do we deserve to perish in a nuclear holocaust?

Post Reply New Topic

Eh, I just read through the rest of this thread and I noticed a few too many sickos that need to point a gun in a singular fashion. Please don't direct your lack of conscience on others; look at how the world is being ran as of now with the same sort in control, with the same sort of mentality!?! This is a digusting thread, and it should be locked.

Perhaps you should visit the "AS and Misanthropy" thread in GAD forum?

Even in the event of nuclear winter, life on Earth would persist in some form.

Anyway, people who would have resistance to some kind of hypothetical bacterial or viral weapon would not necessarily be the kind you would personally want to inherit the Earth. If they were, it would only be dumb luck.



Exactly. That is why the human race should be punished.

At any rate, you're not going to win anyone over by calling him a sicko and obliquely suggesting that he should commit suicide.

(Hopefully I can get a DoD 'SMART' scholarship for graduate work, that's enough to live for on its own.)

What do you mean by "deserves"?
Is it some sort of solution to a problem? No doubt humanity has done and is doing terrible and stupid things as a species but is it inevitable that every individual is responsible for the effects of the entire species? Is it possible for some individuals to stop the stupidity, brutality and destruction by the species. I don't know but I would hope so. All life on Earth depends upon it.

Very doubtful, given the nature of our species.



Not necessarily, but regardless we can still do ourselves one better.

I don't know if you remember the Bible story where Abraham pleads on behalf of Sodom, asking that it not be destroyed. He asks god why he would destroy the righteous people along with the wicked, since that would not be an just thing to do. God finally agrees not to destroy Sodom if there are at least 10 righteous people living in it.

I don't think it would be right to destroy the world if there is even a small amount of good left in it, and as of yet I think there is a small amount still left.

I guess there weren't.

I'm not very familiar with the Bible, but I know how that one ends.

Actually, Sodom and Gomorrah were probably destroyed by a fire that came as a result of seismic activity lighting up the natural gas deposits in that area. It still causes problems now and then these days.



Why preserve 'good' when you can replace it with 'better'?

Scary.
What causes one to think in this matter?

I guess not . According to the story, Abraham started at 50 and got it down to 10.



What would be better about a charred husk?

In this manner you mean?

If you're asking me, I had a few very traumatic experiences from twelve until almost two years ago. Over that time, both the personal experiences and reflection on the state of the world as it is now, and used to be, and will be gave me a lot of problems with the idea of considering things 'good' or 'evil'. There's way too much ambiguity there, and as such I gave up on trying to define 'good' and 'evil'. My faith in anything is shaken very easily ... and I consider that trait a strength. I see no reason anyone should have faith in humanity when there's plenty of evidence that tells him not to.



The weapon systems we are currently designing (no, this is not science fiction anymore) can hopefully pick up where we left off and not be a bunch of fuck-ups like us.

This is a very promising start and I'd like to get involved: http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/

Last edited by chever on 30 Aug 2008, 10:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If you can't define good or evil, how can you make the judgment call that there should be no faith in humanity?

Easy. Irrational behavior can be defined more or less objectively. Characterizing things as 'good' or 'evil' is a subjective judgment.

It seems you are in favor of a robotic takeover. But if robots are to survive they must develop many of the characteristics of human life for self preservation and it is very likely the same scenario will be played over. That may be the nature of life, human or otherwise. Why not grant humans the opportinity to try to find more rational ways?

How can you know that irrational behavior is "bad" thus meriting elimination?

They'll accept top-down control entirely and act as a single logical unit, with no need to fight with 'itself'.

I don't care how much they trash the Earth's environment or indeed any other place they might migrate to in the distant future.



That solution is perfectly rational, if you are interested in progress.



It doesn't maximize utility.

Last edited by chever on 30 Aug 2008, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What is right, what is wrong? Ethics, morals, etc -- the never-ending question.
Faith. Does it make sense? Putting an imaginary hope into something, trying to grasp that hope, making it malleable..

I've hurdled with these things all my life, and I know for certain very few things: anything is possible, if you work for it. Seems to me you're wasting incredible intelligence on a lack of understanding of a different sort --help the needy, give a beggar a dollar, adopt a child; try to see that innocence does indeed exist, even if not for yourself. I know that actions speak louder than words, but, do you really mean what you say (think about it?)

Last edited by Averick on 30 Aug 2008, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Progress" is another slippery word that ends up thrashing and squirming through meaninglessness.