|
| Thread: The Nation of Earth? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 06, 2008 05:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
if you acknowledge that there might be "basic bacteria" out there, you have to acknowledge the possible existence of more evolved creatures
Umm... No. The Earth is a planet that is very hospitable for life, but it took over a billion years for any kind of life to develop, and several more billion years for that life just to become multicellular. And this is on a hostpitable planet - a very rare kind.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 06, 2008 05:22 PM |
|
|
The very fact that life managed to burst on one planet, combined with the universe being infinite and containing a huge amount of planets (of all kinds) implies not only possibility, but also large probability that life could have evolved somewhere else in the universe. Simple common sense.
Unless of course you want to say that God only created life on Earth and that the rest of the universe is there to test our faith. 
Though I still fail to see how this is connected with a united Earth.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 06, 2008 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Umm... No. The Earth is a planet that is very hospitable for life
Yeah? Last time I heard, Mars is very hospitable for Androids and Cyborgs. Who said that "life" has to be life as we know it?
How hard is it to get this point across? 
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 03:03 AM |
|
|
@The Death
Quote:
Of course it's absurd, since we're all omniscient and well, know basically that an asteroid won't do anything. See the asteroid that blast the dinosaurs? What if some stupid aliens were to use it and thus destroy it? We wouldn't be alive -- and the problem is that the aliens believed that "the asteroid had no purpose what-so-ever" in their distant solar system -- little would they have known.
How do you know that the asteroid you harvest won't create life in the future? Are you omniscient? 
Ah so you are using the butterfly effect to argue that we should just lie down and die in our dwindling planet just in case some lonely asteroid out there in the belt happens to create some life at some distant point in the future.
What about all the life on earth that will be destroyed? Or don't we care about humans because some of us do bad things or we're stupid or whatever?
This is ridiculous. It's like being starving on a desert island and not eating the loaf of bread sitting there because you think that maybe it might be caught on the wind and flown to africa
Quote:
Yes seriously -- dirt is part of a closed system, the Earth's system (bio-sphere, whatever it's called). You don't see it affecting Mars, do you? Or places that we have no clue about. I disturb the dirt, but I don't modify the Earth's balance.
How do you know?
Are you omniscient?
Quote:
Oops i forgot, humans know every piece of the Universe and are omniscient with their calculations and know what's it's going to do, and we know if it's life or not (based on our definitions), so we can be pretty sure to exploit it, right?
oo sarcasm my favourite
Quote:
@Doomforge: I think you guys failed to understand what I meant with life. Why does it have to be biological life, as WE KNOW it? What if we create AIs that self-think? They are obviously different than biological life.
AIs are not alive.
Quote:
I don't know what you mean. What I'm saying is that, observation of the mystery of the Universe, is good. However, exploitation is not, because that's like using a gun without knowing that each time you press the trigger, a black hole gets created, and will eat the whole universe in 50 years (just a silly example so you get the point).
No it's not, it's doing whats necessary to survive and accepting the incomprehensibly slim chance that it will ever affect anyone else except you, let alone negatively.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would call it "at the expense of others".
Quote:
Do you allow your child to press on a cool shiny nuclear detonation button? The problem with us, is that we do not have parents to stop us. Would you press the button? If it came from outer space?
Leave it the freaking alone. That's it.
How can you compare mining a floating rock to pressing a nuclear detonation button??
Besides, if someone gave me a button and said "If you don't press it, you will die slowly and painfully. If you do press it, there might be an extremely slim chance that it may do something, but we don't know what or when or how or even if. In fact, it most likely will do nothing but save your life."
I personally would press it, yes.
Quote:
Quote:
Umm... No. The Earth is a planet that is very hospitable for life
Yeah? Last time I heard, Mars is very hospitable for Androids and Cyborgs. Who said that "life" has to be life as we know it?
How hard is it to get this point across?
No, Mars is not at all hospitable for the development of cyborgs and androids, which is what mvass meant.
Earth's conditions are perfect for the development of life.
Cyborgs don't just rise from the dirt in mars
Besides, I don't have much sympathy for AIs And yes they are, by definition, not alive.
@Doomforge:
Quote:
But we can't try act like higher consciousness mate, because we are not one.
Never before have I agreed with you more than now
@Baklava:
Quote:
Though I still fail to see how this is connected with a united Earth.
uhhh...... yeah... lol. It started as talk about the limited resources on earth linked to population demands.
Then I said well theres plenty of resources in our solar system but The Death took that to mean "There's plenty of cute puppies out there to stomp on" and so the argument started.
But back to the original question: I think we'll need damn good recycling technology to save us.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 05:49 AM |
|
|
Bak:
We have discussed this previously. The universe (maybe) has an infinite amount of space. It definitely doesn't have an infinite amount of matter, thus, to say that there are "infinite planets" is wrong.
TheDeath:
Well, unless we have some basis for thinking that there is life other than how we know it, why bother?
TA:
All:
Can't we get back on topic?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 06:07 AM |
|
|
uh... Nation of Earth.. yahuh 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 11:06 AM |
|
|
MVas, I said that the universe itself is infinite, and it contains a huge amount of planets. I didn't say it contains an infinite amount of planets. If there was an infinite amount of planets, we could be certain that other intelligent life exists. But we can't know if the number of planets is infinite or not, so I just implied a large probability of other living beings existing elsewhere in space.
So that didn't have much to do with our former discussion (though for the record I still don't understand why you think that the amount of matter HAS to be finite. Something with infinite space can certainly hold an infinite amount of matter).
We'll just let The_Death answer once more and we'll get back on topic, mkay?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 02:21 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:22, 07 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
What about all the life on earth that will be destroyed?
Are the aliens that we allowed to live involved in that?
Yes we care about humans, but why the hell care about where they don't belong? What's so hard to understand?
And of course it's "ridiculous", again, since it's also ridiculous to sacrifice yourself for 1000 aliens, no? 
Quote:
How do you know?
Are you omniscient?
Did you even read what I write?
Or are you saying that the dirt has impact outside the Earth's atmosphere (which is contained by gravity).
I see you try to use my method of thinking against me. Well you failed.
And last I recall, the burden of proof is on the one that makes something or puts up an argument such as "this asteroid won't do anything!". You prove it, not me, I'm saying "ignore it since we don't know"
Or does that burden of proof method work only when it's convenient for you, such as in God threads?
Quote:
AIs are not alive.
Sure they are not, I mean, obviously since "alive" only means biological species -- heck, it's not a definition given by God or written in the laws of physics, it's just a definition that is convenient for us.
And yes, AIs are very much alive. They aren't biological. So what? Just because we are biological doesn't mean that only this is "alive". If you were an AI, I think you would have a different view on what's alive and what's not. How come?
I'm talking objectively, you're talking subjectively.
Quote:
How can you compare mining a floating rock to pressing a nuclear detonation button??
Simple reasoning: you don't know, it's not your business, so leave it the hell alone. See? Comparison done.
Quote:
Besides, if someone gave me a button and said "If you don't press it, you will die slowly and painfully. If you do press it, there might be an extremely slim chance that it may do something, but we don't know what or when or how or even if. In fact, it most likely will do nothing but save your life."
I personally would press it, yes.
Oh so the asteroid "saves your life", that's interesting. How could humans have survived for so long on this planet  Have we devolved to the point that we need more and more and more and more and.... MORE? What if we reach the end of the Universe?
But your analogy isn't good. How about: "If you don't press it, you will suffer material goals, but which you wouldn't have if it didn't exist anyway (the button). If you do press it, there might be a chance that it may do something, and kill an entire new species altogether -- but you don't even KNOW what the chance is, since you DON'T EVEN know what you are MESSING with. So whatever advantages this button gives you, at the expense of a chance of doing and disturbing the balance of the Universe, and possibly even preventing a lot of things."
The thing is, I don't know how much impact it will have, since we don't know what we're messing with anyway. Thus, I am not bold enough to admit that it most probably won't do anything. Burden of proof is on you. Calculating the chances is IMPOSSIBLE since you have very limited knowledge about how it turns up on the large scheme of things.
Quote:
Besides, I don't have much sympathy for AIs
Why do we discuss this then? I mean, a guy that doesn't have sympathy towards black people (or aliens) can say "who cares if the mining the asteroid kills 500 black people? I don't have sympathy for them!".
Well now since we've been far too off-topic already, I'll return to the root of this: what is precisely WRONG in aliens wiping such a sick mentality? Wouldn't we do the same in return, if we were, since we don't have sympathy for them? So what Darks said, is 100% reasonable, objectively, not biased towards sick human preferences.
Quote:
And yes they are, by definition, not alive.
What definition? Human definition? Laws of physics?
Next step would be to say "And yes they are, by definition, not humans" since 'alive' in our definition means 'biological life', thus:
"And yes they are, by definition, not biological life."
how does this sound? Surely not objective at all. But then, it's not like humans are fair enough in every context anyway.
Quote:
Then I said well theres plenty of resources in our solar system but The Death took that to mean "There's plenty of cute puppies out there to stomp on" and so the argument started.
Yeah sure, your solution to the problem is to EXTEND even more. That means, there's plenty in our solar system now, but then even that won't be enough -- go further, harvest entire planets!!! And just so you know, if people don't live on Mars, there won't be poverty on Mars either. Your logic is kinda flawed in this context.
Sure it's not ok now to "kill" most people that are poor (and thus solve the problem), but extending is not a solution, unless we want to be virus-like creatures. You can't compare killing with, for example, preventing us from getting more and more and more and more. The latter doesn't have action, it's more like LACK of action.
No matter how objective I am in this context it seems the debate is completely pointless, like arguing with a religious extremist that wants to spread his religion (in your case, human race) and won't convince him even with neutrality no matter what
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What about all the life on earth that will be destroyed?
Are the aliens that we allowed to live involved in that?
Yes we care about humans, but why the hell care about where they don't belong? What's so hard to understand?
And of course it's "ridiculous", again, since it's also ridiculous to sacrifice yourself for 1000 aliens, no?
No it's ridiculous to assume that mining asteroids will kill 1000 aliens and thus we should sit around and die...
Don't twist the situation.
Quote:
And last I recall, the burden of proof is on the one that makes something or puts up an argument such as "this asteroid won't do anything!". You prove it, not me, I'm saying "ignore it since we don't know"
Or does that burden of proof method work only when it's convenient for you, such as in God threads?
Prove that moving this dirt won't do anything.
Maybe one day the earth will explode and fling it all out into space and the dirt will go into the eye of an alien who will then kill 999 more aliens
I'm just saying that it's reasonable to assume that it won't.
Yeah, dirt held by gravity.
So are asteroids.
Quote:
Quote:
AIs are not alive.
Sure they are not, I mean, obviously since "alive" only means biological species -- heck, it's not a definition given by God or written in the laws of physics, it's just a definition that is convenient for us.
Don't be sarcastic.
By definition, it's not alive.
Quote:
And yes, AIs are very much alive. They aren't biological. So what? Just because we are biological doesn't mean that only this is "alive". If you were an AI, I think you would have a different view on what's alive and what's not. How come?
I'm talking objectively, you're talking subjectively.
No, I'm talking about the objective definition of life.
You're talking about intelligence or cognition or sentience or I don't know what you're talking about but it's not life.
AI's aren't alive. Whatever you think they are isn't "alive". We're past this. It's also irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote:
Quote:
How can you compare mining a floating rock to pressing a nuclear detonation button??
Simple reasoning: you don't know, it's not your business, so leave it the hell alone. See? Comparison done.
Ok, but it's an inane one.
By that reasoning you don't know what anything will do so you shouldn't do anything.
Quote:
Oh so the asteroid "saves your life", that's interesting. How could humans have survived for so long on this planet Have we devolved to the point that we need more and more and more and more and.... MORE? What if we reach the end of the Universe?
Resources do save lives, yes. Not that interesting.
But yeah I agree, we need to develop good recycling technology.
Quote:
But your analogy isn't good. How about: "If you don't press it, you will suffer material goals, but which you wouldn't have if it didn't exist anyway (the button). If you do press it, there might be a chance that it may do something, and kill an entire new species altogether -- but you don't even KNOW what the chance is, since you DON'T EVEN know what you are MESSING with. So whatever advantages this button gives you, at the expense of a chance of doing and disturbing the balance of the Universe, and possibly even preventing a lot of things."
The thing is, I don't know how much impact it will have, since we don't know what we're messing with anyway. Thus, I am not bold enough to admit that it most probably won't do anything. Burden of proof is on you. Calculating the chances is IMPOSSIBLE since you have very limited knowledge about how it turns up on the large scheme of things.
Yeah but we don't really know anything do we.
I know some things to a certain extent. I know that there is no higher purpose for the dirt I walk on. I know that life is what we make of it, and maybe it's wrong for me to make the best of it. Maybe the universe would be better off if I fell off a cliff, but I'm not about to go running off the edge.
Besides, it's not really about material goals (yay we're on topic)
Asteroids are the first step which will bootstrap the human race out of our doomed planet and into the refuge of space. It proves not only valuable resources but land that will eventually be necessary for the survival of our race.
It's not just the difference between manufacturing 10 billion or 20 billion coke cans
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, I don't have much sympathy for AIs
Why do we discuss this then? I mean, a guy that doesn't have sympathy towards black people (or aliens) can say "who cares if the mining the asteroid kills 500 black people? I don't have sympathy for them!".
Well now since we've been far too off-topic already, I'll return to the root of this: what is precisely WRONG in aliens wiping such a sick mentality? Wouldn't we do the same in return, if we were, since we don't have sympathy for them? So what Darks said, is 100% reasonable, objectively, not biased towards sick human preferences.
Because AIs aren't alive. I don't like your comparison to a racist I find this very offensive.
Quote:
Quote:
And yes they are, by definition, not alive.
What definition? Human definition? Laws of physics?
Next step would be to say "And yes they are, by definition, not humans" since 'alive' in our definition means 'biological life', thus:
"And yes they are, by definition, not biological life."
how does this sound? Surely not objective at all. But then, it's not like humans are fair enough in every context anyway.
The definiton of the word "life"... what do you mean human definition? Isn't every word a "human" word?
And you do realize that the prefix bio- means life, don't you?
The biological in biological life is a bit redundant.
Quote:
Quote:
Then I said well theres plenty of resources in our solar system but The Death took that to mean "There's plenty of cute puppies out there to stomp on" and so the argument started.
Yeah sure, your solution to the problem is to EXTEND even more. That means, there's plenty in our solar system now, but then even that won't be enough -- go further, harvest entire planets!!! And just so you know, if people don't live on Mars, there won't be poverty on Mars either. Your logic is kinda flawed in this context.
I wasn't applying logic, I was making a statement.
Question was where do we get resources to fuel a growing Earth Nation.
I simply said that there is resources in space.
Besides if we live long enough maybe we can sort our **** out with a unified government to abolish poverty. I believe it is possible. If expansion is regulated (as it would be as space travel is involved) then the human empire can be come very wealthy.
I agree that there is no need to extend beyond thousands of planets and as far and as quickly as the empire can expand; history shows this does not work, they crumble where smaller nations thrive.
But there is a need to extend beyond ours.
Our "small nation" could be the solar system, or a few solar systems.
If we survive to this technological level we will be able to be extremely efficient.
Quote:
Sure it's not ok now to "kill" most people that are poor (and thus solve the problem), but extending is not a solution, unless we want to be virus-like creatures. You can't compare killing with, for example, preventing us from getting more and more and more and more. The latter doesn't have action, it's more like LACK of action.
This is a separate argument altogether. I was talking about human expansion not poverty.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 03:14 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:17, 07 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
No it's ridiculous to assume that mining asteroids will kill 1000 aliens and thus we should sit around and die...
Prove it, you make the statement, you prove it's ridiculous
You know what's ridiculous? The fact that you think you even KNOW that it has a small chance, even though you LACK most information regarding it.
Quote:
Prove that moving this dirt won't do anything.
Maybe one day the earth will explode and fling it all out into space and the dirt will go into the eye of an alien who will then kill 999 more aliens
Hmm, the dirt is still there, whether I live or not. In fact, I'm "made of" dirt myself (well Earth material). If the Earth will explode, the dirt will still be in the explosion (or my body parts, which are made of it).
Quote:
I'm just saying that it's reasonable to assume that it won't.
Yeah, dirt held by gravity.
So are asteroids.
Asteroids move freely through space. If it lands on a planet, it's called a Meteor.
Quote:
Don't be sarcastic.
By definition, it's not alive.
I quote myself from my previous post:Quote:
What definition? Human definition? Laws of physics?
Next step would be to say "And yes they are, by definition, not humans" since 'alive' in our definition means 'biological life', thus:
"And yes they are, by definition, not biological life."
how does this sound? Surely not objective at all. But then, it's not like humans are fair enough in every context anyway.
So if you can't read the above quote, I will put a simple question:
WHAT DEFINITION? Human definition or objective definition? (objective means, for example, the number of atoms in a molecule, rather than the "purpose" of whatever it "means"; but for life of course it's different, not based on atoms, that was just an example)
Quote:
No, I'm talking about the objective definition of life.
You're talking about intelligence or cognition or I don't know what you're talking about but it's not life.
Oh yeah sure, so if we start to say "life = humans", which is basically just a statement, much like the definition of life is (just a STATEMENT).
Picture yourself as an AI. What would be your definition of life in this case? Are you not alive?
Quote:
Ok, but it's an inane one.
By that reasoning you don't know what anything will do so you shouldn't do anything.
Correct, but at least I am not bold enough to step into the unknown and disturb it (just observe it, after all, the unknown has to be observed first). There is a degree of tolerance for this. Naturally, the more you disturb, the more chances you are to be wrong.
Quote:
Resources do save lives, yes. Not that interesting.
No. We are from the Earth. We lived with it. If we need more than that, then the root of the problem is somewhere else. Getting another one will only temporarily "save" us -- in fact, doing so at the expense of something else, because of OUR mistakes.
Quote:
Yeah but we don't really know anything do we.
I know some things to a certain extent. I know that there is no higher purpose for the dirt I walk on. I know that life is what we make of it, and maybe it's wrong for me to make the best of it. Maybe the universe would be better off if I fell off a cliff, but I'm not about to go running off the edge.
Well two things to point out:
1) the "higher purpose" of dirt, as I said, doesn't disturb balance (since you're made FROM Earth material yourself), thus there's no "imbalance" in this closed system, the Earth's.
2) I doubt it would be better off without you, since you are basically not interfering with "the Universe" except your planet (and you aren't the type of mass murderer or destroyer).
Quote:
Asteroids are the first step which will bootstrap the human race out of our doomed planet and into the refuge of space. It proves not only valuable resources but land that will eventually be necessary for the survival of our race.
No, the planet is doomed because of us, and for that we have to pay for that. You don't just go around, feasting on a host, and then leave it destroyed, going to another one. If that's the goal of human race, then I don't see a problem for "wiping" it out. After all, we see such attitude disgusting, that is, if it comes from other species.
It's really simple. You see, let's place a mirror of ourselves. Just as we only care about ourselves and screw the 'host', we'll move on to another right? What we need in return is the same attitude towards us -- thus "wiping" us out.
Where's the problem? Why did mvass attack DarkShadow? What he said made absolutely perfect reasonable NEUTRAL POV sense. Not stupid human biased one -- only the weak think in terms of that
Quote:
Because AIs aren't alive. I don't like your comparison to a racist I find this very offensive.
Offensive? Seriously, replace it with "aliens" then geez
Is it different? WHY? Because the black people are human?
Quote:
The definiton of the word "life"... what do you mean human definition? Isn't every word a "human" word?
Hmm, the "water" molecule still has two atoms of Hydrogen and one Oxygen, regardless of "human" or "AI" definition.
Would "life" have the same definition from a human and AI definition? If you were an AI, you would say you aren't alive? interesting.
Quote:
I wasn't applying logic, I was making a statement.
Question was where do we get resources to fuel a growing Earth Nation.
I simply said that there is resources in space.
Besides if we live long enough maybe we can sort our **** out with a unified government to abolish poverty. I believe it is possible. If expansion is regulated (as it would be as space travel is involved) then the human empire can be come very wealthy.
a "growing" Earth Nation?
You don't stop a virus by giving him more hosts! You stop him by preventing it from growing!
Quote:
This is a separate argument altogether. I was talking about human expansion not poverty.
Use logic. What are the chances to have poverty with x population? What if you double the population (without additional resources)? What happens to the chances?
Sure go find new resources. Is that a "fix" or "solution"? Well, then you'll get in poverty again, possibly on Mars! You wouldn't have poverty on Mars if no one lived there!
You wouldn't have poverty in Africa if no one lived there either.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No it's ridiculous to assume that mining asteroids will kill 1000 aliens and thus we should sit around and die...
Prove it, you make the statement, you prove it's ridiculous
You know what's ridiculous? The fact that you think you even KNOW that it has a small chance, even though you LACK most information regarding it.
I just need to look up in the night sky to see how damn big it is and how little actuall stuff there is out there to know that it's pretty damn unlikely.
There you go 
Quote:
Quote:
Prove that moving this dirt won't do anything.
Maybe one day the earth will explode and fling it all out into space and the dirt will go into the eye of an alien who will then kill 999 more aliens
Hmm, the dirt is still there, whether I live or not. In fact, I'm "made of" dirt myself (well Earth material). If the Earth will explode, the dirt will still be in the explosion (or my body parts, which are made of it).
Damn it you missed my point.
I hate it when this happens in quote wars. (oh and hey I've still got my quote war touch )
I was talking about you moving dirt from A (where it does nothing) to B (where it wipes out the race)
Quote:
Quote:
I'm just saying that it's reasonable to assume that it won't.
Yeah, dirt held by gravity.
So are asteroids.
Asteroids move freely through space. If it lands on a planet, it's called a Meteor.
They are held by the sun's gravity in the asteroid belt or the kuiper belt. The ones we're referring to anyway.
Quote:
I quote myself from my previous post:So if you can't read the above quote, I will put a simple question:
WHAT DEFINITION? Human definition or objective definition? (objective means, for example, the number of atoms in a molecule, rather than the "purpose" of whatever it "means"; but for life of course it's different, not based on atoms, that was just an example)
I can and did read your quote last time you posted it and responded to it.
The word life refers to those factors I've posted before and don't particularly feel like writing again.
If you're referring to something that doesn't follow those descriptions (such as AI) you are not talking about life, you are talking about something else.
AIs can be sentient but they cannot be alive.
also I edited this in my above post you may have missed it
(And you do realize that the prefix bio- means life, don't you?
The biological in biological life is a bit redundant.)
That's all there is to it.
I refuse to write anything else on it.
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, but it's an inane one.
By that reasoning you don't know what anything will do so you shouldn't do anything.
Correct, but at least I am not bold enough to step into the unknown and disturb it (just observe it, after all, the unknown has to be observed first). There is a degree of tolerance for this. Naturally, the more you disturb, the more chances you are to be wrong.
At least?
What do you mean at least?
At least you are not bold? Fortune favors the bold, my friend
Quote:
Quote:
Resources do save lives, yes. Not that interesting.
No. We are from the Earth. We lived with it. If we need more than that, then the root of the problem is somewhere else. Getting
If someone shoots someone else, and you come along and bandage and save him, you've still saved him even though it's someone else's fault in the beginning
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah but we don't really know anything do we.
I know some things to a certain extent. I know that there is no higher purpose for the dirt I walk on. I know that life is what we make of it, and maybe it's wrong for me to make the best of it. Maybe the universe would be better off if I fell off a cliff, but I'm not about to go running off the edge.
Well two things to point out:
1) the "higher purpose" of dirt, as I said, doesn't disturb balance (since you're made FROM Earth material yourself), thus there's no "imbalance" in this closed system, the Earth's.
2) I doubt it would be better off without you, since you are basically not interfering with "the Universe" except your planet (and you aren't the type of mass murderer or destroyer).
Earth's system is just as closed as the asteroid belt, on a long enough time scale. It's just a matter of size.
And by "me" I meant "generic human"
Quote:
Quote:
Asteroids are the first step which will bootstrap the human race out of our doomed planet and into the refuge of space. It proves not only valuable resources but land that will eventually be necessary for the survival of our race.
No, the planet is doomed because of us, and for that we have to pay for that. You don't just go around, feasting on a host, and then leave it destroyed, going to another one. If that's the goal of human race, then I don't see a problem for "wiping" it out. After all, we see such attitude disgusting, that is, if it comes from other species.
It's really simple. You see, let's place a mirror of ourselves. Just as we only care about ourselves and screw the 'host', we'll move on to another right? What we need in return is the same attitude towards us -- thus "wiping" us out.
Stop trying to make me feel guilty for wanting to survive
Quote:
Where's the problem? Why did mvass attack DarkShadow? What he said made absolutely perfect reasonable NEUTRAL POV sense. Not stupid human biased one -- only the weak think in terms of that
Do you know anyone with cancer?
Quote:
Quote:
Because AIs aren't alive. I don't like your comparison to a racist I find this very offensive.
Offensive? Seriously, replace it with "aliens" then geez
Is it different? WHY? Because the black people are human?
No, because they are alive (going around in circles FTW) lord o mighty
Quote:
Quote:
The definiton of the word "life"... what do you mean human definition? Isn't every word a "human" word?
Hmm, the "water" molecule still has two atoms of Hydrogen and one Oxygen, regardless of "human" or "AI" definition.
Would "life" have the same definition from a human and AI definition? If you were an AI, you would say you aren't alive? interesting.
Ok, fine.
# Homeostasis
# Organization
# Metabolism
# Growth
# Adaptation
# Response to stimuli
# Reproduction
(the death you owe me hours of sleep by being wrong )
I don't know what you take alive to mean. That's what I'm taking it to mean. Now we're just arguing linguistics, because if the AI knew this definition then it would know it is not "alive".
It would know it is sentient, but it would know it is not ^^ that. Which is life. Which is alive.
Comprende?
Quote:
a "growing" Earth Nation?
You don't stop a virus by giving him more hosts! You stop him by preventing it from growing!
Why do you want to stop the human race so bad?
Stay out of our thread if you hate us
Quote:
Quote:
This is a separate argument altogether. I was talking about human expansion not poverty.
Use logic. What are the chances to have poverty with x population? What if you double the population (without additional resources)? What happens to the chances?
Sure go find new resources. Is that a "fix" or "solution"? Well, then you'll get in poverty again, possibly on Mars! You wouldn't have poverty on Mars if no one lived there!
You wouldn't have poverty in Africa if no one lived there either.
I already responded to this....
Poverty isn't necessary. It can be eliminated. It's not probability. It's determination, willpower and cooperation.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 03:45 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
But we can't know if the number of planets is infinite or not, so I just implied a large probability of other living beings existing elsewhere in space.
How do you measure this probability objectively? Is there a formula? You claim that it's high. But that is just a claim.
Quote:
Something with infinite space can certainly hold an infinite amount of matter.
Yes, but it doesn't - because unless the distance between all of the matter would be infinite, the universe would collapse upon itslef.
Quote:
We'll just let The_Death answer once more and we'll get back on topic, mkay?
Yeah, so much for that.
TheDeath:
Quote:
How about: "If you don't press it, you will suffer material goals, but which you wouldn't have if it didn't exist anyway (the button). If you do press it, there might be a chance that it may do something, and kill an entire new species altogether -- but you don't even KNOW what the chance is, since you DON'T EVEN know what you are MESSING with. So whatever advantages this button gives you, at the expense of a chance of doing and disturbing the balance of the Universe, and possibly even preventing a lot of things."
First, it's not "might be a chance". If you mine resources, you will get the benefits of those resources. Second, why should you take these "new species" into account if you don't even have any reason to assume their existence? (Indeed, at the moment, they don't exist, so...) Also, if your aliens had destroyed the Earth before there was any life on it, they wouldn't have done anything wrong.
Also, I'm yet to see any definition of anything that is not the human definition.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 03:53 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:57, 07 Sep 2008.
|
Seems I've been dragged into Quote Wars. Ok I will reply to the main points instead.
Quote:
I was talking about you moving dirt from A (where it does nothing) to B (where it wipes out the race)
The Earth is a closed system. If it explodes, it doesn't really matter much. And even if it does, at least it's a whole less probability than intentionally going further. The further you go and disturb (obviously, not observe which is ok), the more chances are that you will have. Simple logic.
Now let me explain "our" definition of life again. What you said here:Quote:
# Homeostasis
# Organization
# Metabolism
# Growth
# Adaptation
# Response to stimuli
# Reproduction
Is subjective. Of course it applies to everyone equally, but you could just as well have the following definition of life, made by humans:Quote:
# Having Human DNA
...and all the others
In this respect, only humans would be "alive", and no less objective than the other one. Further, the above definition is clearly biased towards human properties (biological stuff). For example, an intelligent AI will come up with a different definition, such that by using all principles, it falls into the "alive" category (unless it thinks its not alive).
You can't have two objective definitions. So the best way would be to merge them. Thus both humans and AIs are alive, and both are satisfied (well except the 'greedy' ones who need an excuse to feast on the others and need the 'alive' excuse)
We're all guilty of wanting to survive, but only if we feast on something that isn't in our closed natural system, and of course there is a degree of guilt, naturally it can be worse or less.
Just a question: do you consider a vampire that wants to survive, but for this he needs to feast on a human and suck his blood every 5 minutes? Sure it's nice to survive but not at the expense of something else, especially when that something else concerns an "outer" system and something which we have no clue about! (unlike the Earth's closed system).
Do you consider if the above vampire goes on a rampage, that he is NOT guilty of wanting to survive (at the expense of others)?
Quote:
Do you know anyone with cancer?
My middle-school math teacher had cancer and she passed away some years ago. But I fail to see how this question makes any relevance. Or, maybe you're telling me if I would sacrifice an alien, or even worse, an entire alien civilization to cure him? Absolutely not, and I hope the guy with cancer understands (it's like sacrificing someone else for him).
Now where this all started from was DarkShadow's remark about humans needing to be "wiped out". And it has a reasonable basis. If we are perceived from an AI's point of view, they will think of us as "not alive" -- and they have the same reasons as us to think that. I fail to see the wrong logic here. (but mvass started his BS nonetheless).
If we would not like to be wiped out, as no one wants, then we have to act accordingly and give the aliens a reason as to why -- this means, we need in return, share the same attitude -- and not think only about "our" problems and expanding more and more, until we exhaust all resources that would have been home to someone else! If we do that, then aliens have all the reasons to wipe us out! After all, they're using our attitude in that case.
Quote:
Poverty isn't necessary. It can be eliminated. It's not probability. It's determination, willpower and cooperation.
Yes it can be eliminated. That means to keep the growing factor under control, not to demand more and more!
You keep a virus under control by not allowing it to spread to other hosts. That way, you won't have a "not enough resources" to begin with. Demanding MORE is NOT the solution. Expanding is NOT the solution, it will create more opportunities for poverty.
Expansion doesn't "solve" poverty problems. Expansion CREATES more opportunities for it! Think of long-term actions!
PS: I'm trying to cut the quote wars. And I'm sorry for preventing you from sleeping.
@mvassilev:Quote:
Also, if your aliens had destroyed the Earth before there was any life on it, they wouldn't have done anything wrong.
Sure they would, you enjoy your life don't you? Well I've got news, the new species we would destroy, would want that opportunity as well.
Quote:
Also, I'm yet to see any definition of anything that is not the human definition.
That's it, I'm out of debates for good. Why do I have to constantly repeat myself? Can't we have a civilized discussion?
'water' (a molecule) has 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen (which means, a certain number of electrons and whatever tied in a manner). This is true, regardless if you view it from a human perspective, an animal perspective (it may not be aware but it's true!) or an alien perspective.
that definition of "life", on the other hand, is NOT. An AI will think its alive and humans are not. Humans think the other way. This is not objective, unlike the definition of 'water' in atomic structure.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 04:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Earth is a closed system. If it explodes, it doesn't really matter much. And even if it does, at least it's a whole less probability than intentionally going further. The further you go and disturb (obviously, not observe which is ok), the more chances are that you will have. Simple logic.
Well then our boundaries are different.
I draw the line at going to alien's planets and screwing them up.
I think using the resources availaible to us in our solar system is fine.
We agree to disagree
Quote:
Now let me explain "our" definition of life again. What you said here:Quote:
# Homeostasis
# Organization
# Metabolism
# Growth
# Adaptation
# Response to stimuli
# Reproduction
Is subjective. Of course it applies to everyone equally, but you could just as well have the following definition of life, made by humans:Quote:
# Having Human DNA
...and all the others
In this respect, only humans would be "alive", and no less objective than the other one. Further, the above definition is clearly biased towards human properties (biological stuff). For example, an intelligent AI will come up with a different definition, such that by using all principles, it falls into the "alive" category (unless it thinks its not alive).
You can't have two objective definitions. So the best way would be to merge them. Thus both humans and AIs are alive, and both are satisfied (well except the 'greedy' ones who need an excuse to feast on the others and need the 'alive' excuse)
I'm not sure what else to say besides what we've already said.
It's like maths.
Replace the word "alive/life/living" with A.
Replace the definition I gave with B.
Replace AI with C.
Now let A = B.
If C =/= B, then C =/= A. Agreed?
That's all I'm saying.
AI's dont fit the description. This description is what we mean by "alive" when we say it. Alive means this. I would have to say that the computer thus would not think it is alive by this definition. It would think it is "alive" by some other definition which would need another word, something different.
You are talking about this 'something different', perhaps the philosophical idea of life.
Actually, I don't even know what you mean by alive.
What do you mean by alive?
Let's call what you're talking about "Balive". Humans and AIs are both Balive. But AIs are not alive.
Sorted.
Quote:
Just a question: do you consider a vampire that wants to survive, but for this he needs to feast on a human and suck his blood every 5 minutes? Sure it's nice to survive but not at the expense of something else, especially when that something else concerns an "outer" system and something which we have no clue about! (unlike the Earth's closed system).
Do you consider if the above vampire goes on a rampage, that he is NOT guilty of wanting to survive (at the expense of others)?
No he is guilty, sure.
But the scale is different. This brings in individuality etc. it's completely different to an entire race.
I'd elaborate but I'm too tired
This is an extremely complex moral issue...
But lets relate it back to the topic. Bloodsucking murderous vampire rampage every 5 minutes =/= mining a nearby asteroid.
Quote:
Quote:
Do you know anyone with cancer?
My middle-school math teacher had cancer and she passed away some years ago. But I fail to see how this question makes any relevance. Or, maybe you're telling me if I would sacrifice an alien, or even worse, an entire alien civilization to cure him? Absolutely not, and I hope the guy with cancer understands (it's like sacrificing someone else for him).
No, just that I was referring to your post which refers to darkshadows post which refers to my post about cancer.
So we were talking about cancer.
Darkshadow claimed that cancer is necessary.
I do not think this is reasonable.
Quote:
Yes it can be eliminated. That means to keep the growing factor under control, not to demand more and more!
You keep a virus under control by not allowing it to spread to other hosts. That way, you won't have a "not enough resources" to begin with. Demanding MORE is NOT the solution. Expanding is NOT the solution, it will create more opportunities for poverty.
Expansion doesn't "solve" poverty problems. Expansion CREATES more opportunities for it! Think of long-term actions!
I disagree.
We need a certain technological level before we can abolish poverty (among many other things that are, granted, unlikely, such as peace ) and to get to that level we will need to expand beyond what the earth can offer us.
Quote:
that definition of "life", on the other hand, is NOT. An AI will think its alive and humans are not. Humans think the other way. This is not objective, unlike the definition of 'water' in atomic structure.
Definition is specific to that word.
Any other definition requires a different word.
Simple as that.
AIs are not alive and never will be.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I draw the line at going to alien's planets and screwing them up.
I think using the resources availaible to us in our solar system is fine.
Ok so do Aliens that have your mentality will think that wiping us out (in short, "using the resources available on Earth") is fine. What do you expect them to be kinder than us?
Ok now to get rid of Quote Wars and hi-jacking this thread like we are used to, I'll comment on the alive thing, which is the only one not going in circles here.
First of all, I'm not really concerned about the language or word used, but more about the value or meaning of that word.
The problem with that definition of "alive" is that such a loose term cannot possibly be used as an argument as to why some things deserve to be consumed and others not. That's like applying a definition "alive = human" and then you can't possibly use this 'argument' against, let's say, biological aliens.
Or (not targetting at you) we can say "alive = white human", and thus black people are not "alive" (which is ok, it's just a word to describe them, in this example, the meaning is a lot different than the common definition of biological life, so it is not a problem). Then, we can't possibly use that as an argument as to why black people can be consumed or are "expendable objects".
So using the definition of 'alive', we can't use it as an argument as it's biased. An AI can think (in it's own way obviously), it can come up with its own definitions of 'alive' (in its own language, thus I regard here the meaning of life, not the words used!). Therefore, assuming they are less worth than ourselves only makes us tyrants.
If we think that about them, where is the problem considering that they will "wipe us out"? After all, they're using our mentality -- we would "wipe them out" as well. So where is the problem with us being wiped out? Seems pretty fair to me.
To solve this dilemma, we need to shift our thinking. Wiping humans is bad only if they return the same attitude -- that is, they are not aggressive and don't expand where others could have had a home.
As for poverty, the reason we have it is because people want stuff, they want very much stuff, and deplete the resources. A man on an island alone will not starve to death. He has way too many resources for that.
We want to expand and be many (multiply)??? Then, it's our fault that we have poverty (not because we didn't do anything, but because we DID something!), and thus, expanding is not the solution, since it would be a repeat of the cycle.
The only way you can stop a guy from wanting MORE and MORE stuff, is to prevent from giving him STUFF, because if you give him, he'll want more. 'till infinity.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 05:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If we think that about them, where is the problem considering that they will "wipe us out"? After all, they're using our mentality -- we would "wipe them out" as well. So where is the problem with us being wiped out? Seems pretty fair to me.
Who said there is a problem with us being wiped out? In this case, it's pretty fair...
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 05:36 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Yes it can be eliminated. That means to keep the growing factor under control, not to demand more and more!
You do know that the lack of "more" is what poverty is in the first place, right?
Quote:
We're all guilty of wanting to survive
"Guilty" implies that it's a bad thing, and if you're saying that wanting to survive is a bad thing, then, to borrow the words of GOW, you are sick.  I'm serious. If you think that wanting to survive is bad, then I don't even know what to tell you.
Quote:
Sure they would, you enjoy your life don't you?
I couldn't enjoy anything if I didn't exist. So I wouldn't care, since I would never have been born. You know, your logic is flawed. Let us say that Man A wants to marry and have children with Woman A or Woman B. If he picks Woman A, then the children of Man A and Woman B will never be born. If he picks Woman B, then his children with Woman A will likewise never be born. Now you say to Man A and whichever woman he chose, "You prevented the birth of several children! They'd have liked to be alive!" which isn't really valid, because if he had picked the other woman, then other children would never have been born. Same here, only they're not even human.
Quote:
As for poverty, the reason we have it is because people want stuff
No, it's because people don't have "stuff". And what's wrong with wanting "stuff", anyway?
Quote:
The only way you can stop a guy from wanting MORE and MORE stuff, is to prevent from giving him STUFF, because if you give him, he'll want more. 'till infinity.
The only way you can stop a guy from wanting to breathe is to strangle him. Is that what you want?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 05:36 PM |
|
|
I tend to delete nearly the whole last 2 pages to get ON topic again.
Please TheDeath and mvass.....don't ruin it again....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 05:37 PM |
|
|
All right, sorry. Let's please try to get back on topic.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 05:50 PM |
|
|
@angelito: I realize this has gone off topic, and deleting the posts would make me feel bad since we invested some time in posting them. I realize it's off topic. I will clarify thus what I meant, not to leave the wrong impression (especially regarding the guilt thing):
Quote:
"Guilty" implies that it's a bad thing, and if you're saying that wanting to survive is a bad thing, then, to borrow the words of GOW, you are sick. I'm serious. If you think that wanting to survive is bad, then I don't even know what to tell you.
Please do not rip my phrases out of context and try to make me sound like a wacko. See my vampire example. You know, you may want to survive, but not at the expense of something else -- that is, in the vampire example, you know the vampire is not the only one that wants to survive, yet he NEEDS to kill others to survive. A better analogy would be a 'diseased' man (he is the only one immune) that wants to survive, but doing so, everyone else will be infected. So for him to survive, the others must die. This is sick. That's in context. (I know you'll compare it with animals; heck let's just say that's a "slip" in the design and they're on Earth anyway).
And to clarify it: when I said "more", I meant more people, overpopulation. People made overpopulation possible. That's the "more" I was talking about (with this my point makes perfect sense).
PS: your example with the "never been" born child is bad, because you are not guilty of LACK of action (you don't conceive the babies), whereas taking resources from an asteroid is not a lack of action, it's an ACTION that you do, thus you can be guilty of.
Can you accept at least this clarifying post angelito? I feel like I'm interpreted the wrong way.
|
| |
|
|
