[QUOTE=Malumbrus]No, I actually haven't heard that and I wouldn't think that about an advanced piece of technology, whether I lived to see it created or aliens brought it to our planet and shared it.
Where does this apply, medieval times?[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's say I created an incredibly advanced form of semi-biological semi-technological cell-like object which can rapidly condense and expand into a predetermined form, I could use that to create wings, which appear as if from nowhere (actually they're just spread across my skin in a thin layer when I'm not using them) and then were powered by more of the cells forming a kind of muscle anchored to my skeleton.
Combine that with a reinforced and lightened skeletal structure (not impossible with medical technology) and you have a quite feasible design for how to grow wings and fly.
Now if you saw me grow wings and fly, how would you be able to tell it wasn't magic other than by saying 'I don't believe in magic so it must be something else'? Which isn't determining anything, it's guessing. The correct answer is, you couldn't, because it would look magical, not obviously explainable by any other means, which is what magic is, something that's not explainable.
[QUOTE=chris0132]Ok, let's say I created an incredibly advanced form of semi-biological semi-technological cell-like object which can rapidly condense and expand into a predetermined form, I could use that to create wings, which appear as if from nowhere (actually they're just spread across my skin in a thin layer when I'm not using them) and then were powered by more of the cells forming a kind of muscle anchored to my skeleton.
Combine that with a reinforced and lightened skeletal structure (not impossible with medical technology) and you have a quite feasible design for how to grow wings and fly.
Now if you saw me grow wings and fly, how would you be able to tell it wasn't magic other than by saying 'I don't believe in magic so it must be something else'? Which isn't determining anything, it's guessing. The correct answer is, you couldn't, because it would look magical, not obviously explainable by any other means, which is what magic is, something that's not explainable.[/QUOTE]
But I would assume there is a logical and most likely a technological explanation for it, just as I do for anything bizarre I see, which actually isn't much.
I work in a place that is supposedly haunted because half the building burnt down once. When I see something, or hear something when I'm all alone there, I don't immediately assume ghosts did it. I've seen grown adult co-workers cower in fear at he very notion of there being a ghost, whereas I'll go and investigate the goddamn banging noise or the suddenly closed door. I rarely jump to conclusions like that because I know there has to be some reason it's happening. It always turns out to be the wind, or gravity, or something silly.
I don't think your explanation applies to everyone, certainly not in a hypothetical future where we should expect such advancements in technology. Naive christians might throw stones at you, you demon, and although it would amaze me to see such a sight, I would never chalk it up to something that couldn't be explained and understood.
Fairies can't exist even if I grunt and strain and squint really hard while wishing because they're fictional. A society like the one mentioned is at the very least possible, if not probable.
As I said, that doesn't make any difference.
You refusing to acknowledge the existence of magic doesn't make anything distinguishable from it, it just means you make assumptions.
It's like saying I don't believe in the colour pink on every other object I see, and therefore two otherwise identical pink cars are distinguishable.
The point is that for all intents and purposes, technology does exactly what magic does, it more or less removes the 'how' from a situation. My computer allows me to press buttons and make text appear, the 'how' doesn't come into it, it just happens as far as I can tell. Of course I assume there's a method behind it but I can't see it, and it doesn't affect me in any way.
Sufficiently advanced technology is therefore a substitute for magic and the comparison remains valid.
[QUOTE=chris0132]As I said, that doesn't make any difference.
You refusing to acknowledge the existence of magic doesn't make anything distinguishable from it, it just means you make assumptions.
It's like saying I don't believe in the colour pink, and therefore a pink car is indistinguishable from a grey one, it isn't, I just assume it's grey regardless.
The point is that for all intents and purposes, technology does exactly what magic does, it more or less removes the 'how' from a situation. My computer allows me to press buttons and make text appear, the 'how' doesn't come into it, it just happens as far as I can tell. Of course I assume there's a method behind it but I can't see it, and it doesn't affect me in any way.
Sufficiently advanced technology is therefore a substitute for magic and the comparison remains valid.[/QUOTE]
I still don't see how you make the comparison of magic, sprouting wings to a different type of society, simply because I haven't spent years calculating all the things and people and methods that need to be dealt with in order for it to work.
Because liking the idea is about as productive in each case.
[QUOTE=chris0132]Because liking the idea is about as productive in each case.[/QUOTE]
I don't really have the skills or knowledge to do it on my own, so I can only hope someone in the right position to, proposes the idea and actually convinces people this is a good idea.
And as I said, hope is a wonderful thing, but unless you [I]can[/I] do it better, don't you think it would be wise to forestall tearing down the old order?
[QUOTE=chris0132]And as I said, hope is a wonderful thing, but unless you [I]can[/I] do it better, don't you think it would be wise to forestall tearing down the old order?[/QUOTE]
Well, I never said I expect it to happen, I simply stated that I think it's a good idea and in order for it to at least have a chance of working out, provided this hypothetical situation ever arises, people need to have the right attitude and mindset. The way people think now is what keeps an idea like this from getting off the ground.
The way people think now is also what keeps people from destroying a society, shouting hurrah, and then realising that they don't have a better idea to replace it with.
I guess cheesy garlic toast is rather appealing.
[QUOTE=Malumbrus]Where the fuck do you live, some tropical island by yourself? Did you build an automated wooden house with monkey servants like fuckin' Swiss Family Robinson? Come off it.
I can't turn on the news without hearing about a child being kidnapped, someone having their head kicked in on the sidewalk for petty cash or some stupid coloured clothing/turf argument, some information about some war which seems to be a never ending things between countries, global warming, some religious [b]FUCKKNOB[/b] blowing up a subway or cafe, all this bullshit, the list goes on.
Not a government. [b]Maybe[/b] some automated computer enforcement, for the severe crimes I mentioned. I don't really know how we'd prevent/punish severe crimes. You know those laws have to be in place.
Also, the people would meet and discuss and vote on issues. Voting would have to be mandatory, just like working. Why would that be considered slavery?
How about giving me some positive input instead of just saying, "I don't see how it works, it stinks and I don't like it"?[/QUOTE]
The news rarely reports on good deeds unless it's huge or local.
Mandatory voting defeats the purpose.
The entire point of voting is that if you do not like any of the candidates, you can vote for neither of them.
[QUOTE=Malumbrus]
Everyone would be the same, there wouldn't be hatred and discrimination based on our class. Those snobby assholes who don't seem to fit in with anyone except other snobby, shallow pricks, gone. Uneducated, ignorant slobs, gone. Homeless people, gone. Fat people? Fucking gone, due to rationed meals at the appropriate, designated times, ie., breakfast, lunch, dinner and a dessert.
I'm not sure if all of this was mentioned in the Venus project, it's more my own, ideal world.[/QUOTE]
Good luck suppressing millions of people and many cultures that discriminate. Cultural revoltion!
This sounds too much like a dystopia.
If money doesn't exist, then people woud have no incentive to create things.
Why should I operate the power plant? Why should I make that software? Why should I invent that?
It would be a mess.
This is like communism, great idea in theory, but in practice it's terrible
[b]Edit:[/b]
chris is in the thread, I'm not going to bother furthering my comments
[QUOTE=Malumbrus] The way people think now is what keeps an idea like this from getting off the ground.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because human nature seeks the greatest amount of satisfaction for the least amount of work.
And as has been numerous times, your system would be impossible to enforce.
[b]Edit:[/b]
[QUOTE=Malumbrus]I still don't see how you make the comparison of magic, sprouting wings to a different type of society, simply because I haven't spent years calculating all the things and people and methods that need to be dealt with in order for it to work.[/QUOTE]
Here's a better analogy then.
I have this one idea, a way to create synthetic fossil fuels and solve our oil problem. It would bolster the economy, reduce American dependancy on foreign fuel, and save Alaska from drilling.
I don't know how it'd work, maybe if you like, took a bunch of dead things and like, put them into a compacter, and subjected them to large amounts of heat generated by like, factories and stuff.
Unfortunately, this is not an option worth pursuing, because it conveniently forgets the simple fact that it would take enormous amounts of energy to turn dead organisms into hydrocarbons and a viable energy source. Should the government spend billions on researching the benefits and applications of synthetic fossil fuels, only to realize that it just wouldn't be cost-effective?
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey]If money doesn't exist, then people woud have no incentive to create things.
Why should I operate the power plant? Why should I make that software? Why should I invent that?
It would be a mess.
This is like communism, great idea in theory, but in practice it's terrible
[b]Edit:[/b]
chris is in the thread, I'm not going to bother furthering my comments[/QUOTE]
He's in every thread and he never fucks around. Kind of odd.
[QUOTE=Stromboli]Yeah, because human nature seeks the greatest amount of satisfaction for the least amount of work.[/QUOTE]
That's true, but at the same time we don't have to be slaves to our own id. It is a conscious choice if whether or not we would want to at least try to implement a system like this. Human nature may tell one they should probably quit school for a week to go on a gaming binge, but just because human nature tells one to do it does not mean that one does automatically and one should. We resist a lot of temptations every single day that completely defy several human natures of fucking everything with three legs or killing that bastard because he said something bad about our mothers. [i]We can make the conscious choice because we are not slaves to our own reptilian brains[/i].
Also, isn't it true that an automated society would invariably give us the least amount of work and therefore the greatest amount of satisfaction in whatever goal we would set now that we would not be restrained by the need to satisfy our needs? I don't get what you're saying here.
[b]Edit:[/b]
do i win gaiz
[QUOTE=Arkanj3l;12168385]That's true, but at the same time we don't have to be slaves to our own id. It is a conscious choice if whether or not we would want to at least try to implement a system like this. Human nature may tell one they should probably quit school for a week to go on a gaming binge, but just because human nature tells one to do it does not mean that one does automatically and one should. We resist a lot of temptations every single day that completely defy several human natures of fucking everything with three legs or killing that bastard because he said something bad about our mothers. [i]We can make the conscious choice because we are not slaves to our own reptilian brains[/i].
Also, isn't it true that an automated society would invariably give us the least amount of work and therefore the greatest amount of satisfaction in whatever goal we would set now that we would not be restrained by the need to satisfy our needs? I don't get what you're saying here.
[b]Edit:[/b]
do i win gaiz[/QUOTE]
Yep you won. Clearly. Fuck the greedy idiots.
Millions of people are living for under a dollar a day, and they cant do anything to get out of it. So once again, fuck the greedy pigs.
[QUOTE=mrpirate;22653375]Yep you won. Clearly. Fuck the greedy idiots.
Millions of people are living for under a dollar a day, and they cant do anything to get out of it. So once again, fuck the greedy pigs.[/QUOTE]
Nice job winning a two year old argument.
I don't want a utopia. Where's the fucking grit?
I read the first part of the OP and about shat myself laughing when he said crime would drop thanks to free time.
People around where I live act like cunts cause they're all benefit thieving and time wasting baw bag lickers, it would spread everywhere since no one has anything to do.
EDIT: Wait what the fuck this is 2 years old? Who the fuck bumps a two year old thread!!!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.