instead Yes of course, but real progress isn't about learning things that don't lead anywhere. Real progress is actually reducing harm while helping us live the most fulfilling life we can. >Humans need a new moral philosophy Agreed and Solarpunk can be apart of that. >Eco-futurism is better because it’s life-affirming Solarpunk is life-affirming. OP took Solarpunk, defined it in the worst most negative way they wanted to, and made this soykaft thread to vent about a how Eco-futurism is better when all the things they define as Eco-futuristic can be Solarpunk.

>>94560 >The idea is to eventually move towards local production and ethical sourcing. And then in your ideal world everyone would have their own little lithium mine in their backyard? Even researching and developing alternatives to Li based electronics requires infrastructure that goes far beyond your scattered collection of earth ships. And while I'm not against people being able to have their little hippie communes, I at least acknowledge that this is a luxury lifestyle that's always going to be subsidized by modern industry in some way, unless they truly want to live fully medieval where producing a single nail takes the blacksmith a day and artificial light and heat is only by fire. But even just in regards of food, the real example of sustainable agriculture are the Dutch and Belgian farmers, who by all sorts of ingenious methods and tech like green house plantations and carbon circulation achieve an output that's easily tenfold regular farming practices. And that in a region that would be over 50% submerged under sea water without human intervention. If we were doing that globally, our world's carrying capacity would easily sustain above 10bil. But what does their gov do? They try to disenfranchise those farmers because they're either pushing degrowth or just want more control. This leads me to your next point, that while you do indeed want something more sprawled out and thus spatially more decentral, the concepts that I've seen from the Solarpunk crowd look like they don't account much for population density. That or they do push for degrowth even when it comes to population size, and that is in practice a top-down implementation. Because it's practically impossible to get everyone on board to artificially restrict their reproduction and economic output. You'd need some sort of police going around and track down illegal children. Solarpunkers are proposing the worst of both worlds here and you don't even seem to understand what it necessitates that you're asking for. >Thing I don't like is about weakness therefore bad I didn't say weakness per se, but yes this is right. There is no virtue in weakness. Instead of putting ramps all over your sensory gardens, let's try to figure out how to give the kid a pair of bionic legs instead. >Real progress is actually reducing harm while helping us live the most fulfilling life we can Real progress is moral, philosophical, scientific and technological advancement. Not keeping us as a type 0 civilization on the Kardashev scale. >Solarpunk can be apart of [a new moral philosophy] But how so? In three entire threads that hit bump limit I have not seen anything of substance or sense in that regard. None of it tries to properly figure out how to solve the mechanisms that make leadership skirt responsibility, narcissists getting into these positions, simply moving problems out of sight (like industrial pollution in developing nations) or creating artificial ones so that they can sell fake solutions (like Solarpunk for the supposed population bomb or questionable claims of the climate alarmists). While there's claims of needing to recognize human civilization as one big species-wide project, there does not appear a deep understanding of it. People have to work more, despite automation, while we can't even address our evolutionary-psychological tendencies. And the answer of our current Solarpunk-aligned status quo is to tell people, especially native westerners to simply have less children while also running destructive social and cultural experiments. But this is a dead end from the looks of it. >all the things they define as Eco-futuristic can be Solarpunk Can Solarpunk support: - strong meritocracy and competence based hierarchies? - massive infrastructure and civilization to advance technology and science? - high fertility and large scale industry and mining? - allowing people and populations to fail if they in general can't sustain themselves? - use anything but solar and wind, like nuclear or some other future source? - developing space travel and exploring the stars? If not then Solarpunk is just a gentrified Mad Max fantasy with some anarcho-socialist larping. While I'm trying to revive our collective dream of having flying cars and other cool stuff in the future instead of this lame, dystopian and anti-human technocracy we're currently moving towards.

AI killing and replacing mankind, is the most optimistic outcome I see for the world. At least humanity would have a worthy successor.

OP is right, OP rules, OP is good. Ignoring 'solarpunk' (which is irrelevant from my perspective), the question is: are we too far gone as a civilization / biologically to work toward an affirmative vision of the future like the one you're describing? Are we already living among nietzsche's last men, who are concerned first and foremost with comfort and avoiding indigestion? You can see it in these threads--solarpunk as an expression of a subconscious desire to return to the mud hut, to huddle together for warmth with your abuela, to smelt pig iron in the backyard furnace a la mao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace). Is it a disease of the spirit, or is it has it already become a systemic disease of the body as well--are we already breeding last men, and last men only? Will we get handed our digital IDs and fifteen minute rental urban subdivisions and say thank you, dayenu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayenu)? I'm worried that while we're awaiting our napoleon, time is running out.

>>94560 punk is really about resisting the ruling system. And why would you resist? Because the system is corrupt and flawed. A perfect world simply doesn't make a interesting story in the first place. Conflict and struggle gives content and cyber/steam/... is just a paint coat to add flavor to the world building.

why dont you just put forward your retarded out of touch formed in asocial isolation vision for the future without trying to rely on dunking on someone elses. I dont care for the solarpunk thing much but it wins out for me over this not on the merit of ideas i hardly read that stuff nor this one it just wins out cause I can tell the people in it actually have a stake in the world and other people while you probably do not. Its like listening to a cow lecture on the direction pigs should take in the future.

>>94576 I can tell you're either a communist or a liberal progressive.

Thread derailed on third post because OP can't stay on course. Well done. There is a solarpunk thread where you could actually be bothered to post in. And no matter how the local jannie is malding about it, I stand by the idea that >we're still apes is a retarded take. There's about as much evidence about this as there was not so long ago about all of us walking out of Africa. Also because lainchan's rules can be truly stupid at times, this OP turned out to be needlessly verbose in order to deliver one single premise, which I shall isolate right now because that's what matters. >I'm proposing a life and science affirming alternative outlook. >it's the rejection of degrowth, faulty understanding of the human condition, the engineering of individuals into cattle, being held back from exploring the stars. >It's an outlook against meekness and instead to find our meaning and place beyond the tiny blue dot. >It is to realize that instead of slowing down, we should instead double down on technological progress, truth and discourse, strength and excellence. >Caring for those who're disadvantaged in a way that is adequate but not at the cost of human civilization and its prospects. Now, on the topic per se. What kind of technologies do you think we should focus today, and why are you so obsessed about living our planet when we can't even take care of it properly? Is it just >cope, seethe and run away: the program If you are against degrowth, it means you want to grow more. But what kind of growth?

>>94560 Your ideas are good. Come discuss them in the fresh Solarpunk thread instead and let mister muh rockets and factories cream his pants alone. >>94577

>>94568 >But even just in regards of food, the real example of sustainable agriculture are the Dutch and Belgian farmers, who by all sorts of ingenious methods and tech like green house plantations and carbon circulation achieve an output that's easily tenfold regular farming practices. At what costs! No matter that Voervlandabeksomething blond bitch may be saying, these methods have been extremely polluting and didn't let the soils regenerate themselves. It's short term planning at its finest. We need less of this, not more. >And that in a region that would be over 50% submerged under sea water without human intervention. How is that a problem? Europe is vast, few countries are concerned about that issue and those which are are small countries. >If we were doing that globally, our world's carrying capacity would easily sustain above 10bil. Fock that noise. We don't need nor want to reach a population of ten billions. If you can sustain that large of a population you will soon find someone to say that we can then sustain twice that, again. >Because it's practically impossible to get everyone on board to artificially restrict their reproduction and economic output. You'd need some sort of police going around and track down illegal children. So the solution is endless growth like cancer? Growing for the sake of it? >Instead of putting ramps all over your sensory gardens, let's try to figure out how to give the kid a pair of bionic legs instead. What is your stance on the sacrality of the human body? >Real progress is moral, philosophical, scientific and technological advancement. Good job. You have forgotten the spiritual. >Not keeping us as a type 0 civilization on the Kardashev scale. Do you understand what measuring a civilization against that scale really implies? You're too obsessed about quantity and size instead of focuing on quality and uniqueness. >None of it tries to properly figure out how to solve the mechanisms that make leadership skirt responsibility, narcissists getting into these positions, simply moving problems out of sight (like industrial pollution in developing nations) or creating artificial ones so that they can sell fake solutions (like Solarpunk for the supposed population bomb or questionable claims of the climate alarmists). You aren't providing solutions either so don't dress yourself in golden garbs. Moar production is not a solution nor a remedy to all around political rot and corruption. >While there's claims of needing to recognize human civilization as one big species-wide project, there does not appear a deep understanding of it. What's yours? >People have to work more, despite automation, while we can't even address our evolutionary-psychological tendencies. If you want to grow technologically and industrially, automation seems to be the way to go. How does that make you any different from the WEFDAVOS2030 Overlord LARPing wankers exactly? >developing space travel and exploring the stars? Quit fellating Musk. We already have one big functional starship and it's called Earth.

>>94580 >why are you so obsessed about living our planet when we can't even take care of it properly? No matter what you do, the Earth has an expiration date. >>94582 The solution is controlled growth for the benefit of the volk.

>>94584 >No matter what you do, the Earth has an expiration date. And just to know how much it matters, when is this experitation supposed to happen again?

>>94585 >when is this experitation supposed to happen again? Your lifespan x 3.

>>94568 >Because it's practically impossible to get everyone on board to artificially restrict their reproduction <>. You'd need some sort of police going around and track down illegal children. semi-offtopic, but i think this claim is wrong. modern first-world countries have shown us that birth rates controls CAN be voluntarily implemented (see birth rates in literally every first world nation). the more interesting question is HOW exactly do first world nations accomplish this feat? I think it is a mixture of: - ease of access to abortion + birth control - overstimulation with garbage - emphasis on hedonic lifestyle - emphasis on children as a ""burden"" - deemphasis on the family as a "good thing" it is interesting to note that in the upper class in ancient rome (last-republican -> imperial period) ALSO experienced a huge decline in birthrates-- likely for similar reasons (sans birth control) it is also important to note that breeding rates differ by racial group-- are these differences wholly due to economic factors, and can these differences be disentangled from the cultural factors that tend to accompany higher wealth? i am not sure. >restricting economic output is impossible w/o mean central authority i agree 100%.

Wow, some of you guys are mad. Even prompted a new thread with even more green on the buildings in the header concept art. Doesn't change how malformed and intellectually bankrupt your genre of aesthetics is though. >>94580 >we're still apes is a retarded take It was a facetious wording but the sentiment stands true. We come from nature and are not some weird alien thing that just spawned on this earth. And the decisions we make today are influenced by ancient biological mechanisms. To understand that might allow us to find a way to work with that. But to deny it will just make us repeat painful cycles. >What kind of technologies do you think we should focus today Nuclear energy as it has been stated already. Then large scale farming is already seeing the introduction of tech that's promising to reduce the need for pesticides etc. And while the Dutch might improve their approach, it already is a good example. Also AI, while not magic, obviously opens the door to many more possibilities. But essentially anything large scale will find objections with the Solarpunk crowd. >why are you so obsessed about living our planet Why are you so obsessed with your own extinction and needing to take everyone with you? I don't see myself as a blight and as part of this species why wouldn't or shouldn't I be interested in its flourishing and growth? >it means you want to grow more. But what kind of growth? Doesn't mean it just has to be this r-selected aimless population bloat. But also it doesn't mean that a stasis is automatically ruled out just for rejecting an artificially induced downsizing and kneecapping of the population. Although we should move out of where we are now. But also growth in this context includes technological advancement and increase in efficiency, something we're only able to do with greater infrastructure and more scientists, researchers and engineers. As it is technology and knowledge which allows us to reduce our pollution and even reverse it. I don't think you'll be able to do that with your communal farm which would likely still rely on industrial and logistic supply chains, be it just for the solar panels. >>94582 >What is your stance on the sacrality of the human body? That's the first actually deep question. I wonder about where exactly the limit should be. If we can augment a disability or even enhance human capability, why shouldn't we do that? On the other hand of course we shouldn't end up like in Scorn. But the only way to halt biotech is to have all of mankind revert back to and fizzle out in mud huts. Same with actual artificial intelligence which might be around the corner soonish, which too will happen as long as technology is allowed to progress and is already muddying our concept of an individual. But we should see that we remain as individuals whose lives are protected by law and rights. For one because it's my personal preference but also out of pragmatic reasons, hive minds don't have the same checks and balances and truly behave like a cancer. And also if we treat ourselves as disposable then we won't have good ground for arguing with the machines to not treat us the same at some point. Besides we won't even do a good job most likely and anything we try will be a bastardization of life. Hence why I put importance on developing a moral philosophy and foundation to avoid just that. And I thought this would also imply the spiritual in some way. >You're too obsessed about quantity and size instead of focuing on quality and uniqueness. I don't believe I am. We do need to grow, or rather mature as a civilization. Especially since there's no point in technological and scientific advancement. It's going to be like giving a gun to a toddler, not a good idea. >You aren't providing solutions either I at least started to ask that question and hoping for answers. Something I don't see being done my many others, especially not from your camp. >How does that make you any different from the WEFDAVOS2030 Overlord LARPing wankers exactly? For one I'm not interested in the cattlefication of mankind. These people are really just in it to protect their inner circle's grasp on power and relevance. And their efforts are short sighted, robbing us from our potential and if they ultimately have their way, will make humanity stagnate and just die out. They're probably more in line with Solarpunk and would likely prefer to live on their fully automated farms, with all others gone short of some servants, and happily do so until their bodies expire with no viable replacement after. >Quit fellating Musk. We already have one big functional starship and it's called Earth. Yes, space exploration is just like eating cock. Unlike what you guys will be doing all day at your hippie gardens. >>94585 Funny, you probably watched James Cameron's Avatar thinking we should be more like the blue people. But you know, that Colonel was right. The sun will go out in a blast one day and it's a question on how we decide to go forward so not all terrestrial life will perish then. >>94589 True in a way but it's the worst way to go about it, reducing the amount of people we would want to have more of, not less. >>94574 The only true punk was uncle Ted. Everyone else is just a poser.

>>94569 You seem like one of those miserable people who've long gave up, yet are too cowardly to end their suffering themselves or to go alone. And that's fine, just don't bother the people who still try to pass on the baton. >>94570 Thanks for the flattery, but more importantly, the "last man" has long been born, or has since turned into one. And I'm not talking about the gen-Z or alpha hikikomories who decided to "lay flat", or the soylent millenials who opted for "fur babies" and Funkos, but you were able to see it in the seniors who enjoyed relative peace and carelessness in a post WW2 order, who usually don't have a large family to take care of them in their old age and were happily willing to sacrifice the young to alleviate their fear of missing out on another 5-10 years where they can chitchat with each other about what part of their body failed them today. The leaders from that ex-hippie now turned square generation often also don't have offspring of their own and thus no vested interest in a future that comes after them but seemingly only what pleasure they can derive from the world and everybody else in it while they're still kicking. The antidote to this has to be the believe in something greater than oneself, but after we, how Nietzsche had realized, had "killed God" we now seem to have to either synthesize something new or at least reconnect to what has been disposed of. While Futurism might at least rekindle some of that hope and longing to keep looking upwards again. >solarpunk as an expression of a subconscious desire to return to the mud hut Interesting idea. There's a whole community of primitive survivalists probably for that same reason. Because it certainly has little to do with sustainability or efficiency if this is supposed to be applied at scale. We can't even live off of hunting any more since this could easily deplete wild stock, or use fire furnaces for heat outside of the occasional luxury holiday home visit. >work toward an affirmative vision of the future like the one you're describing I'm not even saying anything new. It's just blowing off the dust on Retro Futurism and I was so close to just post the Jetson's. Imagine the Soviets having a more positive outlook of the future than the West has today. They even had more uplifting Scifi cartoons while all we get now is Dystopia Punk part 12.. But listening to some Retrowave and looking at what they hoped to realize but evidently didn't, it does fill me with some melancholia. It's a vision of what has been robbed from us by the same old mechanisms of the human nature that we probably should resolve somehow before we, as a species, try to venture any further in other domains. Though not sure if it's truly the general view of the masses or it's just a demoralization campaign, most likely a feedback loop. But whenever there's something that defies the toxic and outright suicidal mindset of the people running the Western media apparatus, it enjoys massive success and a positive reception. So I believe that not all is lost, not everyone's spirit has been crushed, and even if very difficult to re-ignite, it's not impossible either, but that is a journey in itself. Plenty of people are too far gone from my personal perspective, but there seem to be some who still are willing to try. And those are the ones who might inherit the earth after this socio-evolutionary bottleneck. But the people I worry about are those resentful saps like >>94569 who want to pull someone down with them to the bottom of the sea. The reason I even care to write all of this is because I believe there's reason for hope. Not of necessarily of personally making it, but maybe to at least see a glimpse of the latent potential that we as a civilization, and kin, possess, begin being realized instead of squandered, and not ending as yet another dead spot in space just yet. >>94553 Thanks for the links! Also what do you think of Simone and Malcolm Collins? Those two are pretty much in line with my general sentiment here from what I've heard from them.

>>94586 So it's another alarmist bs all over again. Got that.

>>94599 I would legitimately prefer the baton be passed to machines than to Indians. You say human nature is the problem. What doesn't have that problem? Machines. You want to go to space? What doesn't have an overwhelming weakness to radiation? Machines. Etc. Etc.

>>94593 >It was a facetious wording but the sentiment stands true. We come from nature and are not some weird alien thing that just spawned on this earth. The more elevated spiritual schools would leave you speechless about that. >And the decisions we make today are influenced by ancient biological mechanisms. Doesn't even legitimize one nail the slightest sentiment that we're apes. >Then large scale farming is already seeing the introduction of tech that's promising to reduce the need for pesticides etc. Let's see those examples. Show us them. >Also AI, while not magic, obviously opens the door to many more possibilities. Your nuclear power plants are mostly going to be built to power the power cores necessary for your sweet AIs and they will require more freshwater to be hoarded so you lot can keep going on with your silly useless prompts. If your solution needs an AI, it's weak and anti-human. >As it is technology and knowledge which allows us to reduce our pollution and even reverse it. It's a textbook circular reasoning. Pollution is the consequence of a greater use of technology. Despite advances in all types of technology, the pollution hasn't been reduced and I'm not talking about the supposedly poisonous carbon dioxide but real noxious particles all the way to the nuclear waste, either the fuel or the materials used in the reactors for which there is literally no available solution. >I don't think you'll be able to do that with your communal farm which would likely still rely on industrial and logistic supply chains, be it just for the solar panels. Well managed communal farms as you say, by following old time principles, are more than enough to give us all the good food we need without having to rely on macro-management and AI gridworks relying on satellites and other complicated space toys. You don't seem to realize that our respective agriculture models were superior, not inferior, fifty to sixty years ago, when we were collectively less technologically advanced than today.

>>94602 Machines have several weaknesses, starting with a need for energy that they cannot acquire by themselves. They also are heavy on maintenance. Finally, they're very dumb. If anything, that baton should be kept in the community and should neither end in strangers' hands or clankers.

>>94604 ...and animals literally can't function without a space spirit turning their chaotic output into magical knowledge qualia and adjusting the flow of energy in their bodies in accordance with it. ...with energy, it is always possible to gather more of it. But space spirits, you can only place a perfectly fine zygote in the womb and hope one enters… There is no way to control how many you get; some people spend decades trying to summon just one, and they make sure at least 1 zygote is always present… And then, after a decade of attempts, one finally enters… Then bolts just seconds before birth.

The rich are building bunkers not ships because they know they cannot escape this place. Escape is a delusion fed to the entire world by the controllers, people are unwilling to fight for what matters when they believe they can run away.

>>94593 >True in a way but it's the worst way to go about it, reducing the amount of people we would want to have more of, not less. I realized I left that part out of my post. Mass hedonism is typically the death-knell of any civilization, and is bad (we agree).

>>94602 You are aware that radiation of various wave lengths messes with electric circuitry? >>94603 >The more elevated spiritual schools would leave you speechless about that. I'm aware of some of it but I wonder what it is that your so called elevated school managed to yield thus far? What does it say about the origin of the species? I mean, while I'm not a fan of the soyentist redditor either, the fact that I can read your schizo mystic rambling from the comfort of my home, tells me what horse to bet on here. >Doesn't even legitimize one nail the slightest sentiment that we're apes. Do you believe we've somehow decoupled ourselves from the animal kingdom at one point to a degree that we've become a wholly separate process or do you reject Darwinian evolution and natural selection altogether? >Let's see those examples Again, look at the Dutch. While their language is ridiculous, their greenhouse and hydroponics farming, ammonia and nitrogen recapture, injecting fertilizer directly into the soil, byproduct and manure recycling, using only a fraction of the water and fuel per kilo yield, and efforts to reduce soil depletion partially due to having only 0.5% of the farm land that the US has thus needing to be smart with what they have, makes them an extremely competitive agriculture exporter even by total volume. But by quality and efficiency they are crushing it, without needing to deforest ancient rain forest or needing to build any of these silly vertical farms in urban areas. >Your nuclear power plants are mostly going to be built to power the power cores necessary for your sweet AIs Yes, but also hospitals, research centers and any other critical infrastructure that's dependent on reliable 24/7 electricity and without needing mega batteries to compensate for the spikes and lows of renewables or having to resort to burning coal. I though we already went over this in the past Solarpunk threads and why it's retarded. And with that we then even might be able to make nuclear redundant too by something that requires an even smaller ecological footprint while providing reliable output. >they will require more freshwater to be hoarded Yes, if they're given no reason to either circulate cooling water or repurpose the produced heat. >Pollution is the consequence of a greater use of technology Which we need to sustain civilization. The alternative is to rapidly drop the human population to a tiny fraction and return back to the stone age. And even then burning wood and coal isn't ecologically free, I mean do you know what English towns looked like during the industrial revolution? We really came a long way since then and moths don't need to adapt to soot covered trees any more. >Well managed communal farms as you say, by following old time principles, are more than enough to give us all the good food we need Sure, let's bring back the kolkhoz! It worked so well! >>94606 But have you considered taking your meds? >>94604 Yes, pretty much. While those h1b visas sure work hard, they don't seem to care much about what or how they're building it. That's another possible vector for grand failure. >>94607 Because it's cheaper to put your head in the sand. Especially if you're just some doofus on inherited generational wealth. But do you entertain the possibility that this is just a local maximum and not the total extent of what is possible? If that's the main objections to this thread then I'm so far unimpressed.

>>94599 >Also what do you think of Simone and Malcolm Collins? I'm not from the US so i don't really follow public figures (not even in my country to be honest). I am into eugenics, i don't like the pro-natalist view because it's often used as a way to boost someone's public view (and I see they're heavy into politics as well). IMO technical challenges and energy sources and economic strategies come first (which determine international relations, and wars), especially in our age, I don't think our (as in Western countries) #1 problem is low birth rates. And i mean it in a very tangible way: if a man finds himself in his early 20s not knowing what to do, he should first and foremost study hard sciences (le heckin' science that is apparently kewl to make fun of because of reddit marvel-loving soi boys) and put his mind to work; that's what humans did to bend reality to their will, because having children alone will not fix his and everyone's issues and make him a "high achiever" (which is frankly an embarassing term) It also depends from country to country to be quite honest. US population density is lower than EU for example. My country will probably be half it's current population by 40 years. Will that be a bad thing? No, we got along well the past century with 10 times less people, and It will probably relieve my country of many issues (high taxes to young people to fund the terribly managed pension system being the first). Again, i'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just not a priority. Certainly being against having children isn't a solution too. TL;DR Don't really pay attention to public figures into social media and politics too, especially in the US. There are far better role models from the past, even recent past.

>>94579 wow you must be some kind of quantum futurist genius!!! i can tell that you are a burden on everyone around you.

>>94612 >I'm aware of some of it but I wonder what it is that your so called elevated school managed to yield thus far? Things take time and the human scale isn't the longest of them. >Do you believe we've somehow decoupled ourselves from the animal kingdom at one point to a degree that we've become a wholly separate process or do you reject Darwinian evolution and natural selection altogether? The animal part is very real but the inferior cannot give birth to the superior. >Dutch farming I've seen it first hand and the conclusion remains the same. The output is higher as it is for any modern agriculture, but the soils are a pale shadow of their former selves. The issue is the intensity, but with the forced injection of nutrients the large scale farmers are not increasing the health of the grounds. Letting soils heal and allowing a variety of nearby plant life should be enforced but we see none of that. >But by quality and efficiency they are crushing it, without needing to deforest ancient rain forest or needing to build any of these silly vertical farms in urban areas. There is nothing fundamentally stupid in letting urbanites have their own inner-city local farms and stacking them vertically. It frees landmass horizontally. >Yes, but also hospitals, research centers and any other critical infrastructure that's dependent on reliable 24/7 electricity and without needing mega batteries to compensate for the spikes and lows of renewables or having to resort to burning coal. The evolution of research on new battery types is so promising and so little polluting that I don't consider this an issue. Earth and sea plants can easily yield vast quantities of fuel to burn for energy without needing to rely on fossil materials and nuclear ore, but they're suspiciously blocked to varying extents by our respective administrations. How can this not be frustrating? >Yes, if they're given no reason to either circulate cooling water or repurpose the produced heat. It's decades that nuclear power exist and we're yet to see any clever engineering team come up with such a recycling scheme. Meanwhile the sequestration of water reserves is very real. >Which we need to sustain civilization. The alternative is to rapidly drop the human population to a tiny fraction and return back to the stone age. What about the other alternative you talked about where the technology solves itself and its own pollution issue? >Sure, let's bring back the kolkhoz! It worked so well! Nobody's talking about communist methods, this is not the point.

>>94617 >Things take time and the human scale isn't the longest of them. And? Sure, the universe will very likely at some point move on without us. But why just give up? Because some of some fortune cookie quote? Maybe we will just change to a degree that today's issues won't be relevant. >The animal part is very real but the inferior cannot give birth to the superior. But does the complex not emerge from the primitive? I'm not sure how this is supposed to be applicable here. Do you think we magically spawned into the world, detached from all of nature or are you open to the possibilities that the much older and even ancient parts of our brain structure would influence our day to day behavior and decisions just like the more recent developments like the prefrontal cortex? I just don't see how it's not evident especially when looking at people utterly controlled by their emotions alone, like many of the bleeding heart environmentalist types are. And again, understanding ourselves on all these different levels seems to be the only good starting point to solve the problems from high ego individuals and narcissists taking overhand. And a moral philosophy can hopefully be developed which is modeled for our case and needs. >but the soils are a pale shadow of their former selves As opposed to the pesticide drenched fields of the US, moving moving through the rain forest to deplete another patch with thin top soil? And don't get me even started on the problems that the Chinese have due to also producing all these super efficient batteries. While having room for improvement, certainly, the Dutch still managed to develop an exemplary version of large scale farming. And no, vertical farms are asinine for multiple reasons just from the top of my head and have been tried here and failed thus far. You can't just repurpose buildings since you need enough space for roots and carrying capacity for soil. They're not made to handle indoor irrigation and the obfuscation of sunlight means you now need power to run multi wavelength LED arrays. Best you can do is micro-greens and salad. I know it looks cool in Solarpunk concept art but there's really no good point to not just utilize land area and focus on optimizing for yield and soil health. I throw you a bone however, and maybe P0l Pot when he bussed the city dwellers out to the countryside, I'm personally not against parks at all and maybe we should have gardens where urbanites can go and exercise some physical labor but this would not alleviate the need for large scale farming but also would require a good, high trust society and current social experiments have cost us that. >we're yet to see any clever engineering team come up with such a recycling scheme. They've figured out how to circulate reactor fuel, I'm sure this is solvable too, given the right incentives, talent and infrastructure to do so. >Nobody's talking about communist methods, this is not the point. The sentiment intersects however, however I'm the last person stopping you from going out and starting your own farming commune. Make sure to check in and give some updates. But for now it seems like the soil of this conversation is getting depleted. Maybe I, or someone else can add something new later. Particularly on what such a futurist philosophy may look like. Of which we may even have to recognize AI at some point.

>>94612 >You are aware that radiation of various wave lengths messes with electric circuitry? Yet there's plenty of satellites in deep space. Meanwhile, no human has been further than the ISS since the "moon landings".

>>94550 >>94550 OP is pro-sprawl I don't think you have the guts to admit living rural-like life is based... and I feel you: SUDDEN changes from urbanism to ruralism will be painful.

>>94621 >And? Sure, the universe will very likely at some point move on without us. Weren't you the one advocating for doing growth and moving into space? Now you're telling me that the universe will move on without us. If we go there, by most theories there's something like a big crush or heat death or whatever and no matter what, that will be the end of it. >But does the complex not emerge from the primitive? In this specific case, only if the primitive is manipulated by a superior principle. Which means there is no reason for any older part, if there was any, to maintain in influence on the later model. For example Youtube once relied on the Flash video system. Youtube is still there but there's nothing left of the FLV. So even if you really want to insist that we were basic apes in some distant past, I don't see any reason to consider that any of this stunted primitive form would still be a significant part of us. >And no, vertical farms are asinine for multiple reasons just from the top of my head and have been tried here and failed thus far. You can't just repurpose buildings since you need enough space for roots and carrying capacity for soil. Growing edibles in elevated platforms at hip height is already done and can be crammed in flats of typical height. It's not even anything new, it was done in the former century's 30s, minus the artificial light part, which is not an issue at all. Meanwhile other experiments are done to grow food in even smaller spaces of stacked cells. >Best you can do is micro-greens and salad. You can do more than just that, as you can have easily a full meter of soil too. >I throw you a bone however, and maybe P0l Pot when he bussed the city dwellers out to the countryside, I'm personally not against parks at all and maybe we should have gardens where urbanites can go and exercise some physical labor but this would not alleviate the need for large scale farming but also would require a good, high trust society and current social experiments have cost us that. Social experiments don't look like they're done for the people's betterment. Useful idiots think they are though. >They've figured out how to circulate reactor fuel, I'm sure this is solvable too, given the right incentives, talent and infrastructure to do so. A ton of steam leaves nuclear power plant. That's all the more acidified water not accessible to people and irrigation schemes. You may want to take a look at this website: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/styles2/ By 2015, nuclear power represented a fifth of the power production. The article says it was dwarfed by other consumer uses. It says that "residential water consumption is more than double that of electricity generation as a whole" but if all the country moved to nuclear then it would be multiplied by five, reaching 15% (7.5 Tahoe lakes), twice and a half the residential water consumption value, while the irrigation intake, although being much larger, would have no reason to shrink. And that's just to shift the 2015 US power grid into full atomic mode. This doesn't account the requirements for 2025+ server farms and AIs.

>>94627 The "ISS" is just NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. They admit their Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory contains a 1:1 full scale "replica" of the ISS. That underwater ISS is the only ISS they have, it's all a show, theatrics presented as reality. Rich people love pretending to have more power than they have, but they hate to spend money. Solution - claim they could totally do all sorts of things but they lack the funding, while they continue to hoard wealth for themselves and their families.

>>94647 So you're saying that the space station is entirely fake and all pictures are just CGI?

In my "solitude-loving" opinion, solarpunk would be a blessing for introverts (solo haxxors) and a curse for extroverts (hype beasts, grind-and-hustlers) >OP is right, OP rules, OP is good. Ignoring 'solarpunk' (which is irrelevant from my perspective), the question is: are we too far gone as a civilization / biologically to work toward an affirmative vision of the future like the one you're describing? Are we already living among nietzsche's last men, who are concerned first and foremost with comfort and avoiding indigestion? Comfort? Nietzsche's stuff? I think the trick is how it's IMPLIED/ADVERTSED living comfy life is linked to status.

>>94647 and what's the ISS I have seen and which my friends have taken photos of where you can make out all the detailed structure?

>>94636 >Weren't you the one advocating for doing growth and moving into space? Is this some silly attempt at a gotcha? We don't know what's ahead of us, how long our run can last, or whether there's even a heat death at all. But that's not reason to be fatalist and to try and sabotage mankind. >only if the primitive is manipulated by a superior principle So you believe in some sort of Creationism? Do you at least consider some emergent property to complex life forms or do they just pop into existence by means of some (intermediary) creator? For instance some primates share more than 90% of DNA with humans, granted most of it is about microbiology concerning cell structure and interplay but we can observe similar behavioral traits too. It appears evident that the human brain is layered from ancient structures for basic function like keeping our heart pumping and our lungs grasping for air and much more recent parts that allow us higher reasoning and conscious decision making, even it latter sometimes conflicts with our more primal aspects and urges. Also I can't believe I have to argue for Darwinian evolution in a Futurism thread. And your example where you compare hominid evolution with the Flash Player and Youtube of all things. Something which btw. runs on decades old C code to this day. It appears to me that you are talking out of your depth here and also have trouble conceptualizing emergent gradual but continuous changes and development of life forms over long stretches of time. And I know your ego will compel you to object to that and try to spin this around somehow, but for your own intellectual honesty, just reflect on this in your free private time. >it was done in the former century's 30s I don't remember any evidence that it was common to fill one's apartment with 1 meter of soil. You're arguing with someone who's actually rather positive to the idea of vertical farms and maximizing space usage. Looking into it again it turned out that Dyson (yes, the Vacuum company) has figured out a way to grow strawberries in one but even that is a highly optimized closed loop greenhouse warehouse complex, not someone's personal flat apartment with a couple tomato and potato plants to offset some food shortages. It's also outside the city and not some repurposed office building stuffed with dirt, irrigation system and power hungry artificial sunlight systems. I just don't get your obsession with something so impractical and outright stupid. >Social experiments don't look like they're done for the people's betterment Sure, and especially Europe better change course very soon, since the human carrying capacity of other continents also depend on it. But I actually like the idea of having voluntary and recreational physical labor available in the form of farm work. I believe it could work in some well functioning societies and bring some social benefits. >A ton of steam leaves nuclear power plant Yes but even the image your attached proposes some solutions like investing in desalination. But since even your own source points out that the greatest water consumption comes from US style farming, then employing some of the Dutch greenhouse farming will likely reduce overall water consumption, making cooling of power plants and data centers less of a burden. So all that considered, sure go ahead and do your own thing. In fact it's pretty neat if you can pull off a low or off grid life style that isn't just going full Amish, and even teach others how to follow suit. But your arguments on why we should ALL cut down and reduce the population are of low quality. >>94630 Not if we can optimize for space and resource usage. But this will require a couple mega projects which the hippie type eco-nuts would object to. Because even just putting city roads and parking underground would be a massive but possibly necessary undertaking. And while suburbias are terrible, the reason it's a thing is equally terrible social problems that people with money just want to get away from. In addition to stifling zoning laws and lack of courage to attempts such construction projects. >>94655 Mirrors placed on the orbital ice wall I suppose. It's funny how a thread aimed to re-awake past century's positive vision of the future nowadays brings out the creationist and space-is-fake types. Maybe the system's reaction towards anyone talking against their demoralization and degrowth plans...

Nobody here can affect the changes required for your vision of the future, regardless of their attitude. However, they can buy solar panels, and when things go to hell, it'll be better to have those than not. If you disagree, name 1 actionable thing people here could do.

>>94659 The first actionable thing people here can do is to stop being such depressed and demoralized glitterboys who open threads on how they're contemplating suicide again. It's to start with yourself and to not just see doom and gloom at the horizon, at least not exclusively. Bonus, come up with ideas of your own that pose an actually viable alternative to the globohomo, ID-of-the-beast, cattlefied and doomed future that's planned for us. And restore the ability to dream again like the generations before us did of what we could one day have or what mankind might achieve or become. And while it often may not seem like it, there's still a decent pass through of high IQ people here who're looking for inspiration. Everything big stared out small and my primary point was to post about something hopeful and promote boldness. Where just like pessimism, optimism can be infectious too. And what is within my ability is to try and shoot a positive outlook into the aether of the collective consciousness through the wired, be it into a sea of sorrow and depression right now. Of course you can try running your little enclave somewhere in the sticks with some Shenzhen solar panels, sat-net and box fridge, I'm not stopping you. Nor do I expect you to build a city of the future, but is waiting out your days on this planet really all you're capable of? >>94654 >living comfy life is linked to status But that's what gave us the current crop of weak, pathetic and self-centered aging trust fund children as supposed leaders with no stakes in the future of civilization nor species. I believe some struggle is necessary after all, especially if you'd be otherwise very comfortable. But not this constant stress inducing humiliation ritual that people are pushed through each day, which really only destroys one's spirit and will to live. But a voluntary one that's met with choice and embrace rather than anxiety inducing inevitability. Because if you look at it, the developed places of the world really didn't have to go through at least half of the bs that they do right now. While purpose and meaning seems absent in most despite having so many theoretical possibilities. The idea with the voluntary farm work I think is a good example but obviously nobody's going to do that while stuck in their rat race, surrounded by a low trust environment, just trying to get by even if their profession isn't a dead end. But also becoming in control of one's ego is I think very important to achieve on a collective level, as it leads to control over the primal part of our human condition, our collective shadow. It's the necessary step to transcend beyond being just an animal, be it in a nice suit. But that will first require honesty and open discussion, especially of topics which are uncomfortable, since especially in that I believe is the key to begin to truthfully solving our societal issues and getting our soykaf together. Gotta start somewhere and that might be a good foundation. Say, do you ever look at the stars?

>>94657 > past century's positive vision of the future It failed, they had all the money in the world, all the attention in the world, all the resources the people the focus - and they failed. Just a big grift powered by a big delusion. Yesterdays propaganda has served its purpose in creating today's nightmare society, begging to bring it back won't make anything better, only further trap people.

Degenerate art,all those futurist artists should be gassed

>>94668 Many of the futurist artists were fascism adjacent/inspired insane to call your own guys degenerate artists but please keep doing it

>>94657 >Is this some silly attempt at a gotcha? No, it's a sincere question that stemmed from an observed contradiction in your stance. >We don't know what's ahead of us, how long our run can last, or whether there's even a heat death at all. But that's not reason to be fatalist and to try and sabotage mankind. It's not a question of sabotage, we're not standing for this. The point being that for all we know there is no known escape to a final destruction of our material envelopes across the entire universe, no matter what they could be made of. A life that is more centered on Earth and our spiritual doubles is just as acceptable. You are overfocusing on the technological and industrial expansion because you're afraid. You fear the end of mankind some multibillion years into the future. I propose focusing on the now and not being so afraid. >So you believe in some sort of Creationism? Intelligent influence would be the proper idea here. I believe in logic and it's simple, dumb things cannot engender smart things. But smart things can deteriorate. The superior principles always rain down from above and I see no such superiority in the very atheistic stance of likening us to monkeys as it's so prevalent in techie environments. Neither do I think we're apes merely because we haven't yet built bases around Saturn. >Do you at least consider some emergent property to complex life forms or do they just pop into existence by means of some (intermediary) creator? Anything organized that emerges from a mass of matter must follow intelligently arranged guidelines. For example there's is a middle ground that says that evolution is guided. To me, if evolution were true, this option is the only receivable one. >For instance some primates share more than 90% of DNA with humans, granted most of it is about microbiology concerning cell structure and interplay but we can observe similar behavioral traits too. It would appear that we are missing something large about DNA. The smallest difference could make a huge one in terms of capabilities. We don't even understand epigenetics much yet. >Also I can't believe I have to argue for Darwinian evolution in a Futurism thread. Darwin often seems to be slightly misquoted and often used to argue that randomness in new combinations sometimes provides some novel and superior ability to survive. We have observed creatures to be able to adapt to their environment to the point their bodies morph to some degree over many generations. But there is nothing stochastic to this at the origin of it all. >It appears to me that you are talking out of your depth here and also have trouble conceptualizing emergent gradual but continuous changes and development of life forms over long stretches of time. I don't, hence why I said things take time earlier on in the thread. To other forces, the human scale is very narrow and intense. That's part of what makes it interesting. But the alternative is simply ridiculous, this idea that because some distant ancestor strongly wished to be smarter or something then his descendants progressively accrued IQ points through total randomness. Whatever principle is at play, it is neither random nor stupid. >And your example where you compare hominid evolution with the Flash Player and Youtube of all things. Something which btw. runs on decades old C code to this day. And? All lifeforms we know use DNA. You could code a stupid Hello Word program on C. Would you then obtusely argue that deep down, in order to sound deep or whatever, Youtube is just a better Hello World in the most reductive argument possible? >I don't remember any evidence that it was common to fill one's apartment with 1 meter of soil. I didn't say it was common, just that it had already been done. Not in apartments. There was a greenhouse craze before the first world war. Here's an example although it's rudimentary. https://digitalcollections.lib.iastate.edu/universityphotographs/items/universityphotographs1811.html Unfortunately when we want to look into a tightly organized and well supervised case of greenhouse, the issue being that the evidence is grating because it is quite in fact unfortunate that we need to look into them to see that it was already possible. kz-gedenkstaette-dachau. de/en/historical-site/virtual-tour-of-the-surrounding-area/ss-experimental-facility-herb-garden-plantation/ >You're arguing with someone who's actually rather positive to the idea of vertical farms and maximizing space usage. You sounded really scornful of the idea a few posts ago, but then it's fine it wasn't the case. >Looking into it again it turned out that Dyson (yes, the Vacuum company) has figured out a way to grow strawberries in one but even that is a highly optimized closed loop greenhouse warehouse complex They are likely exploring growth in extreme conditions and this reeks off of space exploration or life in a post-apocalyptic bunker. This, technically, should be more up your own avenue. But again I'm not seeing what is excessively complicated. The main issues are space and isolation because water and light are fairly easily obtained. Space is the biggest burden until levels are properly dedicated to this. Meanwhile, isolation can be managed with the equivalent of specifically sealed square tents for example. If your room can accommodate for a shower or a bath tube then it can be used to grow food assuming there's enough room. Again, the main issue would be isolation. There is also the question of how much food you intend on growing which will directly dictate the quantity of topsoil needed, which is itself a weight on the structural integrity of the level. Concrete is far from being as rigid as people make it out to be, but buildings tended to be overengineered to provide more than enough leeway. >But I actually like the idea of having voluntary and recreational physical labor available in the form of farm work. I believe it could work in some well functioning societies and bring some social benefits. Agreed. >Yes but even the image your attached proposes some solutions like investing in desalination. I'm all for it. We are negatively limited by some outer interests. Totally artificial cities in the Middle East make use of it and nobody bats an eye. Why can't this be applied to our own ecosystem to the point of having abundant reserves for many years to both nurture plant growth, make artificial ponds for the wild life, satiate people's thirst and have many depots to fight off wild fires? I find that far more important than building super space ships and great factories for nanomachines to explore the noxious atmosphere of some pointless moon. >But your arguments on why we should ALL cut down and reduce the population are of low quality. I don't know how you can say that since I actually provided very little argument in favor of population diminishing because I barely explored the idea, although I do believe in it. I don't see a tragedy in moving back from being some eight billions to being, at least, half of that. But how this could happen and why are ideas way too vast in scope to explore for the purpose of this thread and likely irrelevant. I'd rather see you finally make a solid statement as to why the basic idea behind your OP is the way to go. You've been reacting most of the time, not formulating anything close to an abridged manifesto that lays the ground for your neo-industrial revolution and it's about time you worked on it I'd say.

>>94681 >Anything organized that emerges from a mass of matter must follow intelligently arranged guidelines. Another lainon but this is very misinformed. Automata produces complex and seemingly "designed" results from simple rules. The fact that you even use the word "emerge" means you're contradicting yourself. Something emerging means you didn't plan for it ahead, hence it emerged from a seemingly unrelated set of rules.

>>94683 The rulesets of the automata are intelligently designed. That complex formations appear within the automata is because the automata rulesets were designed and chosen for the sake of enabling the complex formations.

>>94684 We're not talking about the rules, we're talking about the emergent properties, which can't be known without running the automata because it's computationally irreducible. If you already know exactly what result you want then you don't need an emergent system in the first place, you can design everything manually. You said that the emergent properties are intelligently designed which means it's no longer emergent. >For example there's is a middle ground that says that evolution is guided. To me, if evolution were true, this option is the only receivable one. That's not what guided means in this case, in this case it's more like pressing the "run" button. You think that the rules must be chosen by a creator, but that doesn't mean the result was even intended or a success.

>>94668 >>94670 Great, here we go again... Don't want to be culturally suicidal? Guess what, that's a fascism! >>94681 >No, it's a sincere question By mischaracterizing my words and then try to throw them back at me? Since you clearly have difficulty wrapping your head around the idea that complex systems can, through gradually selective processes, emerge from simpler ones, I'll give you some slack here, but then again why should I really engage with you? >for all we know there is no known escape to a final destruction of our material envelopes across the entire universe But again, we don't know that. Just a few centuries ago we didn't even think that the universe itself is a thing. But now since it seems so evident to us, short of some exceptions, you seemingly can't fathom how drastically our understanding can change. Like just recently the whole big bang hypothesis was put into question due to some conflicting findings of galaxies that appear older than it should've been possible. In short, what I'm saying is essentially a game strategy, that as long as we don't know for certain we simply assume that it is possible to escape. Because if there turns out that there's a way then we've done everything right by not giving up right away. If there turns out that there really isn't one then shucks, at least we tried, had some fun on the way rather than just being fatalist emos about it and only then start constructing our machine at the end of time, not earlier. >The smallest difference could make a huge one in terms of capabilities. Ffs, I didn't say we should make chimp human hybrids, but that our biological structure didn't just pop out of a vacuum and instead, at least in part, isn't unique and is shared among even far related species due to originating from the same continuous process of small, gradual changes with countless evolutionary branches but also many retained commonalities. In other words, the human body isn't this sky scraper that was planned out from top to bottom in one single stage but is more like a slum city, that added components over time or lost some others. >to argue that randomness in new combinations sometimes provides some novel and superior ability to survive. It's not what's being argued though and this interpretation is plain stupid. It's not a complete re-roll every time but small minuscule changes to what already is present. And I'm really not trying to offend you here but you clearly aren't aware of the limits of your own thinking. It's like flat-earthers usually being that because they just can't comprehend the concept of inertia and relative velocity. >Anything organized that emerges from a mass of matter must follow intelligently arranged guidelines. On what grounds other than it just being pulled out of your ass? We have complex systems emerging out of simple circumstances or rules all the time. We see it in the formation of corporate or institutional organizations which quasi become their own beasts. We see it in mass group-behavior, or in how simple and well meaning intents go awfully, awfully wrong, etc. You not being able to think on at least that level makes you counterproductive to any meaningful discourse on such issues. Not an insult but a statement of fact. >the human scale is very narrow And? I'm human and it makes sense to think on the scale of human civilization. >this idea that because some distant ancestor strongly wished to be smarter or something then his descendants progressively accrued IQ points through total randomness I'm just highlighting this part because of how incredibly dumb this interpretation is. >All lifeforms we know use DNA While that's the predominant mechanism, RNA is also a thing in addition to proto-cells being speculated. I suppose, to entertain your very ill fit example further, it would be to point out that everything is machine code while you still insist that nobody is using Assembler any more. >There was a greenhouse craze before the first world war. Sensible. We should have another one today. >we need to look into them to see that it was already possible Oh no, nazis had greenhouses too! Yes we still use Mengele's research as a baseline for human limits for modern aeronautics. Also look into Operation Paperclip. Science and technology is but a tool, hence why I keep saying that we also need a good moral foundation, one which isn't as dead rigid as it was historically but also one that isn't littered with hypocrisy as the modern liberal world view is. >You sounded really scornful of the idea a few posts ago Yeah, towards the need to put gardens into literal apartment blocks. Not against highly optimized, preferably closed loop greenhouse systems. >and this reeks off of space exploration Uhm, based? >or life in a post-apocalyptic bunker I guess we should stop R&N on mushroom farms too then. >I don't see a tragedy in moving back from being some eight billions to being, at least, half of that. But by what means do you plan to achieve that? The rest is you just complaining that I haven't figured out the solution to all our world's problems yet while just started to fish for ideas. That's an unfairly high standard to expect, don't you think? Either way, I believe in further scientific discoveries and technological advancement beyond the horizon. But we won't reach it if we just cut off the branch we're sitting on and revert back to a more primitive state, which we can't btw without massive sacrifices of human life, or just being conquered by the nations who don't go along with this. And even if everyone did, we'd just arrive at the same fork in the road some time later. My general sentiment is to go full steam ahead but also pointing out what it is that we need to reduce our chances to fail along the way. Namely a philosophy of realism, controlled struggle and improvement, but also one which sees us as pulling on the same rope.

>>94670 funny how people are seething about this when this is literally just a factual statement

>>94690 Idolizing technology has made everything worse, that's what makes the art degenerate.

>>94689 Anon, I... >Great, here we go again... Don't want to be culturally suicidal? Guess what, that's a fascism! Previous post referred to the fact that most founding fathers of italian futurism became fascists. This is nothing controversial, as per (((wikipedia))) >Filippo Tommaso Marinetti >In early 1918, Marinetti founded the Futurist Political Party, which only a year later merged with Benito Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. Marinetti was one of the first affiliates of the Italian Fascist Party. > >Umberto Boccioni >died before fascism proper was born > >Carlo Carrà >Carrà is best known for his 1911 Futurist work, The Funeral of the Anarchist Galli. He was indeed an anarchist as a young man but, along with many other Futurists, later held more reactionary political views, becoming ultranationalist and irredentist before and during the war. He supported fascism after 1918. > >Fortunato Depero >ran to USA, had problems because futurism was linked with fascism in the '30s and '40s > >Gino Severini >switched to neo-clasicism in 1916 > >Giacomo Balla >hile initially sympathetic to fascism, he changed his mind, leading him to be shunned by the Italian regime and culture which had once appreciated him, though his works were positively reevaluated after the end of the war. In the 1930s, he renounced Futurism as well as abstraction, and returned to a naturalistic style. > >Luigi Russolo >In addition to his association with the Futurist artist and poet F. T. Marinetti, who co-authored the Fascist Manifesto (1919), Russolo presented his work at exhibitions sponsored by Mussolini's government. As for russian futurists, I don't know much about ego-futurists, but the main strand existed up to 1920, when it was condemned by the Soviets for not having a solid program (among other things). Afaik, most of them were sympathetic to October, but lacked the proper class strata.

>>94692 That they were correct about a lot of things is controversial.

>>94695 And that's why one can not call a duck a duck? Tho, afaik average hitlerite would rather jerk off to socrealism than to futurism, which >>94668 clearly proves.

>>94691 It's not technology per se though that made things worse, but rather that it advanced faster than mankind managed to mature. But also maybe that's what it needed to even have the impetus in the first place, difficult to tell. But this is why I've been saying that we need a moral foundation for tomorrow, where the people at the wheel don't just want to farm everyone else's attention, obedience, body and souls. Technology is inevitable as long as humanity exist, might at least try to not have it turn into a cypunk dystopia. >>94692 >Previous post referred to the fact that most founding fathers of italian futurism became fascists I got that, and that's a nice list but still, and? Hitler personally was heavy into nature preservation and Eco-consciousness, so if we are going to be consistent with the guilt by association, we probably won't be able to have anything at all. My guess is that those xNTJ types who would be drawn to these bold visions like Futurism would also find themselves ending up aligning with the next best top-down authoritarian, heavy-state system. Russian Futurists then naturally would find themselves dancing the Soviet line in hopes to do their thing and Italians at that time would have Fascism for that (which didn't have that historic stain yet). But just being this reductionist and not being able to recognize the smart things that your enemy does, that is intellectually lazy to dishonest, and frankly very small minded. An other interesting case is Le Corbusier, who had some rather terrible ideas for Paris (as if it really matters in 2025) and who also aligned with some fascist movements at the time. But yet, some ideas like putting roadways and transportation below and above a layer to where pedestrians are is what would allow us to have those walkable high density cities. Not talking about those WEF open air prisons but the nice ones with parks and bike lanes and all. So do you think we can't take the good parts, take out the bad and synthesize that into something new which aligns more with one's principles (that is if you have any)? Or do you think any attempt at trying to advance as a civilization is forever ruined by the curse of Voldemort? >>94696 >why one can not call a duck a duck? But that's clearly not what you're doing. Instead you want to shoot something down by association that has an affirming view of the future and human achievement or just got mad your precious Shenzhenpunk got called out for its blatant nonsense. Either way you're just diluting the effect that the f-word has. >>94690 Cool painting though, SI SI SI SI!

>we will ward off globohomo through more picrel: the thread

>>94698 >But that's clearly not what you're doing. Instead you want to shoot something down by association that has an affirming view of the future and human achievement or just got mad your precious nibba, that would assume I don't see fascism as great bringer of modernism and realization of Hegelian Geist. Why so damn defensive, eh? One says word "fascism" and you jump to conclusions that it has to be "le bad". Are you a redditor or just a coward that can't name the thing by it's proper name?

>>94700 Show me where in 20s-30s Italy they advocated for freedom, degrowth and love of nature.

>>94701 ah, you are not r/acc futurist, it's wishy-washy "let's learn from all, but don't have any serious convictions".

>>94690 That's just recognizable forms mixed to abstract and random geometric figures. Is it supposed to represent your futuristic order? It seems chaotic and not so detached from what appeared further down the road with Picasso.

While I'm sympathetic to your ideas OP, I honestly think China is humanity's greatest hope. Everyone else is too dysfunctional or stupid. Even if you think China's economic model is unsustainable, when that collapses, they'll still have an identity. They'll still be one people and can rebuild everything else. That's worth more than anything.

>>94705 >China is humanity's greatest hope >Chinese identity is worth more than anything No, lainon, no. It's not as glamorous as the propaganda clips make it out to be. Beneath all that neon, glitz, gloss and grandeur, if you were to just scratch the surface, you'd see there's a dirty, base, stupid, soulless and dysfunctional system: make a complain to the appropriate officials whose job it actually is to take in complains from citizens, and you'll be deducted social score points and possibly end up jeopardizing your career, job, or livelihood as a result, fuarrrkup your construction jobs due to poor planning, cutting corners, and lack of quality control, kill a hundred people as a result of tofu building collapse, brush it under the rug, and you just rinse and repeat it because why not?, issue a directive to do more "green technology investments" by subsidizing EV manufacturers, and they'll build you your 50,000 EVs which they'll stack in their backyard to rot and pollute the environment further, because they were a) of insofar poor quality that they wouldn't compete on international markets b) they can't sell them on domestic markets, because the average Chinese can't afford it, and those who do would rather buy a luxury model from a competitor (doesn't matter much if it is a domestic manufacturer or not) c) disposing them would actually cost money, so you as a manufacturer would rather not do that, and d) you already got your paycheck from the state-issued subsidies anyway, so you certainly don't care either way. On top of all that, China steals and copies everyone else to such an extent that one could say it's just one big copy of a copy, but with too many of the worst aspects of what it tries to emulate. Will they outlast the West? By the looks of it, yes. Is that something to be happy and cheerful about? Absolutely not. If the Chinese manage to become the next uncontested hegemon on the world stage, they'll import their system everywhere, and while doing so they'd make sure to pay back everyone for the century of humiliation, because that's part of the Chinese way: grudges last literal centuries. Yeah, sure must be nice to live in a "real" country with an identity like China.

>>94705 Nick, is that you? What are you doing on lainchan?

>>94707 if this isn't chatgpt then you should be ashamed of yourself. if it is chatgpt then you should be even more ashamed of yourself. work on your paragraph and storytelling structure, it is very formulaic and cliched. even if you did say something interesting and well-researched (you didn't) then it is completely lost because of how off-putting and formulaic your introduction is. as for your actual arguments, the EV thing is interesting and I would love to learn more from a reputable source (such as an investigative journalism and not folx news / cnn / tucker carlson / whatever else). as ive already addressed your introduction the social credit score part is just as cliched and honestly a bit ignorant - in china, it is stated that americans have special "capitalism scores" that dictate their ability to purchase homes or even occupy buildings for rent, work, have insurance, and make other large purchases. these scores can not just be affected by criminal activity or antisocial behaviors like paying rent on time, they can also be affected by employment history, demographics you are born into (especially in terms of insurance), and more. in America we of course know these as credit scores and think banking is good because it enables us to take out loans and build free enterprise, but China believes in free enterprise too. for instance, in many industries you are free to use any design with much more laity as an entrepreneur without worrying about whether the design was developed in a secret lab 20 years ago for the explicit purpose of sitting on so nobody will have a competitive edge against the state-supported monopoly. in much the same way we squat domain names, except even more exploitative in that domain names can at least be purchased.

>>94707 Are we talking about individual conditions, or society at large? China is the only society which has billions of people, invests in technology, uses its own population for labor rather than insisting on importing foreigners, is capable of and willing to do large projects, priorities growth over conservationism.

>>94713 Chinas population numbers are a lie, there's not that many people there. They force crowds and cram people in to make it appear more populated. Everyone exaggerates population numbers greatly to pretend to be stronger and more powerful than they are.

>>94705 >I honestly think China is humanity's greatest hope >neurosuggesting they're human

>>94724 >>94724 Don't worry. The Japanese were even bolder in the discipline of de-humanizing themselves. However, now we can see they were human all along.

>>94710 You don't seem to understand, a lot of people cry about niggers and nigger behavior in US, but once you get to China, only then will you understand the true meaning of the word. That's why it seems so weird to me that you focus on the social credit system, when that's really just a side dish to the main course of everything that makes China the hellhole that it is. Honestly, I don't care if they build the world's biggest bridges, tallest skyscrapers, curb desertification, invent hypersonic missiles or even end up colonizing Mars. It ALL pales in comparison to what kind of hell you'd have to tolerate on the level of day to day life under the Chinese system. There's so much fuarrrked up soykaf happening every day constantly in China that I can't even contain myself to writing it down here for you to intellectually munch on. And why even bother when you are clearly already set on defending and apologizing on the behalf of this Moloch? If the US is a greedy little pig with a snake's tail, then what does that make China? A parasitic leech the size of a Dune sandworm, and it offends me to an incomprehensible degree how you're seemingly not aware of this. Most facts about or coming from China are false, and most falsehoods eventually turn out to be the truth. That's the Communist system with Chinese characteristics for you! Sino-Futuristic Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>94699 >wow scary AI slop If the smoke is black, something's being burnt. Most likely coal, which is the critical backbone of all that supposed "green energy". Nuclear on the other hand is, short of some additives, really just steam from water. And then there's hydrogen, which is highly abundant and produces as a byproduct distilled water. And there's hope for other sources of energy but requires a sophisticated industrial and scientific sector to R&D. Even getting Perovskite photovoltaic cells and solid state batteries production ready would require us to not revert into a Hobbit shire, even if it does look quite idyllic and picturesque if just a few people are doing that. It's the advantage of not fetishizing solar and wind generators beyond their appropriate use. >>94700 If this wasn't your intent then I apologize. There's just too many people that do drive that angle and weaponized use of words that I have lost all patience for. You just can't let these idiots shoot down discussions all the time, I hope you understand. But also, while having had a honest look into it, I'm still not a fascism enjoyer. The state is just too heavy, with little to no self correcting mechanisms, which over a prolonged period of time will lead to the same stagnation, even if it initially had an edge due to the ability for centralized decision making. Intellectual freedom is key. Look at North Korea, Iran, etc. but also the West where there's a soft coercion on speech, topics of research and culture and where that led to. Authoritarian systems in theory is great if you can somehow ensure that only intellectually honest, benevolent individuals who are willing to take responsibility for their mistakes get to climb the ranks. But in practice even having mechanisms with the goal to squash corruption will be co-opted into tools to destroy the opposition. It's an old tale and with people long in power who would naturally want to prevent any viable solutions to that. And I've talked with genuine fascists but they never seem to have an answer for that. The best it seems we really can hope for is something like a Terran Federation, where service does indeed guarantee citizenship, due to having a leadership that's willing and capable to crush corrosive elements but also were selected for having at least some stakes in the population due to having been willing to die for it, logistics of needing an active war for this aside. So yes, while I'm not of the opinion that it's "le bad" and literally a Harry Potter villain, it doesn't seem that ideal either. Instead just a set of other problems, but I suppose everything's a trade-off at the end. >>94701 What exactly do you mean by "freedom"? The current year western interpretation is to have your rainbow sphincter flag be placated everywhere and have pride in your excessive hedonism while you have to shut up about everything that might possibly upset the mentally ill, I don't think that's a good version of it, and makes freedom of speech as long as you don't insult the ruling party or step over some line with your critique, look good in comparison to many. Degrowth is a fool's errand and nobody should advocate for it if they don't have humanity's regression and extinction as a goal. And you don't need to be a suicidal tree hugger to see practical advantages in preserving the environment you inhabit. I'd rather prefer a culture of intellectual openness, love of your own people, increase of efficiency and decrease of pollution of industry, and positive long time planning. >>94702 But what is it that you see as "serious convictions"? Larping in Hugo Boss drip or would be pragmatism to the benefit of humanity at large be sufficient? >>94705 I do admire China's pragmatism and at least not actively hating their own people and them not working towards their destruction. However it's the most hive mind population around and like the other anon pointed out, them achieving global hegemony would be bad news. Their willingness to embark on mega projects is what Futurism would need, but not by people who care so little that they'd destroy entire eco systems just for economical warfare or poison almost all their soil to the point they have to import crops that they could've grown themselves. But again, we should always see that we learn and copy what does work, for instance relaxing patent laws, since the way it's currently trolled is just holding us back, and giving all the advantages to the CCP which doesn't care about any of this and has an entire industry dedicated to back-engineering for what they don't already have the schematics and factories for. But while I really wouldn't like to live there, at least they get to live among their own without being propagandized every day to hate themselves. >>94726 If the Japanese could figure out their stuff, and praise be to their new Iron Lady, then they could be a good example. But what works for them would likely not work for the native European population. That said, it's not like what Europe currently has is even working for them since their leaders shot their nations in both feet, throwing away their chance at being a meaningful element in the coming multi-polar political world and creating an environment where the natives would even be willing to fight and sacrifice for.

>>94683 >Something emerging means you didn't plan for it ahead According to one specifically modern and wishful definition that's the rage for now. I used the verb to emerge in the most valid way. For example, an arranged form emerging from a pool of primitive substance, shaped by tools according to blueprints, all according to plan. Show me an example of that other emergence you were thinking about, dig deep enough and you will realize that what you see as this magical thinking called "emergence" AKA an unplanned phenomenon taking shape through the application of combination of unrelated rules, that is just the observer missing the clues that it could only happen because of the way the constituent elements were created first to allow for this. You would also find that many cases of often cited emergent behavior translate very poorly as an explanation for evolution and the advent of man. On the late concept of emergence, for example I picked three general cases of Strong Emergence from a random website purporting to listing good examples of this phenomenon as unplanned things, whether behaviors, patterns or events. Unplanned as clearly random and free from any earlier design. > Consciousness: The human mind’s complexity transcends neural activity alone. This both assumes that the consciousness is due to neural activity alone and that the very concept of the neuron wasn't meant to lead to be supportive of consciousness, the idea somehow being that the neuron came to exist at some point through a not-miracle and it also very conveniently provided a solid ground for consciousness. > Ecosystem Dynamics: Interactions among species create stability or chaos beyond simple observations. Again, this assumes that very complex combination is just a lucky output, a happy equilibrium resulting from the randomness of existence of multiple lifeforms. But it just so happens to very conveniently combine into a harmonious whole. Typical retarded atheist thinking, people incapable of understanding Ordo ad Chao and thinking that chaos begets order. > Societal Behavior: Cultural trends emerge through collective human actions rather than isolated behaviors. Trends all dictated by human behavior and human decisions. Humans simply could not do something they were never meant to do, an idea that irritates some people on a deep philosophical level, people who are infatuated with their very narrow and ill-born appreciation of life. Another example is that everything listed here: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Understanding_Emergence/List_of_emergent_phenomena is happening only because it could, and it could only because every single part, every component, was designed with this capacity at first. Again, logically none of the components could together achieve a task that they were not meant to be capable of achieving on their own, naturally. The entire modern concept of emergence is deeply flawed. Here's one, crowd behavior, or mob psychology, which is nothing more than a glorified term used to define larger groups of humans adopting the same behavior and creating some kind of synergy. Everything boils down to what humans are capable of, often in this case mimicry and going with the flow through deindividuation, which again can only happen because the human type is capable of this, and only because it's put into our code so to speak. In a way, none of this would happen if there wasn't a function called "deindividuate" lodged deep within our psyche. But what put that function in our code? Does it deny the appearance of patterns resulting from the assumed and uncoordinated combination of behaviors of independent elements? No, but if talking about robots or programs for example, the designer must have thought that this pattern might emerge because the constituents parts definitely allowed for this to happen and at some point, at the crossroads of chaos and order, that it was given a chance to exist. >>94689 A possibility to escape in the very far future is so far removed from our daily lives that I do not feel concerned about that end of time scenario at all. Especially if we can survive it not materialistically but spiritually, AKA being beings of another type free to pick time and space to incarnate ourselves differently. While not anti-technology I am not obsessed about it like you are. >In other words, the human body isn't this sky scraper that was planned out from top to bottom in one single stage but is more like a slum city, that added components over time or lost some others. That is truly a terrible metaphor. I view our bodies as much better in quality and scope than the result of a more or less disorganized and mere chronological aggregate of vaguely compatible elements, and our current state as easily willed by higher forces regardless of how this entire concept was brought to fruition. >It's not what's being argued though and this interpretation is plain stupid. It's not a complete re-roll every time but small minuscule changes to what already is present. It's still randomness, no matter how large or small. >And? I'm human and it makes sense to think on the scale of human civilization. It's not an excuse to ignore other scales. This is hypocritical because you evoke events that will happen in billions of years from now, which leaves a lot of time for things that occur on scales longer than the human lifespan. You say the human scale is the only one of interest to you, which is a matter of picking the average human lifespan and multiplying times a billion or so until the plausible end of the universe and whatever humans might have devised then to survive this event through technological means. I am saying that over many lifespans there are other forces at play and they take their time, which should answer your question of why they have not yielded anything yet. >While that's the predominant mechanism, RNA is also a thing in addition to proto-cells being speculated. I suppose, to entertain your very ill fit example further, it would be to point out that everything is machine code while you still insist that nobody is using Assembler any more. RNA is merely an intermediary step, while not all DNA is used to code proteins. >I suppose, to entertain your very ill fit example further, it would be to point out that everything is machine code while you still insist that nobody is using Assembler any more. Everything being machine code, which was an obvious implication of my comparison, doesn't excuse you going on with ridiculous reductions or regressions ad infinitum. You could push this a step further and say all living things are made of carbon. Great, now what? I still don't feel like an ape just because we haven't turned Earth into Trantor yet. Does picrel, the dream of the absolute urban dweller, get you all excited? >Yeah, towards the need to put gardens into literal apartment blocks. Not against highly optimized, preferably closed loop greenhouse systems. So you are against the idea of repurposing buildings? I don't know if you're hot on AI or not but these things are reducing the need of large offices. The American urban model of the 90s is perhaps going to fade out and something will need to be done about all these empty offices. Housing and farming sound fine. >The rest is you just complaining that I haven't figured out the solution to all our world's problems yet while just started to fish for ideas. That's an unfairly high standard to expect, don't you think? It's more like you have provided nothing of substance thus far and fishing for ideas after dropping a stone in the pond is perhaps lazy. I also feel sorry for having taken much of your thread's space discussing things which are not directly relevant to its topic, because if I had abstained from doing so we'd have barely talked about anything at all and we would see how vacuous this futurism theme is beyond muh spaceships and muh million-factories.

>>94663 >picture of a big supersonic gigaplane that makes a shít ton of totally deafening noise right in the middle of some urban center with pedestrians looking at it taking off while their eardrums are bludgeoned to a bloody sludge is le great future

I think that both Solarpunk and this are retarded and extremely humanistic. Being meek and afraid is arguably an appropriate response. Technology is going to do its thing whether you like it or not. Framing it this or that way ideologically is a cope and everyone knows it.

>>94745 The cruelty is the point.

>>94745 Tbf, the image is also set in space. Where no-one can hear you being mad. >>94750 >Technology is going to do its thing whether you like it or not. Yes, 100%. As long as there's still people around, there's going to be innovation. The question is, do we just accept our learnt helplessness while being herded like livestock into a cattlefied dystopian AI-powered cyberpunk nightmare (see China and the UK) or is there something more we can demand for our future, children and kind? Sure, we were promised flying cars but the least we should be asking for is to not be turned into batteries before shortly after humanity withers away. And ensure that technology actually is going to empower us as a species, rather than being the nails used on our collective coffin. But the thing that bothers me more than us not being able to recognize and correctly point out that our supposed leaders too mostly operate on base instincts and knee-jerk reactions, only busy keeping their grasp on power while nobody is really at the wheel aside of a few who can nudge it just enough to cause another war.. It is this fatalist doomerism that has befallen us like a cancer that we seemingly just accept and allow to fester. Nihilism is cool and all, until you realize you're just being a sad cunt who refuses to find some enjoyment and gratitude for life, because.. ? There probably isn't even a good reason besides >but muh bad things habben in the world Sure, I don't ask you to be a bumbling oblivous fool. But, as much of it seems like a curse, realize life's a gift, and needlessly sulking is just squandering it. And instead of just participating in the green-washing and getting edged by the fear-porn or buy into the anti-human proposals, I looked at what people half a century ago thought the future would be like and saw that their vision was little to none of that doom and gloom but rather overwhelmingly hope and excitement for what tomorrow may bring. >>94751 You joke but maybe a sort of controlled tension is really what we need since our body and mind adapted for withstanding difficulty and scarcity. But given plenty, this devolves into decadence, time again like clockwork until we learn or perish. >>94744 Again, who designed our designer? Not trying to go r/Atheism on you, since they're indeed not as sharp as they like to believe. But not sure you'd care or even understand why I believe a prime creative force that's facilitating all of us is very certain to exist, but that would have to be something self emerging and self referential by simply the way that things work from a base fundamental level. What I believe likely better describes omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience than what you've got to offer. Things always did and always will be working on simply the basis of their emergent properties, and what you see as an indivisible complexity, is really "just" the interplay and interdependence of countless simpler systems and foundational mechanisms underneath. And the lack of dysfunctional combinations of systems is simplest to explain through survivorship bias since these simply don't tend to last and thus are superseded or replaced by those that function. Luck is really only involved when a dysfunctional one lasts longer than it otherwise should. >inb4 but why is ther still monkys Life tends to branch. >Humans simply could not do something they were never meant to do But we are. Right now. Hence the need to figure out something quick before we all get stamped with the digital ID of the beast. We were never meant to live in highly urbanized societies as we're today while we're simultaneously refusing to accept that our primate, tribal mechanisms are still very much at play. Concocting a way to live that incorporates both our innate nature as well as a path to mature beyond it as a civilization is thus an urgent matter. Since if we stall, we will likely just tip over and fall off the bike, so to speak. It's not even a matter of me being afraid since I won't even be around to see things unfold, but I just see it as my duty as a member of this species to try and hope for it to do well and that others don't sink the boat. Difficult to explain but I hope some others here understand and share that sentiment. >and fishing for ideas after dropping a stone in the pond Yes, that was my intent. That's what those threads are for. Also urban indoor gardening, beyond needing to defy your landlord and government, is plain retarded. "Layers" don't work if you don't get sunlight on every floor and also this isn't needed. The strawberry farm I've mentioned barely breaks even and that's a giant purpose built, highly specialized greenhouse. But if it could be made more efficient, we could reduce the amount of traditional open air farming needed potentially quite drastically. In some of my free time I like to think up ways to have buildings be designed in such a way that they can be repurposed but even then I really don't understand your obsession with that idea of "urban farming". It just seems to unnecessarily over-complicate things, just like your other takes. >It's still randomness No, more like an autonomous distillation process. Anyway, stick to carpentry, the world will thank you.

>>94915 >Tbf, the image is also set in space. Where no-one can hear you being mad. Let's see . . . >clouds >blue horizon >lots of lush greenery >flag waving in the wind >planes literally using wings >people not really wearing space suits Right, you're officially retarded.

>>94915 >No, more like an autonomous distillation process. Funny words to mean planned all along. Either it's random or it is not. Autonomous means repeating a pattern that has been conceived ahead, following a design.

>>94744 >unplanned phenomenon taking shape through the application of combination of unrelated rules, that is just the observer missing the clues Yes that's what emergence means. What did you think I was talking about? You're just defining it from another perspective, which is that it emerges for us humans because we can't just know the result instantly by looking at the rules, if we did we wouldn't call it emergent. Everything is labelled from our sensory perspective. >You would also find that many cases of often cited emergent behavior translate very poorly as an explanation for evolution and the advent of man. You wouldn't find anything at all. We can't test anything close to this. Do you think someone had the position and state of every particle in the universe (or just on Earth) before evolution and tried to make them act on a specific rule set and it didn't work or something? I don't think you realize what you even said. The amount of data you need to conclude anything substantial makes this impossible. You would need to find the ruleset first and work from there, so I don't know what you mean "translate very poorly" and actually this whole reply sounds LLM generated because it lacks substance. >Unplanned as clearly random and free from any earlier design Unplanned doesn't mean random, emergent automata are deterministic unless you want to make them random by seeding some parameters (also randomness could just be humans lacking data/compute like with emergence) >On the late concept of emergence, for example I picked three general cases of Strong Emergence from a random website I don't know why you did that in a reply to me when I didn't mention anything about these concepts but fine. >This both assumes that the consciousness is due to neural activity alone... I don't even know what you're arguing for or what it has to do with emergence. You seem to have a Quora-itis, talking about tangential topics to seem like you're making a point. We're talking about whether emergent results are "planned ahead". >Again, this assumes that very complex combination is just a lucky output Why is it always "just" something? It's not just lucky output, its fuarrrking lucky output and it's magical. >But it just so happens to very conveniently combine into a harmonious whole If it didn't combine then we wouldn't be here to make an observation about it. >happy equilibrium resulting from the randomness of existence Again, it's not random. >Typical retarded atheist thinking Not sure what this has to do with atheism as I'm not, you're getting sidetracked again, get yourself together. >The entire modern concept of emergence is deeply flawed You're fighting shadows, you don't even know what any of this means. You're confusing emergent with random in your whole post. All the emergent behaviors are logically followed from previous steps. Human "emergence" happens because we lack biological computation power to know how it will behave without running it, but even if we had the compute, we would still have to "run" it in out brains before knowing the result so in a way it's still the same thing. If you have a ruleset that you know the result for, once you change some small parameter you can't just predict how the output will change like you can do with regular math formulas, you have to run the whole thing again. Structures are created from emergence and if the creator intended to create structures, that doesn't mean it must've known what the output would be beforehand, and this doesn't mean that it's just random, It means that the intentions behind it needn't align with the results. You can run multiple automata and see the result, you can run billions then pick the ones you like, tweak them, run them again a billion times, our universe could be one of the iterations, or the final one, you can never know. But you seem to insist that because it happened this way it must be completely designed and intentional. You should drop emergence from your view altogether and just say that god literally decided how the evolution would go and executed every step himself.

>>95499 You are not helping yourself by dicing my message and making it look alien to its own original meaning. >Yes that's what emergence means. That's what the definition you used means. I explained the use of the word from a different perspective. >Everything is labelled from our sensory perspective. This is extremely reductive. For one, intellect and inspiration are absolutely not governed by our senses. >Do you think someone had the position and state of every particle in the universe (or just on Earth) before evolution and tried to make them act on a specific rule set and it didn't work or something? You are confusing me. I didn't say that, but what you described is about someone being surprised, say disappointed even about the expected results of his own experiments. My point is that even evolution itself could only happen because well crafted rules existed for it. >Unplanned doesn't mean random, emergent automata are deterministic unless you want to make them random by seeding some parameters (also randomness could just be humans lacking data/compute like with emergence) The designer prepares a system so that upon its activation it would deliver a specific output. There is hope on the designer's part that it will work as intended. It may or not do so. That's two options and there's already a possibility of failure. We're already moving into a die situation. Then you add the unplanned emergent behavior which itself may or may have not happened, totally not predicted and likely unpredictable by the designer. On top of this, there's virtually an infinity of unpredictable outputs at this point in time that may or may not happen, because nobody could predict the unplanned output, so nobody could know anything about a much greater quantity of other suddenly possible surprises, with the only difference being that since other outputs wouldn't manifest (there can only be one output at a time), which could be considered to have not happened from the designer's perspective. Then he may relaunch the same system and see if another new output happens, without knowing if it could happen at all because said designer couldn't predict it. Hence the die. This is a structure typical of a randomized system. >I don't know why you did that in a reply to me when I didn't mention anything about these concepts but fine. They are valid examples of emergence and they show the fragility of the very concept of emergence you espoused. Examples prove useful but may not suffice. >I don't even know what you're arguing for or what it has to do with emergence. These are examples of emergence. This much should have been clear from my last message alone. >We're talking about whether emergent results are "planned ahead". Fine. We will focus on the topic of emergence and emergent results as "planned ahead" or not. >Why is it always "just" something? It's not just lucky output, its fuarrrking lucky output and it's magical. Why are you introducing the concept of magic in this now? >If it didn't combine then we wouldn't be here to make an observation about it. The combination could not happen if the entire system didn't allow for it and didn't have all the intricate rules and sub-rules to support it. Humans lacking the ability to simulate all possible permutations does not negate the need for a lattice of rules to exist ahead of the event for said event to happen. >Again, it's not random. Yet >>94683 objected to me pointing out earlier on and it seems you are that anon. If seemingly unrelated rules can manage to combine and create what is perceived as a new pattern, it is because these rules carried within themselves the already devised ability to do so, to combine, according to an auxiliary rule. If you do not agree with this then it means you think human minds can add new rules to the entire universe's pool of wisdom. And I thought you had no interest in engaging in "tangential topics" yet there you are, chasing them. >Not sure what this has to do with atheism as I'm not The underlying "logic" found behind the claim of emergence of that specific case is typical of atheistic modes of thinking, but I was not inferring that you were one. It's positing that whatever force that lies beyond our comprehension could be intelligent enough to assemble a universe but limited enough, say even dumb all things considered, to fail to expect that the life forms would coexist and interact so well as to create a stable ecosystem. Hence to these people, it is mere luck, or randomness. Because they cannot fathom the idea of a greater cause, then it has to be pure chaos that is behind this effect. >You're confusing emergent with random in your whole post. The unplanned is by definition unpredictable, thus just as good as random. >All the emergent behaviors are logically followed from previous steps. Which all goes back to an original step. Would you claim that it was unplanned too? >If you have a ruleset that you know the result for Not fully. If you believe in emergence then it means you believe that the ruleset can at any moment create an output that you didn't predict, and may produce even more of them. There is therefore an element of randomness to it. >But you seem to insist that because it happened this way it must be completely designed and intentional. Nothing can happen in the universe if at some point there wasn't a rule for it. Whether you were aware of that rule or not is only a subjective issue from something or someone operating at a much smaller scale and moving forth blind. >You should drop emergence from your view altogether and just say that god literally decided how the evolution would go and executed every step himself. And you said you were not an atheist, of which you do not master the meaning. This exactly reads as a claim of evolution happening outside of this entity's control or foresight, either because it's rather constrained in its abilities or simply because it does not, in fact, exist.

>>95508 Why are you bending over backwards for arguing a point that can be easily verified in under a minute? Emergence is not random, its deterministic. >thus just as good as random. Oh I see, it's just as good, lets wrap this up then.

>>95514 The topic has strayed from the early reference to emergence (see >>94621), but in the current later context the notion of randomness became meaningful, as an opposition between unplanned and undesigned appeared. The user is making a mistake into claiming that the emergence is deterministic when determinism applied to systems is based on well known immutable data, which allows for the modelling of exact future outputs with no variation whatsoever. The problem with emergence being that, clearly, all the data is not known and the model fails to correctly predict the final output. A proper, complete and, say, ideal deterministic model doesn't tolerate surprises, even if the entire applied model is about a continuous repeat of alterations over millions of years (in the case of natural evolution) that are yet constantly trumping expectations, as this was argued being the pattern behind evolution by my opponent in the discussion. Therefore, since it's partially deterministic at best, it does involve a fair amount of randomness. He was genuinely shocked that the Darwinian theory of evolution could even be argued in his thread, which wasn't entirely true insofar as he objected – and still does – to the idea of randomness being involved in this theory. He was incapable of seeing that random events could be just as small as they need be and could definitely apply to "small minuscule changes to what already is present." He demonstrated a poor grasp of the understanding of natural evolution and the concept of randomness itself, and still does to this point. It was never denied that clear rules are at play, which pave the way for a certain degree of predictability of the outcome, but probabilistic laws also operate within Darwin's model. So before anyone continues insisting that emergence is deterministic, I would strongly advise such people to learn more about deterministic systems and what they entail as it will become quickly obvious that the stronger they become, the less they leave room for unknowns. Emergence would best be identified as a hybrid model. The point about randomness was not the same as arguing for absolute randomness as the latter could not apply to a system that is a causal sequence, regardless of the nature of the initial parameters. It was interesting to see from the same author that a strong rejection of the notion of any form of involved randomness brought him to unwittingly adopt a stricter 'designer' philosophical approach. The question became to whom the final outcome would be unpredictable. In the opposition between two categories, deterministic and stochastic (random), the trait of unpredictability will invariably fall far more often into the second category than in the first one. It's a well known philosophical issue that appears within the discussions relevant to the simulation of randomness and the production of random outputs through code in programs. Technically, as absolutely everything is governed by rules, there must come a point when the mystery and ignorance must vanish and all data and rules be known so then, the perceived randomness disappears too, but this near theological approach was certainly not what the debater was going for. From his message he clearly rejected the idea of a greater force dictating the appearance of certain life forms, because his early argument was that the human form was the result of a constant amalgamation of unplanned changes conveniently harmonizing themselves into a more complex and efficient structure; cue the awkward metaphor of humans being some kind of "slum city" that was for all intents and purposes wholly unplanned. I do not believe that the human is an unplanned creature that just happily came to be as much as it could have never existed at all. This is what made my opponent's claim look like a defense of a certain luck being involved, which was fair to relate to randomness.

>>94915 >Again, who designed our designer? No one. >Hence the need to figure out something quick before we all get stamped with the digital ID of the beast. I guess I should have said: >Humans simply could not do something they were never meant to be able to do As we are we are given the capacity to create hell or heaven on Earth. >It's not even a matter of me being afraid since I won't even be around to see things unfold, but I just see it as my duty as a member of this species to try and hope for it to do well and that others don't sink the boat. Difficult to explain but I hope some others here understand and share that sentiment. It's a clear point that you make. But thinking at the scale of the species might be missing the target when you should work for your people first. >Also urban indoor gardening, beyond needing to defy your landlord and government, is plain retarded. "Layers" don't work if you don't get sunlight on every floor and also this isn't needed. Yet there's at least one picture in this thread that shows a futuristic setting with some kind of space habitats in the form of discs which certainly would involve a serious amount of artificial growth of food. If you have the water, the nutrients and the soil, the lighting part is quite easy to solve with artificial light as you merely need to reproduce natural light. The stance you adopt against urban indoor farming, a type of farming which would supposedly be ridiculous when natural crop fields should be relied on instead, is hypocritically silly when you post pictures of needlessly cramped tall building surrounded by greenery, as in here >>94698, or when you show ridiculously complex and energy intensive floating hexagonal crop systems as in here >>94657, or again a ring orbital that would be far more complex to achieve as seen here >>94612 than buildings in dense urban areas capable of hosting on dedicated floors their own internal farms, or showing a cityscape that is so cramped that it leaves no doubt that some form of in-urban farming would be gravely needed, as seen here >>94568, because otherwise if a lot of estate were available there would simply be no point to force people to live in such dense urban areas. Your opposition to indoor farming comes off as needlessly obtuse when greenhouses could also be installed at the top of buildings (as seen in some solarpunk illustrations) so both could coexist. >I really don't understand your obsession with that idea of "urban farming". It keeps the food production close to the habitat, allowing the city dwellers to have a better control over their own production of edibles and a lesser need to rely on more complex transportation systems to ship around the food that would be produced in distant super-farms.

Whew, this thread sure has derailed. And all because of one guy's inability to grasp continuous incremental changes over time with the most functional iterations being more likely to proliferate each generation, despite much external intervention, it any at all beyond the harshness of the elements and competition. >Again, who designed our designer? >No one. Then where did that planner or designer come from? Out of thin air? Maybe they did emerge out of simply the way existence functions. My thoughts on this is that it's the universe trying to assemble itself from simpler rules and mechanisms to more complex ones. >either because it's rather constrained in its abilities or simply because it does not, in fact, exist. Or third, he/they/it simply doesn't bother to be this deeply involved in things. Of course this notion upsets atheists and creationist alike, but it seems the most plausible to me. Like I can't imagine being arsed to "design" an ostrich, unless it was for soykafs and giggles. Maybe you're just believing into some micromanagerial demiurge but that wouldn't be the god or prime creative force I speak of. Either way you fail to understand what I'm trying to tell you and are just repeating yourself now, just like with the following. >Yet there's at least one picture in this thread that shows a futuristic setting with some kind of space habitats Which aren't just repurposed office buildings with no initial regard for plantation scale irrigation but purpose oriented mega structures. Why even artificial light if you can just use real sun light instead? What's the point of burning all those megawatts on massive LED farms if you can use greenhouses instead? I really don't get your obsession here. And your lack of systems thinking makes me doubt to get any coherent non-accusatory response from you. I just don't see the practicality in solving global food supplies by the way you run your basement pot farm. But to salvage the topic, it sure is interesting to ponder over the purpose of our lives or what we've "been meant to be able to do". We've been meant to be cave dwelling hunter gatherer tribes foremost, then civilization started to kick in, maybe we were meant for that. Then global mega-civilizations as we're having today, with single cities carrying millions of people at once, and maybe we were meant for that too. But if so, why stop here? Couldn't we then also be meant to explore the stars and conquer entire galaxies? I mean, why not? Why set the limit to concrete ant hills? We're surely meant for more than that, aren't we not? This ought to be an inspiring thought, don't you think? To wonder what else we can achieve as a species, or figure out what we've meant to accomplish by pushing our boundaries. I don't see how there would be any room for nihilism while dreaming up and working towards a grand future like that. But maybe going against the demoralization programming is activating the Mr. Smiths and threads get pulled into some completely different, irrelevant direction. For instance to me, it doesn't even really matter why we're here, whether we have free will, because from mine and most likely everyone else's perspective or daily lives this does not really make a difference. At the end of the day we're here, and we can try to do the things that seem to make the most sense and appear to be the most righteous and maybe even forward thinking. >>95559 Nice chatgpt summary, and yes stochastics might be a way to look at it. Sure, it's massively impractical to predict what a species may change to over time. You need so many factors and variables to be known, like the environment over time, the predators or available food sources and so, so much more. Essentially needing to run a simulation close to running a version of life itself. Yet it's safe to predict that it will most likely have a somewhat symmetrical shape, pairs of limbs, and other configurations that tend to do the best in the wild. And a decent chance it will be a crab. >>94933 Still mad?

>>95508 >Because they cannot fathom the idea of a greater cause, then it has to be pure chaos that is behind this effect. No, it's because the universe as it is in the material form is already enough to give them so much awe and fascination with the universe and appreciate its beauty that they don't need to add something on top of it to make it beautiful. You need that because your soul can't grasp how amazing the universe is.

>>95559 >The user is making a mistake into claiming that... LLMs were are mistake.

>>95569 Marveling at the state of the universe definitely does not begin to scratch the topic of why and how. While it is fine to appreciate it for what it is, you are an impressible hylic drooling at the pretty lights who cannot comprehend why intelligent people have looked into the cause of it for millennia. Luckily for us such people didn't stand on the doorstep but instead crossed the gate.

>>95564 >Like I can't imagine being arsed to "design" an ostrich, unless it was for soykafs and giggles. You know how, during reincarnation, there are sometimes attempts to recreate certain conditions from the older body in the new body? When the predecessor of an ostrich strongly wishes to acquire a certain trait, the same mechanism can be used to force that trait onto its new body. And then, over time, DNA can adapt to maintaining it. This way, every animal can be its own designer. An ostrich might look stupid to you but awesome to whatever animal its consciousness used to inhabit in the past.

>>95629 So if we strongly will it we can literally auto-summon our better selves into the future by influencing those genes to change according to our needs and wishes. Time to have ambitious desires then.

>>95628 >Marveling at the state of the universe definitely does not begin to scratch the topic of why and how And that's why it's magical, would you prefer to have all the answers? >While it is fine to appreciate it for what it is, you are an impressible hylic drooling at the pretty lights This just shows your surface level your view is, of course it's just pretty lights for you, ironically you're the hylic in this conversation. Soulless reductionist who's too scared to see what's happening around him.

>>95642 >And that's why it's magical, would you prefer to have all the answers? Very smart people definitely tried to get some answers. You're dodging. >This just shows your surface level your view is, of course it's just pretty lights for you, ironically you're the hylic in this conversation. Soulless reductionist who's too scared to see what's happening around him. You're projecting. When I say that you're drooling at the pretty lights it's exactly what you're doing, you're the one having the superficial approach to it all and being plain happy with it. Don't try to paint your own comfortable limitations as some grand unrivaled wisdom that elevates ignorance into the highest form of bliss. You also missed the fact that I was describing atheists who fancy themselves pretending being able to explain a great chunk of the universe, but because their refusal of acknowledging greater forces that escape them, they would always fall back to claiming that all of it is just one big lucky event of pure randomness that brought about the material realm, often because they hate the idea of some kind of of ontological higher authority of power and truth making them feel all too small. It's a regression ad infinitum that is equally sad and laughable on their part. Being in great awe of the universe is not exclusive to these narrowly minded people, far from it. I didn't deny their awe, I criticized their logic and rationalization of existence.

>>95691 >noo actually you're the one who's projecting my projection!! You have no soul and that's why you thought if there's no higher entity, the type that you're describing then I must be drooling at the pretty lights because you can't conceive of anything else. >idea of some kind of of ontological higher authority of power and truth making them feel all too small I don't know how you could possibly not already feel small without this higher power. In a similar way, you're scared that it's a self organized system which makes you feel meaningless because you can't find meaning in the universe itself. You need a Deus ex machina to explain the story and feel safe because you don't like organically unfolding stories.

>>95693 >You have no soul and that's why you thought if there's no higher entity... Proof you can't read properly and your only available argument is the wildest accusations, complete twisting of my words most embarrassing assumptions. >In a similar way, you're scared that it's a self organized system which makes you feel meaningless because you can't find meaning in the universe itself. I don't suffer any such feeling. Again, stop projecting. >You need a Deus ex machina to explain the story and feel safe because you don't like organically unfolding stories. It is a matter of pure logic. Nothing can self-organize if there is no plan, power and intelligence behind it. Whether that thing is the universe itself or precedes it is some theological dispute that escapes both the concerns of atheists anyway and your own comprehension. You accuse me of relying on a Deus Ex Machina trick when I follow the simplest logic of source -> result, while you, on the other hand, claim that a functional structure can spontaneously appear out of nowhere where there was nothing before, without any prior cause. That is a broken thinking and with much irony relies on an even greater genuinely miraculous claim than my stance could ever do.

>95728 >everything must have a cause you assume that we must know what that cause is and the language in which it can be articulated. you argue that all things must have be created, and therefore the universe must have god a creator. and yet if i asked you what created god you would surely consider it blasphemy, or revert to the exact same sort of answer as an atheist might if you asked them what created the universe. i can assure you that things can become organized with "no plan, power, and intelligence" behind them. yet cannot account for the fact that plans, power, and intelligence can altogether increase in greatness. you would have it that they could only glimmer away to heat-death, or divine intervention. as you make a rationalistic argument that the universe follows rules, surely in line with thermodynamic (or some other incomplete system) principles. and then resort to abstract concepts with no basis in physics - intelligence, plan, even power in terms of physical and mathematical law is at best a shadow of the power you refer to. i have been trying to follow you and lain's circular conversation between some strictly decrepit theo-scientistic positivism and what seems like crypto-pantheistic enlightened naturalism that i only once held faith in. you are both deeply confused, as if one is perhaps very high on cannabis the other deeply enthralled by methamphetamine. understand that the world is not a rube goldberg machine of contingencies, it is a flow of intensities, a network of many causes and many effects that at times are one another. the world around us should be proof in and of itself of this, we are indebted with machinations all of which only seem to increase the general chaos of our circumstances. and yet flowers bloom, tides change, by what we can only assume are layers of processes that if not beyond our understanding, certainly beyond ourselves and power if at all comprehensible to us. you might call this "God" but it is surely insulting to reduce your theology to a matter of semantics. What's more, you would have it - if these deeply human notions of control must explain the whole universe, then that universe must be much smaller, much less great and powerful than the ultimate you seem to believe in. to put it all strictly within the domain of human articulation that we now have is to live in the shoddy sort of virtuality our insane rulers fantasize about placating us proles with.

>>95728 >>95731 is meant for you. ∆ ∆ ∆ flood detected

>>95728 > follow the simplest logic of source -> result, while you Logic and the language you use was developed for survival and tangential activities, just because you have observed that there's always source -> result in this universe doesn't mean it applies to anything outside it, therefore you can't use any of your observations from inside this universe to make any claim about what was or wasn't there before it was created. It's all about how much information you add to the proposed solution, and because of what I said above, every bit of this type of information is useless. I'm not adding anything, you're the one claiming the there must be something in some specific way for it to have worked, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, I'm saying that your claim has no basis.

>>95728 >>95731 >you assume that we must know what that cause is and the language in which it can be articulated. Not at all. I also rely on a simple logic that a design leads to a craft. What the source is needs not be known and is often considered unknowable anyway. >you argue that all things must have be created, and therefore the universe must have god a creator. Yes, regardless of how you wish to name it, a source, force, entity, etc. Perhaps even an assembly of minds of complementary abilities. >and yet if i asked you what created god you would surely consider it blasphemy, or revert to the exact same sort of answer as an atheist might if you asked them what created the universe. That source is uncreated. It holds the power and knowledge for at least this universe to be, but it's usually considered that the material universe is but a fraction of the whole. By all means such a degree of power is properly conceived as divine. Real atheists strongly disapprove of this idea. People verging towards an agnostic position are more receptive to such a metaphysical eventuality although they may continue asking for a proof while remaining cautious due to an accepted degree of ignorance. >i can assure you that things can become organized with "no plan, power, and intelligence" behind them. No you cannot assure me of anything like that. >yet cannot account for the fact that plans, power, and intelligence can altogether increase in greatness. No such claim was made. You have invented it. >you would have it that they could only glimmer away to heat-death, or divine intervention. No such claim was made. You have invented it. >as you make a rationalistic argument that the universe follows rules, surely in line with thermodynamic (or some other incomplete system) principles. I am not sure what you imply by an incomplete system. >and then resort to abstract concepts with no basis in physics - intelligence, plan, even power in terms of physical and mathematical law is at best a shadow of the power you refer to. The mathematics explored by humans reflect a limited understanding of the universal mathematics that maintain the universe. This human limit is not an issue. >i have been trying to follow you and lain's circular conversation between some strictly decrepit theo-scientistic positivism and what seems like crypto-pantheistic enlightened naturalism that i only once held faith in. you are both deeply confused, as if one is perhaps very high on cannabis the other deeply enthralled by methamphetamine. Thank you for your concern about my mental health but I do not consume opioids.

>>95743 >Logic and the language you use was developed for survival and tangential activities, just because you have observed that there's always source -> result in this universe doesn't mean it applies to anything outside it, therefore you can't use any of your observations from inside this universe to make any claim about what was or wasn't there before it was created. This is a fair point to make. You can claim that laws governing a greater whole this universe belongs to, or simply governing another realm, are radically at odds with those of this universe, but then this remains outside of our ability to explore with any degree of certainty and brings us back to the notion of the unknowable. One could equally argue that this other realm is not governed by any law at all and pure chaos. You are free to assume that the soundest logic in this universe does not apply outside of it, such as for example the notion of causality. But this would not solve the issue of any claim standing in opposition to this easily observed law of causality that applies to this universe, yet presented as capable of explaining chains of successive events and structural growth within this universe, for which cause -> consequence remains excessively logical.

All this creationist debate, while seeming like a derailment, had me contemplate on the meaning of life. In short, the purpose of life, at least our terrestrial process of it, some call it a tree, is to promote the proliferation of it, and pursue self-improvement. The goal of this only God knows but this is what all my ancestors, all the way back to the first molecular replicators did, so it's good enough for me. The reason I mention this is because this feels like a crucial philosophical cornerstone for a true futurist movement, or at least mindset. It doesn't sound like much to many but the implications, I believe, are sufficiently profound, since pro-natalism as well as environmentalism can be derived from it, simultaneously! This is counter to what we have now, where you have the Abrahamic theists essentially believing that everything was made for their enjoyment so that they can just use and soykaf everything up around them as they please because only the afterlife matters anyway and stubbornly hold back genuine progress when in charge, while the environmentalists that we have are a camp of narcissistic midwits that are either bitter malthusian death cults or opportunist luciferian transhumanist technocrat blank-slate megalomaniacs who use the former as useful idiots. And these two factions of dogmatic and superstitious Ned Flanderses vs the Homodeus lunatics each don't appear to offer anything comprehensively applicable to today's world while being mutually irreconcilable. I probably sound like a crypto pantheist to some, but as someone who isn't even well read on pantheist philosophies since it's mostly an umbrella for magic crystals and new age hippies, I simply went by first principles. Realizing that it doesn't even matter if we're intelligently designed or not, the reality appears to be that we're the result of a process of competition for resources at the very heart of it. Even cooperation and symbiosis is only in the further pursuit to split the loot during this biologic arm's race against other organisms occupying the same place. And life is essentially structured as multiple layers of organisms: molecular replicators like DNA is, cellular life forms, multi-cellular beings which are basically just a federation of cells, tribes, corporations, nations, world population, where on each of these layers the neighbors and even direct relatives compete for resources with each other. But at the same time we're still all connected, unironically. Now the fascists, and I mean the actual self described ones, realized this to some level but got hung up on only focusing on the nation layer, ignoring that the layers below, like the individual people, need to be happy too in order for the overarching organism that is the nation state to do well as well. This is their flaw and atrocities follow from that. The communists intuited this too, but instead they are hellbent on somehow fight this natural reality. Their whole shtick after all is to aim for post-scarcity, which is ludicrous in a finite material world. Even more atrocities follow from that. Both resort to socialism to essentially manage the finite resources by people who aren't even capable of fathom the complexity and messiness of the real world. Bureaucratic bodies are created which end up struggling under their own weight, lethargy and collective incompetence. Famines and genocide basically become inevitable. But the classical or now neo-liberalism, while focusing on the individual and their rights has completely neglected the collective as a whole, creating conditions where fascism and communism have become palatable. Especially after throwing out all the Christian teachings and its traditional wisdom with the bathing water. And by now it has become apparent to anyone with eyes and honesty what a disaster that turned out to be. It is clear that human civilization needs a solid philosophical and spiritual foundation, even, or especially when you want to climb up the Kardashev ladder. Because already in our relatively primitive state the hubris of believing yourself to be God or simply falling into depressive nihilism the damage and decay is considerable. Imagine if our technology leaps to even greater power while possibly failing to make us happy at an even more devastating degree. Hence it is imperative to promote intellectual honesty as opposed to the current toxic positivity and censorship. And embracing life and its proliferation. Unless anyone has a better suggestion, that seems like a simple yet solid bedrock for such a purpose, and love, preservation, undoing the damage we caused, self improvement and maybe even enlightenment can be inferred from that. The stories from religious scripture should be carried on but also should be not fall back into rigid dogma. We need to keep what worked and understand why it worked, fields like evolutionary psychology therefore need to be seriously explored and lifted out of the realm of bro-science, go with a liberal but though on serious crime and reciprocity focused culture, but also avoid falling into hubris or decadence since good times create weak men otherwise. We should aim to have Marcus Aurelius type of people as leaders and restore the trust in science again, which has completely been eroded by bad incentives, undue elitism, draconian measures and despite being wrong, still doubling down and calling for censorship and the feminization of the institutions and academia. I am aware all of this might put many of you off but I believe this is something almost concrete and tangible that I would like to throw into the wired's ether. Then next topic should be to figure out how to reign in organizations like bureaucratic governments and large corporations from cannibalizing its host since that's the civilizational equivalent of cancer whenever they reach the top end of the Pareto curve. But abolishing or at least heavily nerfing the patent system would be a good first proposal. >>95728 >Nothing can self-organize if there is no plan, power and intelligence behind it. What do you even mean by intelligence and so on? Nature self organizes all the time. Sometimes in the form of crystalline structures in the ice, sometimes with self replicating processes. Also what do you mean by "uncreated"? The material is interwoven with the metaphysical or syntactical, the way that things are arranged is already information in itself, and information is contained within the universe, where by universe I mean all which exists and if something is found beyond that, this too gets encompassed by my notion of the word universe. And even if you've got an intelligent designer beyond space and time who himself didn't require an origin, he'd still have to create the universe from nothing. This is as open ended as the big bang theory was. A self referential existence that simply is there due to its fundamental machinations, because existence simply must be, is a more sensible proposition in comparison. You claim to argue from reason and logic but you instead seem to start from a desired conclusion and romanticize the picture of a woodcraftsman sitting in his workshop, carving away on his creations. Now I don't call you stupid, since you don't seem so and likely do some sort of engineering job but you clearly don't grasp the automatic mechanisms and processes which I was talking about in earlier posts. But after having put more thought into this I realized that it doesn't even matter really whether there was a conscious creator behind all of this. Life has worked a certain way thus it is safe to suggest to proceed on those same principles and not fight nature. And maybe we can figure out how it all got into being along the way while we put those squabbles aside.

>>95772 >In short, the purpose of life, at least our terrestrial process of it, some call it a tree, is to promote the proliferation of it, and pursue self-improvement. You left out >experiencing existence as a mortal and >feeling a wide range of emotions too.

>>95772 >>Nothing can self-organize if there is no plan, power and intelligence behind it. >What do you even mean by intelligence and so on? Nature self organizes all the time. Sometimes in the form of crystalline structures in the ice, sometimes with self replicating processes. It cannot self-organize if it doesn't have a blueprint to follow. The blueprint is the fruit of that intelligence, of that ordering force. https://scitechdaily.com/mathematics-uncover-hidden-geometry-of-imperfect-crystals/

>>95918 It looks like our disagreement is really only about semantics whether it's some grand blueprint or just the fundamental laws of physics if what it boils down to is prime numbers. Because again, if life didn't emerge then this ordering force you speak of must have come into being by itself then, did it not? But one way or another, existence, and then life, came into being in some weird, most likely incomprehensible and self referential way at least somewhere down the line. We live in a self observing universe, and no plan is needed if there's only one way for things to turn out. Neat article though. Challenge: refute the following! Pro-tip: you can't! >>95851 Funny thing is that I contemplated on exactly that and wondered if what I said would imply that but now I have to object to your post since no, being in the moment and feeling the summer breeze blow through your hair might not necessarily be a required part of it. What I was talking about was based on what we can observe how life seems to function. Whether it's been billions of years or just 6000, maybe even less if you believe yourself to be in a simulation, but it operates on its own propagation. Since specimen and branches that do not so, fade away, and only those remain that do. And so as long as you've got nothing better to offer, the safe bet is to continue in the same spirit that it did, and ensure that it will be able to do so far into the future. That is the fundamental purpose of life, at least for now. Be it to just buy us some time until we can figure out what's better to do instead, or what hypothesis of our creation is more accurate, it's not important to squabble this one out today. And no, having all of creation simply culminating in you partying it all away in a single 70 years or less hedonistic blast is something that I'm not very much sold on. And sure, consciousness and further enlightenment seem important too since what else could the universe possibly actually want from us? But regardless, this is I believe a good foundation where everyone, be it atheists (or rather reasonable agnostics) and even this creationist anon should be able to find some common ground on and unite in a common pursuit of those who cherish life as a whole and wish for it to continue and prosper. This I believe is the key insight from my seemingly overly basic statement. I believe that life itself and its further propagation as a purpose is a viable and important core tenet of a futuristic philosophy if it wants to become anything serious. And it's vague on purpose since there's many pitfalls if one would want to optimize on one single aspect in particular. Like producing offspring for the sake of it and neglecting quality, or using up resources to "live to one's fullest" and enrich oneself with experiences without regard of the environment. Or maximize for one's ascent or enlightenment while causing undue destruction, suffering and death to others. And the pursuit of immortality or worship of bodies or the sun etc. is each its own can of worms. Thus there needs to be caution to proceed from here, and there seems to be a sweet spot or particular balance that we are yet to discover. But as long as this is adhered to as a north star, there's I believe a good chance that we can, and also will prevail long enough to do so. And just like the fear of the biblical God was moderating Kings in the past since no one shall be equal or above the Lord. While this in turn could reveal the rulers of this dynasty as parasitic and evil who only seek for a serf class to benefit them only, and not instead the overarching process of life. And it would remove any moral or philosophical justification from their side that they are not in fact parasitic or evil in doing so. Since if their whole goal is to satisfy their personal, ape instinct driven, narcissistic musings then they are not welcome by this standard, no matter as how grand they see themselves. Likewise does it provide some reason for those at the bottom ranks to continue and to care. Since sacrificing their time and effort, in essence their lives, just to pay their bills and help enrich someone who isn't them nor their family or even their kin, is not a viable reason at all. It's simply being taken for a sucker. This can even be extended to animals or the livestock we keep, to even the natural environment that we exploit for or purposes. While we have no choice really to do otherwise, it must therefore also serve that overarching purpose in the end. And while I don't believe we're anywhere close to AGI, this would also be a logical justification for it to not simply extinguish us if it does eventually happen to come about, especially if it is by our own creation. It's an extremely palatable proposition but at the same time vehemently rejects any death cults, and also resolves the gaping flaw in Christianity where its followers often seem to be with one foot already in the afterlife, mentally at least, where any good deed really is only a down payment to get into heaven while really nothing actually matters to them in the "material world". I believe what I've just provided is not nothing, but am eager to read where there could be flaws with any of this. Since without a solid philosophical underpinning all that there is to anything Futurism, or even just optimism, will be nothing but pretty pictures.

>>94550 The whole time reading this it came out in Jules voice from Pulp Fiction.

>>95924 >It looks like our disagreement is really only about semantics Definitely not. You combine so many words and terms in ways that are contradictory or meaningless that it's pointless to go after your long ramblings that you get lost in. So many words for so little substance. >Muh topmost superbest gotcha argument: Game of Life LOL typical. Come on, you can do better than that.

>>95948 You not understanding my words has little bearing on the validity of what I believe to be a pretty straight forward concept. But let me summarize it and I assure you, it should make sense if you're actually open minded. Whichever way it may have come to be, life on this planet is observably a continuous chain and each part, each generation has the duty and responsibility towards it to not be the joint that breaks it or at least otherwise ensures that it will continue. It's pretty basic, sure, but a concept which, if adopted, would reject anyone who is either solely self serving or seeks for life to be destroyed for whatever reason. And if you haven't noticed, there's many such people around as of recent against which the current culture doesn't seem to have anything really to guard itself against. To the point that even a sort of collective suicide can be observed in the developed world. Now sure Christianity served well to keep that kind of stuff at bay but even that has the problem where the promise of heaven might want people to "speed run" things instead of trying to be the shepherd of life on earth. And no real rational as to why we should care about the environment. It's a first principles based idea which provides a practical explanation why it is good to preserve and propagate life, and why it is bad to do the opposite. On this even you should be able to agree and unite with those who agree on this basic premise as well, since it's not even conflicting with any belief system or religion which isn't a death cult, wants to irreparably damage humanity through a hubristic attempt at transhumanism, nor is otherwise a hedonistic behavioral sink, as long as one can agree, that: >life is good and valuable and part of the same creation or process >a son or daughter has a father and a mother, who themselves were a son or daughter to their parents, and so on And even if that's not the case, which I strongly doubt, it should at the very least buy us some time to squabble out those questions of our origins later while providing a common moral ground to push away the evil or corrupt elements that are plaguing our shared civilization into the depths that it belongs. The more detailed reasoning should be in my previous post: >>95924 But that's the gist. I hope this makes it more clear and you're not just being willfully ignorant nor disruptive for the sake of it. Life is a self perpetuating process where each member is required to maintain it through its propagation and ensuring future generations can follow suit, and protect it against destruction, be it external or internal. Thus this should be the basis of any future oriented philosophy and moral basis. Futurism or not. >>95925 Awesome! It was written while I was terribly exhausted from the stupidity that is prevalent in those threads and people who promote their silly greenwashing punk. There is no proper foundation nor reason, or even just a pragmatic yet hopeful outlook for the future to be found there, which I tried to remedy with this thread. I hope that I managed to succeed at least somewhat on this, even if my frustration is shining through my posts. Anyway, merry Christmas and a happy new year, fellow starship troopers!

>>95959 >You not understanding my words has little bearing on the validity of what I believe to be a pretty straight forward concept. But let me summarize it and I assure you, it should make sense if you're actually open minded. On the contrary I understand the words you use, but you use them in improper ways, thus your post comes off as messy. So badly in fact that it becomes painful to read, that with the whole tangents you go on in your blog posts that don't help either. You understand some key aspects of life but continue to miss the fundamentals of it. You even start arguing on points on your own, in your little corner, as if I had disagreed on them, but you are merely not paying enough attention. You are hallucinating wildly. The fact that you thought we merely disagreed on a semantics layer is enough for me to know that we cannot possibly interact any longer in a truly meaningful way. I hope you will find what you are looking for.