A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

As a species stuck in a current state of peculiar insanity, I'd rather we didn't globally euthanse ourselves into extinction, I would much rather nature hit us with such a catastrophic event that it wiped us all off the planet at the same time.

We are not worthy to continue our crap ad nauseam. Only your own ego actually believes it is worth saving, but it isn't, and you aren't...none of us are.

originally posted by: elysiumfire

We are not worthy to continue our crap ad nauseam.

That seems to be just as egotistical though.. perhaps even moreso. Taking the human ego out of the equation entirely, we are objectively here on this planet. Saying we shouldn't be would seem to be subverting the universe and reality itself in order to appease a self-deprecating ego.

I suspect if the universe itself deemed us unworthy, we wouldn't be here. Could even be an interesting discussion there if we start to include the nature of time and intelligence outside of human understanding.

Some of us worked on technology years ago that would meet the stated goals of AGW activists. Hell, even nuclear power has come a very, very long way.

But.. for most, it seems it is imminently more important to convert everyone to the same beliefs, or demand currency. That means it is a cause without end, as the actual hard goods are simply not a priority.

Serdgiam:

Saying we shouldn't be would seem to be subverting the universe and reality itself in order to appease a self-deprecating ego.

How the hell do you subvert something that doesn't know it exists. The universe has no consciousness, no awareness, it is just a a perception of matter and energies in random flow. it only has meaning to us by the language we use to describe it.

I suspect if the universe itself deemed us unworthy, we wouldn't be here.

I refer you to my first reply.

Could even be an interesting discussion there if we start to include the nature of time and intelligence outside of human understanding.

Nature of time and intelligence outside of human understanding? What the hell is that? Time doesn't exist except as an abstract means of measurement of duration, and as for intelligences outside of human understanding, another nonsensical use of words to objectify assumed entities that don't exist.

Obviously, I care not for, nor accept your irrational thoughts.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Can any of you that consider that video dumb please explain why they think it is dumb?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Can any of you that consider that video dumb please explain why they think it is dumb?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Can any of you that consider that video dumb please explain why they think it is dumb?

why would anyone even need to tell you why they think it's dumb? we literally have entire threads devoted to why the socialist wet dream, the new green deal is dumb. actually several other words serve better, such as impossible, insane, destructive, ineffective, scam, irresponsible, among many others.

lets start with that imaginary train she sees herself riding in. the latest high speed train only recently got canceled, and that's in the democrat insanity capital of California. mainly due to the extreme high cost just to build it. estimated to cost $86 BILLION. for a short line just between two cities in California, LA and San Francisco. a piddley distance of 800 miles. and remember every single time high speed rail has been tried in both the US and Canada over the years, they have failed miserably. and we are not talking about just a train between NEW York City and Washington DC, but of covering the entire country in high speed rail lines, as per the insane new green deal. we are talking about tens of thousands of miles of high speed rail lines. not only is it pretty much an impossibility to do in 10 years or less (since it certainly won't even be started before 2020 and that only IF people are insane enough to vote people into office to do it). there are quite simply not enough people trained to design and build that much rail lines in that amount of time. and it wouldn't even be ten years. since first it would take a few years just to survey and design the routes for it. these things don't just appear out of thin air after all. plus several years to train people to do the work (and there still would not be enough people to do so even then). not to mention just how the heck would it even be paid for? based on California's aborted high speed rail you are looking at over TEN BILLION DOLLARS per 100 miles. just one rail line at a minimum between LA and New York city is a distance of 2,451 miles )as the crow flies). which alone would cost at least 24 TRILLION dollars. and that is just one line crossing the country. yet the new green deal calls for the all over the entire country. basically you could say to every major airport in the US, since the whole idea is to replace air travel. and fun question, just because this is supposed to be about cutting emissions. would it even produce less emissions having all those high speed trains all over the US, instead of things like flying or driving? that all by it's self makes the whole high speed train question rather doubtful, since i strongly suspect if it is not really all that much more pollution free than flying or driving. especially when you consider all the pollution and greenhouse gases that would be produced building it in the first place.

and remember high speed trains are just one small part of the new green deal and this idiotic propaganda film (that seems to be aimed at children and teenagers). with so much more "dumbness" involed in both the new green deal and this silly, crackpot film.

edit on 10-5-2019 by generik because: posted somehow before barely even started

a reply to: elysiumfire

I suppose it was my mistake attempting a discussion in good faith nowadays.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

I'll try again, but I do understand that dissension is heresy to so many.

Topics like consciousness are subjects we are still exploring, so I simply do not agree with your absolute certainty on the topic. The mechanisms for things like self-awareness, consciousness, etc. clearly exist in parts of the universe and I'm not at all convinced they are the sole purview of humans. To my way of thinking, thats a bit like saying a CPU can run processes, but a computer can not. If it is relegated to our species, or even Earth, it would seem we are vastly more special and unique than we know.

Disagreement really is ok in my perspective, and not a cause for denigration. That may be a fundamental and irreconcilable disparity here, but I hope not?

The basis was that you essentially claimed humanity should be eradicated since you deem all of us, including yourself, unworthy of existence. You said that holding a different opinion was solely due to ego, which is fine, but your original claim seems just as founded in ego. The difference is that you are speaking about genocide as the prime "final solution," whereas I disagree.

The "nature of time and intelligence outside of human understanding" is pretty much saying the same thing you did, so we agree there. The main difference is probably that i consider it very possible these are human abstractions of things that could exist outside of humans. Similarly to the other point, if they aren't, we are more novel and special than anything else in existence. Im just not sure I am willing to concede that point, and even if I do, it would seem to imply that we are not only "worthy," but should be preserved *at the expense* of less novel entities.

Now, since the total genocide of humanity isn't likely, and total ideological cohesion is the same.. what do you think we should do? Would you feel it was acceptable to create and produce systems and products that dramatically transform our relationship with the planet, even if those adopting it do not agree with the premise of AGW?

Because, as I see it, massive amounts of time and effort are being invested in proselytizing and religious conversion instead of the actual things that will affect that change. Even old technologies, like nuclear power, have come so very far.

Personally, I'm a big advocate for immense decentralization and automation. But, I recognize that I must reconcile my ideals with reality, so it becomes a conversation about "how do we get there?" rather than a leap of faith, furiously hoping it works out.

Even for me its a long post, and you made your opinion about me clear. But, I feel its prudent to post such things for when SkyNet is deciding what to do with us.

Serdgiam:

The mechanisms for things like self-awareness, consciousness, etc. clearly exist in parts of the universe and I'm not at all convinced they are the sole purview of humans.

Yes, consciousness, self-awareness, etc, do exist in a part of the universe, on our own little planet, but neither of us can truly say with 'certainty' that it exists elsewhere. By all means, have an opinion, but until we have the facts, let's not presume our assumptions are true. We are not special, certainly not more special than any other life form, we just treat ourselves as if we are.

The basis was that you essentially claimed humanity should be eradicated since you deem all of us, including yourself, unworthy of existence.

No. I did not say we 'should' be eradicated, I stated that I hope we do not go extinct due to our own actions, and that I would prefer nature to be the catalyst. Yes, I hold a low opinion toward our species, especially within our contemporary modernity, as our behaviour towards one another is pretty much appalling. Too many have better quality lives off the backs and labour of others. There is too much imposition upon one another, too many telling others how to live, and trying their best to force it. We need a great event to make the playing field level for everyone, for the merited and the unmerited. There is no way this can happen unless an event occurs which treats everyone the same. No exceptions! And no, I wasn't talking about 'genocide', which is man-made, but purely a natural amoral event, where no one is treated more special than anyone else.

I simply don't trust our species.

a reply to: elysiumfire

"I simply don't trust our species"

I think that is a really interesting statement. One that I agree with, but then I had to ask: is there anything that I could say I feel differently about? When it comes down to it, I cant say I trust anything other than individuals and, perhaps, the scientific method (though I dont really trust the human element in it, which is kind of a big part eh?).

Honestly, sometimes I feel like we should just embrace our warlike, violent nature instead of being embarrassed by it while we are in the act.

I do think we can grow, even in directions that we can't even imagine here and now. But, that would involve consciously changing and actively writing our Cultural Story. Im not sure we are there yet..

The vast majority of technologies that could lead to a "Star Trek" future could also be horrifically, horrifically abused. I think the key will be in using relatively established technologies in clever ways so that we can buy more time before truly revolutionary changes come along. Some of these maturations are generational though, and at this point in time, that type of thinking is really only brought up to try to make things happen faster now (think of the children!).

I believe one of our core issues comes down to two different types of competition: destructive and constructive. The former is pretty much an intrinsic part of our Cultural Story. So much so, that there are folks nowadays wanting to eliminate competition because they dont even know, understand, or recognize that it can be extremely beneficial. Theyve likely just never seen it, so its simply not a consideration.

Plenty are willing to say that we stand on the shoulders of our ancestors as a source of pride, but when it comes to those who are living.. we'd rather cut off their legs and be "taller" without climbing at all.

Thats my biggest concern for where we are right now. Many of the technologies that would affect change can also be abused in some way or another. Its why so many red flags pop up for me when people start talking about that change without a mention of the actual tools we would use to achieve it. Which is.. pretty much everyone in positions of power that are pushing for it.

Not only do people like AOC concern me, they are usurping and delegitimizing a deeply complex and important topic. Anyone not part of this group is genuinely viewed as evil and as legislation starts to mirror that, people will grow dismissive across the board as the topic becomes too intricately woven with panderers to unravel.

For what its worth, I do believe we are in a phase of our civilization where we will either adapt or perish. Our tools have so outpaced our ability to adapt to them that we havent had the time to really learn about what we've got, much less anything more advanced.