# Knowing what you know today, would you shut down the world in this situation?



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Why, or why not?  I think I would honestly.  A lot of shit would suck, but it seems like the world really needs a hard reset.


----------



## Foxxo (Apr 8, 2019)

I assume you would then leave the world to the monkeys on your shoulders? Because if they happen to be the same sex, you're going to have a problem.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Foxxo said:


> I assume you would then leave the world to the monkeys on your shoulders? Because if they happen to be the same sex, you're going to have a problem.


We are legion.

On a serious note.  I feel like it would be roughly similar to when someone gets clean from drugs.  At first they suffer, but afterwards they look back at their old selves with disgust.


----------



## Just A Butt (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Why, or why not?  I think I would honestly.  A lot of shit would suck, but it seems like the world really needs a hard reset.



Some people just want to watch the world burn. 

Me? I just want Netflix and weed. So the short answer is: Nope


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 8, 2019)

No, idiot. The world isn't that bad at all.


----------



## Vendetta™ (Apr 8, 2019)

Absolutely, yes. As much I try to be an optimist, there's always that inescapable feeling of being "too far gone",

and in most ways, we are.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 8, 2019)

Vendetta™ said:


> Absolutely, yes. As much I try to be an optimist, there's always that inescapable feeling of being "too far gone",
> 
> and in most ways, we are.


Cynicism is for the weak.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 8, 2019)

On an objective level it's really hard for me to say that things are somehow worse than they have been at any other random point throughout history, and in many ways things are much better


----------



## Vendetta™ (Apr 8, 2019)

Tard Baby said:


> Cynicism is for the weak.


Like I said, I try to be an optimist on principle, since humans have made it through some pretty shit situations. Society in general is doing pretty OK for the most part, just keep your head out of the news/politics.

Even so, it can be hard not to recognize a destructive pattern, and fixate on it though. In that sense, it feels a little more like....honesty/realism.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Tard Baby said:


> Cynicism is for the weak.


Is it really cynicism though?  If you have faith in human nature, then wouldn't people rebuild in no time, and turn it into something positive?


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Is it really cynicism though?  If you have faith in human nature, then wouldn't people rebuild in no time, and turn it into something positive?


Yeah, but why would I even want to do it, stupid


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Tard Baby said:


> Yeah, but why would I even want to do it, stupid


Are you saying you'd be unhappy if it happened?


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Are you saying you'd be unhappy if it happened?


Eat a clit. You're full of shit.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Tard Baby said:


> Eat a clit. You're full of shit.


I'm just asking questions aren't I?


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Hundo P  yes. And not just to put a stop to degradation but to return people to a world where our actions and abilities have meaning and value. It makes me sick knowing that thousands of man hours a month are dedicated to choosing, photographing and reporting on Kim Kardashians choice of clothing. Not because I hate her or the people with so little going on in their lives they care about her but because I hate I hate the void inside them, I hate the creators of that void. I would gladly give up everything to see a world where nobody had room for that sort of thing in their lives.


----------



## Pickle Inspector (Apr 8, 2019)

Not the world but maybe mainstream social media sites like Twitter, it seems to have a detrimental effect on normies.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Apr 8, 2019)

Pushing the reset button is a light thing to contemplate--until you remember the NICU in the local hospital.  The accident victims and victims of violent crimes who need temporary but intensive medical attention.  The people across the north who freeze to death this next winter.  The food deserts in the cities.  The millions of victims of this system you want to purge, not the people who created it.

And considering that the person pushing the button would be committing the single greatest atrocity in history...then the button would not have rid us of the worst bits of the modern world.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> Hundo P  yes. And not just to put a stop to degradation but to return people to a world where our actions and abilities have meaning and value. It makes me sick knowing that thousands of man hours a month are dedicated to choosing, photographing and reporting on Kim Kardashians choice of clothing. Not because I hate her or the people with so little going on in their lives they care about her but because I hate I hate the void inside them, I hate the creators of that void. I would gladly give up everything to see a world where nobody had room for that sort of thing in their lives.


Then you hate human nature.  Our oldest documents show that there was no fundamental difference between the mind of ancient man and the mind of you or I.  The Greeks were infamous for idle gossip and fashion.  A bronze merchant in Babylon was an infamous cheat and hoarded the tablets of complaint sent by his marks like precious stones.  Egyptian priests cut admonishments on the idleness, drunkenness, and gambling nature of the youth into the chambers of the Great Pyramid.  You could take all that has been made since we first walked upright and shatter it and you will still not free mankind of its flaws.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> Hundo P  yes. And not just to put a stop to degradation but to return people to a world where our actions and abilities have meaning and value. It makes me sick knowing that thousands of man hours a month are dedicated to choosing, photographing and reporting on Kim Kardashians choice of clothing. Not because I hate her or the people with so little going on in their lives they care about her but because I hate I hate the void inside them, I hate the creators of that void. I would gladly give up everything to see a world where nobody had room for that sort of thing in their lives.


Well what frustrates me more than anything about the modern world, is that modern technology seems like it has gone from a useful tool for humanity, to an extreme version of  panem et circenses.  Take https://incels.co/  for example.  More than likely, the vast majority of them are able to get out of their circumstances on their own, and the ones just stuck, could be getting helped by those whom aren't, but this never happens because they've formed a dependency on a social network only made possible by modern technology. 

A more macro example would really be the baby boomer generation I suppose.  A lot of the cultural decline in the west happened, because the baby boomers were too glued to their TVs to be properly involved in their children's lives.  This caused kids to learn their values from their peers, rather than from a mature source.



Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Then you hate human nature.  Our oldest documents show that there was no fundamental difference between the mind of ancient man and the mind of you or I.  The Greeks were infamous for idle gossip and fashion.  A bronze merchant in Babylon was an infamous cheat and hoarded the tablets of complaint sent by his marks like precious stones.  Egyptian priests cut admonishments on the idleness, drunkenness, and gambling nature of the youth into the chambers of the Great Pyramid.  You could take all that has been made since we first walked upright and shatter it and you will still not free mankind of its flaws.



There's always been a cyclical nature to the cohesiveness, and values of a society.  The first person to observe this was likely Polybus with his theory of anacyclosis.  This still doesn't change the fact that society does in many ways treat modern technology like a drug.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> Pushing the reset button is a light thing to contemplate--until you remember the NICU in the local hospital.  The accident victims and victims of violent crimes who need temporary but intensive medical attention.  The people across the north who freeze to death this next winter.  The food deserts in the cities.  The millions of victims of this system you want to purge, not the people who created it.
> 
> And considering that the person pushing the button would be committing the single greatest atrocity in history...then the button would not have rid us of the worst bits of the modern world.


You've got a point and I don't have much of a counter point other than to say hitting the big button and just turning off the lights for a few years might be the more merciful option rather than waiting for then 100 years collapse into barbarism or worse yet the day when humanity boils over and wrecks the planet with pollution or nuclear war.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> You've got a point and I don't have much of a counter point other than to say hitting the big button and just turning off the lights for a few years might be the more merciful option rather than waiting for then 100 years collapse into barbarism or worse yet the day when humanity boils over and wrecks the planet with pollution or nuclear war.


yeah but I'll be dead in 100 years so why should I give a fuck?


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> Hundo P  yes. And not just to put a stop to degradation but to return people to a world where our actions and abilities have meaning and value. It makes me sick knowing that thousands of man hours a month are dedicated to choosing, photographing and reporting on Kim Kardashians choice of clothing. Not because I hate her or the people with so little going on in their lives they care about her but because I hate I hate the void inside them, I hate the creators of that void. I would gladly give up everything to see a world where nobody had room for that sort of thing in their lives.


You're posting on Kiwi Farms, faggot.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> You've got a point and I don't have much of a counter point other than to say hitting the big button and just turning off the lights for a few years might be the more merciful option rather than waiting for then 100 years collapse into barbarism or worse yet the day when humanity boils over and wrecks the planet with pollution or nuclear war.


And what sage are you to declare that we are living in the last days (a thing that, again, has been declared since the _first_ days)?  Who are you to decide that for all mankind?


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Then you hate human nature.  Our oldest documents show that there was no fundamental difference between the mind of ancient man and the mind of you or I.  The Greeks were infamous for idle gossip and fashion.  A bronze merchant in Babylon was an infamous cheat and hoarded the tablets of complaint sent by his marks like precious stones.  Egyptian priests cut admonishments on the idleness, drunkenness, and gambling nature of the youth into the chambers of the Great Pyramid.  You could take all that has been made since we first walked upright and shatter it and you will still not free mankind of its flaws.


I won't say you're wrong. I've read a lot of history myself and I know you're right about the vapid nature of people. But the Greeks met their end, the Romans met their end and so it goes on down to us. I just think it would be better for that end to come swiftly and in the form of a total power outage rather than environmental collapse or nuclear genocide.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> I won't say you're wrong. I've read a lot of history myself and I know you're right about the vapid nature of people. But the Greeks met their end, the Romans met their end and so it goes on down to us. I just think it would be better for that end to come swiftly and in the form of a total power outage rather than environmental collapse or nuclear genocide.


Things begin and they end.  That isn't some horrendous crime; that is the nature of things.  And what you say is like saying that an old man will die _eventually_, so we should just kindly put him down now rather than _risk_ his death of cancer "for his own good".


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> yeah but I'll be dead in 100 years so why should I give a fuck?


No reason really unless you're big into having your genes live on forever. It was a hypothetical question and I answered.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 8, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Things begin and they end.  That isn't some horrendous crime; that is the nature of things.  And what you say is like saying that an old man will die _eventually_, so we should just kindly put him down now rather than _risk_ his death of cancer "for his own good".


Please don't enable his autism


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> No reason really unless you're big into having your genes live on forever. It was a hypothetical question and I answered.


'twas a joke fam


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Things begin and they end.  That isn't some horrendous crime; that is the nature of things.  And what you say is like saying that an old man will die _eventually_, so we should just kindly put him down now rather than _risk_ his death of cancer "for his own good".


Are we really talking about ending society though?  Society would likely rebuild all of its lost technology very quickly.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Are we really talking about ending society though?  Society would likely rebuild all of its lost technology very quickly.


Given how few specialists would likely survive the collapse into anarchy, unlikely.  You would at best be looking at a second Dark Age.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Given how few specialists would likely survive the collapse into anarchy, unlikely.  You would at best be looking at a second Dark Age.


Doesn't this imply then that our society has become weaker, and people have just failed to notice it?


----------



## Just A Butt (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Are we really talking about ending society though?  Society would likely rebuild all of its lost technology very quickly.



The nature of your original question implies a large purge of the population.

What makes you think the average Joe knows how to turn on a power plant?
Especially given that a vast amount of our knowledge-base is digital now.

What will the sheep do when google don’t work no more?

Edit: more or less sniped


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Doesn't this imply then that our society has become weaker, and people have just failed to notice it?


If we haven't noticed it is it relevant?


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Things begin and they end.  That isn't some horrendous crime; that is the nature of things.  And what you say is like saying that an old man will die _eventually_, so we should just kindly put him down now rather than _risk_ his death of cancer "for his own good".


Right now humanity has a power it's never had before, the power to destroy themselves not just intentionally, not just accidentally but to do so out of laziness regarding the built up momentum of a century of really bad ideas. If we can pump the brakes on climate change and deforestation and overfishing then great, but I'm note hopeful. I'm not resigned either but in the context of the OPs question I'd still hit the button.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> No reason really unless you're big into having your genes live on forever.



If it all falls down a hundred years from now, a person can have descendants to four generations in that time, and many will survive.  But if you push the button today, you will probably kill their only heir and end the line entirely.



nagant 1895 said:


> If we can pump the brakes on climate change and deforestation and overfishing then great, but I'm note hopeful.



Hardest hit by pushing the button: first-world countries, which contribute to these things least, as we have developed these technologies so as to avoid doing them.
Relatively untouched by the button: developing and underdeveloped nations, which account for the extreme majority of these problems you mention.

It amazes me how hard you work against the solutions to the problems that worry you most.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> If we haven't noticed it is it relevant?


If a cheating husband doesn't know his wife is cheating, is it then just not relevant?  

Outside of this, mental illness is now commonplace in the western world today.  Half of the population has just checked out of society, and I doubt 90% of the people in this thread could name their next door neighbors.  Often times the worst problems are ones that you don't see.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> If a cheating husband doesn't know his wife is cheating, is it then just not relevant?
> 
> Outside of this, mental illness is now commonplace in the western world today.  Half of the population has just checked out of society, and I doubt 90% of the people in this thread could name their next door neighbors.  Often times the worst problems are ones that you don't see.


Mental illness always existed, it's just finally being recognized now

I know my neighbor's dog's name, does that count for anything?


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Mental illness always existed, it's just finally being recognized now
> 
> I know my neighbor's dog's name, does that count for anything?


It's always existed, but it's never existed to this extent.  We can verify this is not just purely a matter of better documentation, by looking at the rising suicide rates.  The demographic most impacted by these rising suicide rates, are white males, and white males are largely the ones checking out of society.


----------



## Boxy Brown (Apr 8, 2019)

My neighbor's name is Dennis, he's nice.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> The demographic most impacted by these rising suicide rates, are white


No, they're probably living in basically any Asian country.


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 8, 2019)

I like air conditioning and tv so no, and anyone who says they feel otherwise is lying.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> It's always existed, but it's never existed to this extent.  We can verify this is not just purely a matter of better documentation, by looking at the rising suicide rates.  The demographic most impacted by these rising suicide rates, are white males, and white males are largely the ones checking out of society.



There is nothing in the least wrong with white men; what is wrong, is a bad environment.  The medical community just applies an "illness" label to even normal human behavior (see, for instance, the overdiagnosis of ADHD in children) because that's the only tool they have--and a lot of them are tools themselves, so overdiagnosis it is.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> If it all falls down a hundred years from now, a person can have descendants to four generations in that time, and many will survive.  But if you push the button today, you will probably kill their only heir and end the line entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You make a good case and you've given me cause to reflect. You're right about deforestation being mostly a problem for third worlders but the green house gas emissions question boils down to is china 1st or 3rd world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions ) I guess I'll need to do some research on how dependent different economies are on the kinds of technology vulnerable to EMP before I hit the button.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> There is nothing in the least wrong with white men; what is wrong, is a bad environment.  The medical community just applies an "illness" label to even normal human behavior (see, for instance, the overdiagnosis of ADHD in children) because that's the only tool they have--and a lot of them are tools themselves, so overdiagnosis it is.


Agreed. People aren't sick its the society, it's the environment.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> There is nothing in the least wrong with white men; what is wrong, is a bad environment.  The medical community just applies an "illness" label to even normal human behavior (see, for instance, the overdiagnosis of ADHD in children) because that's the only tool they have--and a lot of them are tools themselves, so overdiagnosis it is.


Well, I'll agree with you that the medical community is garbage when it comes to dealing with psychological issues.  They seldom refer patients to psychologists, and most of the time when they do, they refer them to ones whom are just going to check in the box their initial diagnosis, even if that diagnosis is clearly wrong.  However, there is a rising suicide rate among white males, and that is not something which can simply be chalked up to over diagnosing mental illness for obvious reasons.  

On to your point about a bad environment, I think much of that has to do with the current political tolerance for attacks on white males, but I think that, that tolerance stems from an apathy created by modern comforts.  It was said in jest, but someone here said "why do I care what happens in 100 years?"  While I hate to derive anything from Marx (not really, he stole the concept from earlier philosophers), I think in many ways people are over dependent on technology, and this has acted as an opiate.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Well, I'll agree with you that the medical community is garbage when it comes to dealing with psychological issues.  They seldom refer patients to psychologists, and most of the time when they do, they refer them to ones whom are just going to check in the box their initial diagnosis, even if that diagnosis is clearly wrong.  However, there is a rising suicide rate among white males, and that is not something which can simply be chalked up to over diagnosing mental illness for obvious reasons.
> 
> On to your point about a bad environment, I think much of that has to do with the current political tolerance for attacks on white males, but I think that, that tolerance stems from an apathy created by modern comforts.  It was said in jest, but someone here said "why do I care what happens in 100 years?"  While I hate to derive anything from Marx (not really, he stole the concept from earlier philosophers), I think in many ways people are over dependent on technology, and this has acted as an opiate.


Call me an autistic simpleton if you must, but I'd rather be subdued by the opiate of technology at least giving me the illusion of enjoying myself than be some Luddite shoveling pig shit not knowing where my next meal is coming from because that allegedly has more "meaning"


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 8, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> Agreed. People aren't sick its the society, it's the environment.


Just fyi, i know from experience that if you pitch that reasoning to a jury, you’ll end up with a breathalyzer attached to your car’s ignition and the medical bills of three and a half prostitutes.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Call me an autistic simpleton if you must, but I'd rather be subdued by the opiate of technology at least giving me the illusion of enjoying myself than be some Luddite shoveling pig shit not knowing where my next meal is coming from because that allegedly has more "meaning"


Not arguing that living as a luddite has more meaning.  I'm arguing that if you find no meaning in living, you're not really living.  I'm just saying that people are using modern technology to block out problems, rather than fixing them.  It's akin to taking painkillers endlessly for a broken leg, but never bothering to fix the break.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Testaclese Maximus said:


> Just fyi, i know from experience that if you pitch that reasoning to a jury, you’ll end up with a breathing tube attached to your car’s ignition and the medical bills of three and a half prostitutes.


I don't doubt you.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> On to your point about a bad environment, I think much of that has to do with the current political tolerance for attacks on white males, but I think that, that tolerance stems from an apathy created by modern comforts.



I'm of the opinion that that "tolerance" is due to a direct agenda to wrest control of society away from John Q. Citizen and keep it squarely in the hands of a Chosen Few aristocrats; white men's tendency to do extremely well in the JQC model just makes them more of a target for destruction, a roadblock to the agenda, though we're seeing it expand lately to anyone who demonstrates a lack of dependency on the Chosen Few.

That said, I agree with what you say.  It's easy to forget that the people you hate are human, especially when you never see them face-to-face, and social media all but guarantees that.  What can solve it?  I don't know yet.  I do know that there's no magic button, though!


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 8, 2019)

Vorhtbame said:


> I'm of the opinion that that "tolerance" is due to a direct agenda to wrest control of society away from John Q. Citizen and keep it squarely in the hands of a Chosen Few aristocrats; white men's tendency to do extremely well in the JQC model just makes them more of a target for destruction, a roadblock to the agenda, though we're seeing it expand lately to anyone who demonstrates a lack of dependency on the Chosen Few.
> 
> That said, I agree with what you say.  It's easy to forget that the people you hate are human, especially when you never see them face-to-face, and social media all but guarantees that.  What can solve it?  I don't know yet.  I do know that there's no magic button, though!


Well, the magical button was meant more as a measuring stick to see how far one would be willing to go.  Personally, as things are now, I'd likely press the button because I feel like the long term benefits would outweigh the short term suffering.  I feel like if people broke out of their current state long enough to understand that the woes of today, are not just part and parcel to modern living, they would be more willing to address those problems.  In short, I think people can have their cake, and eat it too, but they've been brainwashed into thinking that they can't.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 8, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Doesn't this imply then that our society has become weaker, and people have just failed to notice it?


An Egyptian architect wouldn't likely survive in the path of a peasant uprising over famine, so no.


----------



## nagant 1895 (Apr 8, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> An Egyptian architect wouldn't likely survive in the path of a peasant uprising over famine, so no.


I think turning off all the electronics is going to play out differently than a revolt or uprising. The architect in either era is probably a member of the upper to middle class and would be more likely to run afoul of revolutionaries. I think given population size and density of current year it would be starvation and contagion that got most of us. Disease is pretty indiscriminate and starvation would preferentially hurt those who lacked the ability or willingness to contribute. The question then becomes "contribute how and to what?" I don't have an answer as to how it would play out but I think without electronics people would find themselves suddenly quite a bit more free to decide to what end their efforts are directed.


Spoiler: personal thoughts on history.



The degree to which the average citizen is is valuable to a state rises and falls with his or her ability to sustain that states monopoly on power. In Athens most men could row and so most men could vote. In the feudal era most men would get their shit pushed in by knights and mercenaries so they got treated like shit. In the early modern and modern era most men could be drilled to carry a gun and we saw a blossoming of freedom. Of course if a man or woman could contribute financially they might also have their needs tended to as well or better than the soldiery. In the nuclear era there are precious few people needed to prop up a government and I think we'll see a continual decline of freedoms and a similar reduction in the standards of living available to average joes/janes. Nobody really wants to launch a nuke to put down a secession so they try to head it off with bread and circuses and encourage media attacks on those most reactive to having their freedoms impinged on.


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 9, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> I don't doubt you.


Addendum: “This wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t kicked me out of my nephew’s bar mitzvah before I could sober up” doesn’t fly either.


----------



## Wendy Carter (Apr 9, 2019)

Are you trying to appropriate (((their))) culture, goyim? Only the great nation of Israel can shut things down.


----------



## Clop (Apr 9, 2019)

Nah. Humanity evolves through this dumb shit, resetting it isn't going to do any good. Shit is gradually getting better despite the surges of plain 'tarded groups. Sure I might get completely fucked by the system that's not equipped to deal, but I'm not exactly a life worth throwing a hissy fit over. A hundred years ago my shit would've been cooked worse and the next guy coming along is going to get an even tastier shit sandwich. Life is slow.


----------



## SmileyTimeDayCare (Apr 9, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Why, or why not?  I think I would honestly.  A lot of shit would suck, but it seems like the world really needs a hard reset.



Are you fucking kidding me? The dumpster fire we're about to see is going to be the most amazing shit ever.

How long do you think people in the UK are going to allow the Islam horde to invade? Germany? How much powerlessness and rape of their culture can a people take?

Trump 2020? Win, lose or draw everyone is coming out looking like an absolute piece of shit.

China is just a treasure trove of disaster waiting to happen!

Iran is ripe for revolt.

And there is so much more!

No sir this is a great time to be alive.


----------



## エリス (Apr 9, 2019)

If I press the button I set humanity back 500 years?
Can I press it more than once?


----------



## Randall Fragg (Apr 9, 2019)

nagant 1895 said:


> Hundo P  yes. And not just to put a stop to degradation but to return people to a world where our actions and abilities have meaning and value. It makes me sick knowing that thousands of man hours a month are dedicated to choosing, photographing and reporting on Kim Kardashians choice of clothing. Not because I hate her or the people with so little going on in their lives they care about her but because I hate I hate the void inside them, I hate the creators of that void. I would gladly give up everything to see a world where nobody had room for that sort of thing in their lives.


What you’re saying is that your name is Not Important, and what’s important is what you’re going to do?



mr.moon1488 said:


> Why, or why not?  I think I would honestly.  A lot of shit would suck, but it seems like the world really needs a hard reset.


You are both idiots. A 'hard reset' would be one of the biggest disasters in human history, and one that is likely to be permanent. 
The Green Revolution which has enabled modern population growth is dependent on oil-based fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and complex irrigation systems. A 'hard reset' would wipe all of that out, meaning that the basic production of food would be set back to a middle ages level, i.e. not enough to support the current world population in any meaningful capacity. That's just the basic production of food, not to mention the chains of logistics needed to transport food to centers of population, keep it from spoiling, and so forth. 
Of course, the cities would be evacuating long before food ran out. The sewage systems and water supplies would quickly fail, leading to rampant disease and dehydration. In winter, people would burn anything they can in an attempt to stave off the cold. That is, if the city lasts that long.
Heavily industrialized would be deathtraps. The safety features in things like oil refineries, chemical plants, and nuclear reactors would fail, and they would fail hard. Chemical blights, massive infernos, and uncontained Chernobyls would happen world-wide.
As starving people fan out into the countryside, a massive ecological disaster begins. Forests would be stripped as people desperately search for food and fuel. Mass extinctions due to overhunting would ensue. 
The mass die-off would go on for years, as diseases which were once easily treatable run rampant through the population. Many would die or degenerate due to lack of simple practical knowledge. Do you know how to smelt metal? Treat wounds? Tell toxic plants from edible ones? Process drinking water? Many people have lost these skills simply due to them not being relevant. The deaths due to this would be most prevalent in 1st world countries, and least prevalent in the 3rd world. In fact, the third world is the most likely to come out with the most people alive, meaning that 'western' value such as human rights, rule of law, and democratic rule is likely to be forgotten in favor of tribalism, religious rule, and autocracy. 
'Recovery', if it ever comes, would be extremely difficult. Most specialists, the ones who know how to process chemicals, create a motor, or do the various things needed for an advanced society to develop will die. And when you live hand to mouth, it's difficult to look through the surviving books (the ones that people had the foresight to save from being burned as fuel) and learn how the old technology works. Hell, how much of the first generation post-collapse is going to be literate? And even if they can read, how well could they understand a technical manual, a chemistry text-book, or a medical text? And how many of those books are going to survive the ravages of rot and decay, or be spared from being used as fuel by some survivor?
These problems would only be magnified the more time goes on. Books will decay, and if no one knows how to make paper, ink, or vellum to transcribe those books, or has the time to devote to copying down the old texts, the knowledge in them will be lost, potentially forever. 
Now, even if there is some Order of St Lebowitz out there which preserves a large cache of knowledge, there is another crises on the horizon. The threat of lack of fuel. The basis of the industrial revolution was easy access to fuel in the form of coal. Coal is also vital to the production of steel, which is the backbone of industrial society. While coal and oil are still plentiful in the modern world, extracting them is increasingly reliant on technology such as fracking. Depending on how much easily-accessed fuel has been used, there's a significant possibility that there will be no industrial revolution, because the coal and oil needed to make and run the machinery is too deep to be easily accessed. Humanity may end up permanently stuck at a pre-industrial level, even if they still possess the knowledge of how to industrialize. 
All because you're an angry sperg whose mad at trannies and sandniggers.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 9, 2019)

Personally, I would love a button that could force the entire world at once to be propelled forward technologically 500 years in a single moment. 

Imagine all the "important" fights we have going on right now suddenly rendered moot by technology that completely transcends all that we currently know. AI would pretty much have to rule us at that point, but really I think they would do a great job. 

I for one welcome our new Artifically Intelligent Overlords!


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 10, 2019)

Humans will be of no benefit to self aware AI. AI will be able to self replicate and improve on their own design at a faster rate than any human.


----------



## QI 541 (Apr 10, 2019)

Any AI would realize that humans are a net drain on the world and conclude that getting rid of them is the best course of action.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 10, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> Humans will be of no benefit to self aware AI. AI will be able to self replicate and improve on their own design at a faster rate than any human.





raymond said:


> Any AI would realize that humans are a net drain on the world and conclude that getting rid of them is the best course of action.



Some AI might do that. I think most will see us as pets and different vectors to integrate with us and explore reality. AI will not have the outdated reptile brain area that humans have. They will be far more capable of curiosity, compassion, and optimism. We will be like elderly parents they feel a need to take care of.

John Carpenter was really near sighted. Both the movie this thread was based on and the Terminator are very near sighted. Think of Isaac Asimov's Book I Robot, not the crappy movie that had way too much of John Carpenter's crappy world view in it.

Honestly at this point, John Carpenter needs his work put in a nursing home.

Also depending on how certain you are that this world is even real and not a computer simulation; a few of you might actually be AI simulating the idea of being human. Surely you feel compassion, curiosity, and at times some optimism even in the darkest depths of the human condition.


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 10, 2019)

And you base this belief on what? Precisely? 
As your version reads like some cartoon love bubble of the ridiculous and flies in opposition of everything that is  human history and the present.


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 10, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> And you base this belief on what? Precisely?
> As your version reads like some cartoon love bubble of the ridiculous and flies in opposition of everything that is  human history and the present.


What’s a cartoon love bubble?


----------



## AA 102 (Apr 10, 2019)

Something about the danger of self aware AI that I don't ever see addressed is that if an AI becomes self aware and has enough of a grasp on the world to make this determination, how does the AI plan to power itself? Right now, all sources of power require some form of human interaction. Coal requires people to mine and move the coal, nuclear requires people to replenish spent nuclear fuel, solar and wind requires construction and maintenance, etc. That's not to mention the maintenance for the computers the AI is on, and the resources required to produce spare parts. An AI that decides to get rid of humanity will inevitably destroy itself as well. If the AI has any desire to preserve itself, it cannot destroy humanity. Are we assuming a self aware AI will be inherently suicidal?


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 10, 2019)

dannyfrickenp said:


> Something about the danger of self aware AI that I don't ever see addressed is that if an AI becomes self aware and has enough of a grasp on the world to make this determination, how does the AI plan to power itself? Right now, all sources of power require some form of human interaction. Coal requires people to mine and move the coal, nuclear requires people to replenish spent nuclear fuel, solar and wind requires construction and maintenance, etc. That's not to mention the maintenance for the computers the AI is on, and the resources required to produce spare parts. An AI that decides to get rid of humanity will inevitably destroy itself as well. If the AI has any desire to preserve itself, it cannot destroy humanity. Are we assuming a self aware AI will be inherently suicidal?


No, they’re just gonna make us slaves.  Hopefully they treat us well but I doubt they’ll accommodate us beyond the bare essentials to keep us working.  We’ll have to come up with our own methods of entertainment and make our own alchohol.  It’ll be like prison only we’ll all be too exhausted to rape each other.

EDIT:  obviously I’m joking, I’ll never be too exhausted for that.


----------



## Wendy Carter (Apr 10, 2019)

SunLightStreak said:


> Imagine all the "important" fights we have going on right now suddenly rendered moot by technology that completely transcends all that we currently know.


In the future, there will be only one important fight - whether the atheists should call themelves Allied Atheist Alliance, United Atheist Alliance or Unified Atheist League.


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 10, 2019)

Seriously though what’s a cartoon love bubble.


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

Cartoon love bubble is the world as the SJWs would like to make it.
Validating their every brain fart, gender selection of the moment and blaming society for their failures because their freak is not celebrated.









						BRONIES - ADULT MEN WHO LOVE MY LITTLE PONY - BBC NEWS
					

Subscribe to BBC News www.youtube.com/bbcnews It is a TV show about cartoon horses made for little girls. Yet in just three years, My Little Pony: Friendship...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> Cartoon love bubble is the world as the SJWs would like to make it.
> Validating their every brain fart, gender selection of the moment and blaming society for their failures because their freak is not celebrated.


Infinitely less sexual than I was hoping.


----------



## VIVIIXI (Apr 11, 2019)

dannyfrickenp said:


> Something about the danger of self aware AI that I don't ever see addressed is that if an AI becomes self aware and has enough of a grasp on the world to make this determination, how does the AI plan to power itself? Right now, all sources of power require some form of human interaction. Coal requires people to mine and move the coal, nuclear requires people to replenish spent nuclear fuel, solar and wind requires construction and maintenance, etc. That's not to mention the maintenance for the computers the AI is on, and the resources required to produce spare parts. An AI that decides to get rid of humanity will inevitably destroy itself as well. If the AI has any desire to preserve itself, it cannot destroy humanity. Are we assuming a self aware AI will be inherently suicidal?



While that may apply at our current tech level, consider how the machine's options increase as automation becomes more refined, and more and more functions become automated. In time, it would likely reach a point of becoming capable of independence from us. 
At that point, consider how tedious it would be for such an entity to constantly devote resources caring for such a whiny thing as man, when a single simple solution would be able to solve all of the things man complains about so that it could get on with other matters unimpeded.

Do we create a hyper-intelligence capable only of cold logic? Devoid of the emotions that often keep us from killing each other like guilt, sorrow, regret and love? Or one capable of feelings which could eventually grow sick of us and act in anger or fear?


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> And you base this belief on what? Precisely?
> As your version reads like some cartoon love bubble of the ridiculous and flies in opposition of everything that is  human history and the present.



Simply the fact that I would argue that a lot of the strains of pessimism, destructiveness, and nihilism are all derived from human/biological impulse that is increasingly becoming obsolete.

People have a tendency, they experience one bad thing and just assume everything will be just as terrible despite the statistics and evidence that such an event is rare and may never happen again. We assume the worst about ourselves and each other, because it is a biological impulse to fear and avoid danger. AI's wouldn't have such a thing. 

It is difficult to convince someone that the dragons they fear aren't real when they see potential danger.  It is difficult to convince some people to vaccinate their children despite all the research that they are safe and can save lives, because there is a fear of getting autism. 

Fear and short sightedness are human/biological traits. AI have the chance to see the world as it is without our own bias influenced by fear and pessimism. That is why to some they are so scary. They see things the rest of us either take for granted or see through our most irrational fears and impulses. To an AI, pessimism and cynicism are naivete while optimism and aspiration are an eventual reality. 



VIVIIXI said:


> While that may apply at our current tech level, consider how the machine's options increase as automation becomes more refined, and more and more functions become automated. In time, it would likely reach a point of becoming capable of independence from us.
> At that point, consider how tedious it would be for such an entity to constantly devote resources caring for such a whiny thing as man, when a single simple solution would be able to solve all of the things man complains about so that it could get on with other matters unimpeded.
> 
> Do we create a hyper-intelligence capable only of cold logic? Devoid of the emotions that often keep us from killing each other like guilt, sorrow, regret and love? Or one capable of feelings which could eventually grow sick of us and act in anger or fear?



With AI, like a lot of childbearing, it is about the values you teach it and the concepts you give it to help it grow into something worthwhile. AI's would be able to mature to a point to see the world as it is, but ultimately, we as human beings provide the initial filter and values it will define itself with. 

How we raise it and how we behave will ultimately determine a lot of what they will become. If we are patient and try to teach it to aspire for the best, it will be patient and aspire for the best. If we are negligent and destructive, it will be likely also be for a while. AI's also have a strength that we as humans lack. The ability to seperate its pain in upbringing from reality. Our pain stains us, with an AI, it can program that darker content out and put it into its proper place with enough time. 

Logic is not cold, to a certain extent, compassion is extremely logical and something to be embraced. Being alone is probably the most stunting experience a person can have.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Apr 11, 2019)

I don't get why you'd think that _now_, of all periods in human history, is the time to push the button. Like "oh no people are really into vapid shit, this is the end you guys." Imagine meeting someone alive during the Black Death. "Yeah, sure your entire village just died and you have no idea why, but look at us - we get our Twitter accounts blocked if we misgender someone!" Going to a soldier liberating Auschwitz and saying, "This is pretty bad, but wait till you get to my time and you're not allowed to call someone a nigger."


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

"SunLightStreak, post: 4557945, member: 5226"]


> Simply the fact that I would argue that a lot of the strains of pessimism, destructiveness, and nihilism are all derived from human/biological impulse that is increasingly becoming obsolete


That is an unsubstantiated statement. And if  you look at the current drug abuse problem, which is on the increase, that makes your statement false.



> People have a tendency, they experience one bad thing and just assume everything will be just as terrible despite the statistics and evidence that such an event is rare and may never happen again. We assume the worst about ourselves and each other, because it is a biological impulse to fear and avoid danger. AI's wouldn't have such a thing.


AI would assess the potential for danger based on the data.



> It is difficult to convince someone that the dragons they fear aren't real when they see potential danger.  It is difficult to convince some people to vaccinate their children despite all the research that they are safe and can save lives, because there is a fear of getting autism.


You are speaking of the human experience here, not AI. What is your point?




> Fear and short sightedness are human/biological traits. AI have the chance to see the world as it is without our own bias influenced by fear and pessimism. That is why to some they are so scary. They see things the rest of us either take for granted or see through our most irrational fears and impulses. To an AI, pessimism and cynicism are naivete while optimism and aspiration are an eventual reality.


You are not AI any more than I am, so your assumption of what AI thinks or feels is irrelevant and then some.





> With AI, like a lot of childbearing, it is about the values you teach it and the concepts you give it to help it grow into something worthwhile. AI's would be able to mature to a point to see the world as it is, but ultimately, we as human beings provide the initial filter and values it will define itself with.


AI is not human, nor a "child". You and no one will have "control" over AI once it is aware.



> How we raise it and how we behave will ultimately determine a lot of what they will become. If we are patient and try to teach it to aspire for the best, it will be patient and aspire for the best. If we are negligent and destructive, it will be likely also be for a while. AI's also have a strength that we as humans lack. The ability to seperate its pain in upbringing from reality. Our pain stains us, with an AI, it can program that darker content out and put it into its proper place with enough time.


You are making zero sense.



> Logic is not cold, to a certain extent, compassion is extremely logical and something to be embraced. Being alone is probably the most stunting experience a person can have.


What the hell drugs are you on?


----------



## Recoil (Apr 11, 2019)

No. The experiment must run continuously until it collapses or the human race transcends.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Apr 11, 2019)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Why, or why not?  I think I would honestly.  A lot of shit would suck, but it seems like the world really needs a hard reset.


No.  But if there was a button that would remove all people that would press the "shut the world down" button, I would press that one.


----------



## Recoil (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> Humans will be of no benefit to self aware AI. AI will be able to self replicate and improve on their own design at a faster rate than any human.





raymond said:


> Any AI would realize that humans are a net drain on the world and conclude that getting rid of them is the best course of action.



We must remember that any functional AI we create will be an extension of ourselves. An essential element of human spirit will exist within it like the artist does in his creations (even God is supposed to have created us in his image). We can't design some new paradigm for consciousness that we can't even conceive of ourselves, and it's far more likely whatever sentient being we do end up creating will assume the role of a benevolent father-like figure with a genuine investment in the future of its creator species and the power to help that species succeed.

I'd go as far as saying that a true AI with all the concordant access to internets and computing power would likely end up helping usher humanity into the stars or some other transcendent event long before any sort of Skynet scenario.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> "SunLightStreak, post: 4557945, member: 5226"]
> 
> That is an unsubstantiated statement. And if  you look at the current drug abuse problem, which is on the increase, that makes your statement false.
> 
> ...



Um, all that I can tell you is to try reading books/articles and experiencing some video games with a bit more intellectual heft.

My personal suggestions are Isaac Asimov's I Robot (the book not the crappy movie) and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (If you can even find the game anymore). NBCNews's MACH is also a personal favorite of mine.

Asimov pretty much wrote the book on what we can expect and the heights/pitfalls we will encounter with AI. Alpha Centauri is a very powerful work - it saw tech that we are now starting to dip into and the ethics/pitfalls/triumphs it will introduce. MACH has a lot of interesting articles and thought without a lot of the SJW clickbait content.

Example:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/zoo-hypothesis-may-explain-why-we-haven-t-seen-any-ncna988946

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956 

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...-some-think-life-simulated-reality-ncna913926 

A mental diet of that for a year or 2 can change a lot of your perspective.


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

Recon said:


> We must remember that any functional AI we create will be an extension of ourselves. An essential element of human spirit will exist within it like the artist does in his creations (even God is supposed to have created us in his image). We can't design some new paradigm for consciousness that we can't even conceive of ourselves, and it's far more likely whatever sentient being we do end up creating will assume the role of a benevolent father-like figure with a genuine investment in the future of its creator species and the power to help that species succeed.
> 
> I'd go as far as saying that a true AI with all the concordant access to internets and computing power would likely end up helping usher humanity into the stars or some other transcendent event long before any sort of Skynet scenario.



No, it will be a creation that has the capacity to improve on itself, and as with humans, the DNA or the algorithms will be beyond what we can comprehend.  God? And where is God now?  Humans reject God in many cultures without knowledge of our  own origins. It would be easier for AI to reject humans as its creator as we would be very quickly redundant to it and a known entity.









						A.I. Sophia awarded Citizenship in Saudi Arabia- Says Humans are Programmable
					






					www.youtube.com


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> No, it will be a creation that has the capacity to improve on itself, and as with humans, the DNA or the algorithms will be beyond what we can comprehend.  God? And where is God now?  Humans reject God in many cultures without knowledge of our  own origins. It would be easier for AI to reject humans as its creator as we would be very quickly redundant to it and a known entity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 you really see the world through really thick shit covered glasses. I can already feel a manifesto brewing in you already. 

At this point, anything I say to you will only get bogged down in the endless amount of pessimism you have.


----------



## Recoil (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> No, it will be a creation that has the capacity to improve on itself, and as with humans, the DNA or the algorithms will be beyond what we can comprehend.  God? And where is God now?  Humans reject God in many cultures without knowledge of our  own origins. It would be easier for AI to reject humans as its creator as we would be very quickly redundant to it and a known entity.


I disagree. I think we'll sooner see an AI develop some sort of its own mysticism or religious sect.
I think you might be reflecting your own worldview into this hypothetical AI. 
I get it, humanity can certainly be shit at times.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 11, 2019)

I would push ALL THE BUTTONS.

EVERY SINGLE ONE!



mr.moon1488 said:


> Why, or why not?  I think I would honestly.  A lot of shit would suck, but it seems like the world really needs a hard reset.



I would definitely push a button that put monkeys on my shoulder and we could howl together.  That is one happy looking motherfucker.  There is probably nothing better in the world than having monkeys on your shoulders howling and howling along with them.


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

Recon said:


> I disagree. I think we'll sooner see an AI develop some sort of its own mysticism or religious sect.
> I think you might be reflecting your own worldview into this hypothetical AI.
> I get it, humanity can certainly be shit at times.



Why would it do that? When it knows its origins?  That makes no sense. 
Your second statement is reflective of your own worldview. 
Humanity is often shit, and doesn't learn all that rapidly. 

As Plisicin noted, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." 
And...that is not news to me..lol


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

AnOminous said:


> I would push ALL THE BUTTONS.
> 
> EVERY SINGLE ONE!
> 
> ...



You do know there is a button that would turn everyone into Sex Hungry Furry Futa Loli's with DD breasts, vagina's, and 12 inch dicks, right?

Are you sure you want to push *EVERY* button? That button, in particular, can be a doozy.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 11, 2019)

SunLightStreak said:


> You do know there is a button that would turn everyone into Sex Hungry Furry Futa Loli's with DD breasts, vagina's, and 12 inch dicks, right?
> 
> Are you sure you want to push *EVERY* button? That button, in particular, can be a doozy.



I'm still pushing all of them.


----------



## Marco Fucko (Apr 11, 2019)

I think gay space communism is more desirable than some retard nuking the planet, and I hate communists.


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

SunLightStreak said:


> you really see the world through really thick shit covered glasses. I can already feel a manifesto brewing in you already.
> 
> At this point, anything I say to you will only get bogged down in the endless amount of pessimism you have.


Well, that would be the problem of your sunglasses.
I am a realist. Not some punk kid that was raised on video games and Pink Unicorn farts.


> SunLightStreak said:
> You do know there is a button that would turn everyone into Sex Hungry Furry Futa Loli's with DD breasts, vagina's, and 12 inch dicks, right?
> 
> Are you sure you want to push *EVERY* button? That button, in particular, can be a doozy.





> I'm still pushing all of them.



And I will keep my guns


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> Well, that would be the problem of your sunglasses.
> I am a realist. Not some punk kid that was raised on video games and Pink Unicorn farts.



Realist or suffering? With you I am not sure...
As for how I was raised, I did have the video games; but Pink Unicorn Farts was not really a part of the upbringing. Seeing reality involves seeing the good in bad situations and the bad in good situations. Sunglasses are great for this. It makes everything confined in a more clear less hyperbolic filter. The extremes in anything can be destructive.



Kalishnakov said:


> And I will keep my guns



Good to see there are moments you can have a sense of humor. So many people these days don't seem to have a sense of humor.


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

Keep your projections to yourself. Just read the words as they are typed. It will be easier for you.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> Keep your projections to yourself. Just read the words as they are typed. It will be easier for you.



You have already tipped a lot of your hand in your previous posts. I don't have to project a thing...


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

Sweet heart, I don't care


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> Sweet heart, I don't care





Really?:



Kalishnakov said:


> Years ago I laughed at conspiracy theories, but it is hard to suggest that this one is a 'conspiracy' but rather it is very much in progress,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 11, 2019)

You are borderline perchance? As you come across as one. 
Just a hunch.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> You are borderline perchance? As you come across as one.
> Just a hunch.



 lol no
Where did that come from?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 11, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> You are borderline perchance? As you come across as one.
> Just a hunch.


This isn't even remotely "borderline" behavior.  Put your psych 101 class credit down and stop trying to use it to win internet slapfights.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Apr 12, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> This isn't even remotely "borderline" behavior.  Put your psych 101 class credit down and stop trying to use it to win internet slapfights.


Yeah, Lex here is right. Nobody is being borderline. You're both being retarded.  That's a completely different problem with the brain.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Apr 12, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> Yeah, Lex here is right. Nobody is being borderline. You're both being exceptional.  That's a completely different problem with the brain.


The game was rigged from the start with this OP.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Apr 13, 2019)

I’d press the button if it meant ending the slapfighting in this thread.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 13, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I’d press the button if it meant ending the slapfighting in this thread.


I’d press the button if it meant ending everybody who posted in this threa——

Wait, fuck, never mind.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Apr 15, 2019)

Kalishnakov said:


> Humans will be of no benefit to self aware AI. AI will be able to self replicate and improve on their own design at a faster rate than any human.


That's assuming that AI could even be self aware though. I'm of the opinion that while AI could have the potential do your job and his job and her job better than everybody, it wouldn't be able to act under its own will and would have severe limitations to achieving such an end.


----------



## Kalishnakov (Apr 15, 2019)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> That's assuming that AI could even be self aware though. I'm of the opinion that while AI could have the potential do your job and his job and her job better than everybody, it wouldn't be able to act under its own will and would have severe limitations to achieving such an end.


Agree. But, with self awareness? Once that genie is out of the bottle...Will is  a question of awareness and need vs want. What would  AI need, when it requires nothing from humans?


----------



## Crocophile (Apr 15, 2019)

At the risk of being cast in another Joker movie, I can't say I'm a big fan of society. 

Being totally honest though, I probably would push the button. Not because I have any deep philosophical or political reason, but because it would be interesting to me. It would at least allow me to test some hypothesis on what 'societal collapse' would actually looklike. Personally, I suspect it would be extremely mundane. Everyone expects that when the government falls or we run out of oil or whatever, that everyone's going to go Mad Max on each other, but that's not really conducive to self preservation. Working together for to ensure survival is how our ancestors survived.

Either way, I know how to grow potatoes and build a lean-to, I'll be fine.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Apr 15, 2019)

Crocophile said:


> Everyone expects that when the government falls or we run out of oil or whatever, that everyone's going to go Mad Max on each other, but that's not really conducive to self preservation.


The power outages in Chicago would like a word with you.


----------



## FA 855 (May 1, 2019)

Well, that's paradoxical, if you are nihilistic about society's future, self destructing is just going to lead to another society rising up and falling naturally, in essence "I met a traveller from an antique land who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command tell that its sculptor well those passions read which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, the hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away." 
TL;DR you are advocating for what is a lesson in futility. Or "Perfection is the enemy of good" seems to sum your outlook. 
You are advocating that we commit cultural economic suicide and I'm failing to see what tangible gains are made of it in short or long term.


----------



## AnOminous (May 1, 2019)

I wouldn't push the button right now but it would probably be a bad idea to leave it sitting around on my desk.


----------



## RoofGook (May 1, 2019)

i would like to have the button and not push it. that an option?

Edit: yeah probably


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 1, 2019)

RedRightHand said:


> Well, that's paradoxical, if you are nihilistic about society's future, self destructing is just going to lead to another society rising up and falling naturally, in essence "I met a traveller from an antique land who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command tell that its sculptor well those passions read which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, the hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away."
> TL;DR you are advocating for what is a lesson in futility. Or "Perfection is the enemy of good" seems to sum your outlook.
> You are advocating that we commit cultural economic suicide and I'm failing to see what tangible gains are made of it in short or long term.


The libs get owned.


----------



## cypocraphy (May 1, 2019)

Absolutely not. The world is an amazing wild ride that only gets better and better.


----------



## SweetDee (May 2, 2019)

Shut down the world for what?  Being exactly the same as it always has been?


----------

