It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hyper-Reality - Living In An Augmented Reality: Is This Awesome or Just Scary as Hell?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:03 PM

Very interesting video.. that sort of fills me with dread.

Would you want to live in a blinged up reality like this? I think if it comes to this it might be the point where I go from being almost a hermit to full blown hermit status. Either move away from society in some capacity or totally disconnect from this matrix like situation.

Sure, I could probably find a few cool applications for this technology but I don't know.

Maybe I'm just a Luddite.. but I don't see this going down well with how immature humanity generally is. And the potential for abuse is just.. wow. It wouldn't be so bad if we as humans, and I mean the masses, were actually in control of the evolution of our societies, but we're not. We're not really in control of our own fate.

But then again, I'm the type that feels some kind of sympathy for the ideas that Ted Kaczynski had on technology and progress. We have no planning at all, and virtually no knowledge or any type of formal predictions of the influence - and specifically the confluence of various different influences - that technology will have on people. We're on a runaway train and we couldn't stop even if we wanted to.

What do you think?

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:06 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I've been a software engineer for more than half of my life...

....... and I for one am a Luddite.

Data is too easily lost....transformed..transmitted. We are actively selling our souls for "convenience".

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:31 PM
I wouldn't want "the masses" to be in control of the evolution of our society myself. By and large they are uneducated and don't have a clue. In terms of a "blinged up" reality, the video was great, but where do you draw the line? Aren't we already in a "blinged up" reality? Look how we are interacting now--through a computer screen and typing our answers to strangers we'll never meet and will forget what we say within minutes.

If you want to live like Ted Kaczynski, feel free. No electricity, no plumbing, no running water, no sanitation, nothing you can't do yourself. When we all lived like that the average lifespan was 28 years and we were losing our teeth at a rapid rate. People generally died by violence or diseases long cured for us. Unless you're willing to return to that mess you've already compromised and you wouldn't survive back there anyway: You lack survival skills. Treat it well because there is no guarantee you can keep what you have. Ted Kaczynski's response to all this was to kill people who were at the cutting-edge of scientific research. Not such a hot idea, IMO.

Besides, we may very well be living in a simulated reality already. It has become a serious idea. What does that say about those who made it happen?

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:03 PM
I basically agree with schuyler.

I would be dead right now if it weren't for advanced technology and accumulated knowledge.

Convenience is better than struggling. Living is better than dying. It is better to know than to not know.

Technology isn't evil, imo. It helps us reveal the truth so we can know. It's awesome. And I for one love plumbing and air-conditioning and clean water and heating and the internet and cern and space travel and convenience and all of it and more times ten. We just have to allow ourselves to break free from old paradigms in order to re-adjust to new discoveries... and then we'll be ok.

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: schuyler

But the masses are uneducated and dumbed down because of conditioning. Democracy could only ever work in a somewhat enlightened society. Right now we are being run by people that do not have our best interests at heart, I think that's fairly obvious at this point. I don't even believe in democracy, unless we're talking about an enlightened society. I definitely don't believe in democracy in a civilisation where scientific behaviourism is being applied on the masses to control them by social engineering. I don't, not even a little. But getting there some day.. would be the goal I think. Freedom and knowledge.

When I say I sympathise with the ideas of Kaczynski I don't mean I want to go back to a primitive society. This is conjecture on your part. The problem is we have no oversight and no planning. We don't even know where we're heading and people aren't even concerned. Almost anything could happen. Technology has the potential to disrupt our societies in a million different ways. We could face epidemics of all kinds and we would have no plan at all to deal with it, or even foreknowledge. Our bodies reacting to some kind of technology or mass medication, some other confluence of events that we simply couldn't foresee because we didn't even look for it.

Some kind of global planning agency consisting of scientists and futurists forever scanning the horizon for foreseeable problems would at least mitigate this problem. That would be a mature society, judicious, vigilant and aware of potential danger.

As for this idea of a simulated reality, this is just mysticism wrapped in technical language.. I don't respect that if they're gonna pretend that these ideas haven't been explored for aeons by mystics. In a sense it's appropriation without giving credit where credit is due, these people should be more open minded to the traditions that have been saying what these people are just now finding out for ages already. I have no doubt as to the reality of this and I don't really wonder about this question either. I already know, and this may sound arrogant but I don't really care. It is what it is..

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 04:09 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I think at some point in our future our Reality is going to be so depressing, ugly and unsatisfying that we'll gladly welcome some form of augmentation just to cope with it.

Our population is still increasing as is our demand on what resources the earth can provide. Also with that comes the increase in our waste while decreasing our space in which to live and the value of each individual as a person.

This growth is exponential and since we don't think of growth in those terms we don't realize the impact it has on our futures until it's too late.

You're want to augment your reality because dealing with the true reality will be so bad as to cause an overwhelming hopelessness in your life that you'd probably just end your life than live another day without it being filtered and enhanced for you artificially.

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 04:13 PM

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: schuyler

But the masses are uneducated and dumbed down because of conditioning.

No, they're not. It's their natural state. There's no conspiracy. They're already 'dumb.' We don;t intentionally dumb down people; we dumb down stuff to reach these people. Our problem is what to do with people who know only how to make more dumb people. When we had an agrarian society, it didn't matter because you could say, "Here's a shovel. Dig a hole." It was necessary and valuable work that needed to be done and it took only brawn to do it. Today we need people who can program a microprocessor to make a robot do a precision laser weld. Basically our technology level has exceeded our intelligence level, and it's a serious problem.

What are we going to do with these people? It's a myth to think we can take every laid-off factory worker and turn them into systems administrators fluent in Linux and C++. Even if the schools were perfect and funding for education was unlimited, it wouldn't help half the population. Basically what will happen is that we will carry these people on our dime so that they will be able to function with the technology we already have.

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 05:11 PM
a reply to: schuyler

It seems to me like you're acting like society couldn't be in a more ideal state. Ok, people are dumb. You say dumb, I say brainwashed. They could easily comprehend the NWO agenda however, it's not rocket science. Governments could make classes on identifying propaganda and critical thinking mandatory instead of our institutions of higher learning teaching the art of victimhood. To me being brainwashed and being not aware is in some sense being dumbed down. There's education, the controlled media, the food and the fluoride(not gonna get into that one, it's worth mentioning but as for this thread I'm gonna sit on the fence). There's any number of ways in which we are being "dumbed down".

The number of problems that these networks of elite groups cause and have caused is almost endless, if we weren't so hopelessly mind controlled our society could easily be in a more ideal state.

If people are too stupid for democracy, then limit voting to people that have more of an education. Or limit it to older more experienced people. Institute the principle of freedom and the search for knowledge, make it consensus. Hell make it a god damned religion if needed. Everyone should be aware of the techniques of manipulation that we so often discuss on ATS, make it common sense. Make it so ingrained in the consciousness of the people that taking away their freedoms would be nearly impossible. Our current way of doing things is the exact opposite of this, our current way of doing things isn't even neutral, it's downright horrible and endlessly stupid.

There are so many ideas that could make things better if the people really applied themselves collectively. A critical mass of people awakening politically. It wouldn't be easy, but it's not impossible and there's no excuse for not trying.

For starters, every government should have an agency that works like an anti-virus program, constantly searching and rooting out corruption wherever it can find it. Build in endless fail-safes designed to work against groups trying to usurp the freedom of the people.

There's so much we could do, but instead we're voting for the same moron politicians and the same establishment parties endlessly. The definition of insanity comes to mind. Let's look behind that curtain for a change. We need paradigm shifts on paradigm shifts..

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 05:59 PM

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: schuyler

It seems to me like you're acting like society couldn't be in a more ideal state. Ok, people are dumb. You say dumb, I say brainwashed. They could easily comprehend the NWO agenda however,

If you could get to them and lay the NWO propaganda on them, I'm sure they would easily believe. That's part of being dumb, believing every conspiracy theory that comes along. The Mandela Effect, chemtrails, That's completely stupid stuff anyone with an ounce of brains ought to see through. But you're talking politics and I'm talking technology. I DO NOT believe society is in an ideal state--even a little bit, and one of the big reasons is that we have not been able to deal with people who can't keep up with the technology. You would say that's because they're exploited by the elite conspirators. I would say, no, they're just dumb and we have not found a way to take care of that fact.

Now if we had a more perfect system I think we could take a goodly percentage of the poor exploited people and turn them into productive members of society with a good education and a good income. Everyone who is in the poor/exploited category is not dumb. What percentage? I don't know. I'm guessing more than ten and less than 25. But that begs the question because it leaves a whole lot of people who can just about hack a job at McDonald's, and that's about it. That's all they can do mentally.

And that's where it starts to get worse, because robots can do their jobs more cheaply than they can. And when those two lines intersect, the one demanding a "living wage" and the other being the cost of robots, then these people will lose those jobs as well. So maybe it's time for a guaranteed income. But where it has been voted upon, people have hated it. I believe Switzerland voted it down by 70%. Why would they do that? Well, the Swiss are a productive people and they know the score. A guaranteed income means the productive people would subsidize the unproductive people, who, though they would be getting a free ride, would still complain about it. And productive people would see the fruits of their labor given away.

It was H.G. Wells who said, "Civilization is a race between disaster and education." I would throw technology in there as well, which in this case could be used as a synonym. And it's not all good. Francis Galton said, "One of the effects of civilisation is to diminish the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection. It preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands." In other words, the veneer of civilization is PREVENTING us from getting smarter or stronger because our weaknesses are preserved. All in all, I would prefer civilization. The Ted Kaczyinskis of the world notwithstanding. "People sometimes tell me that they prefer barbarism to civilisation. I doubt if they have given it a long enough trial. Like the people of Alexandria, they are bored by civilisation; but all the evidence suggests that the boredom of barbarism is infinitely greater. "--Kenneth Clark in "The skin of our teeth.

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 08:59 PM
Oh my god I agree with everything schuyler is saying.

You can't really educate people... I mean you can try. But education is something that you have to give permission to, and it changes you, and people don't like to be changed. People are afraid of it.

It's like plato's cave allegory or Zarathustra or even Jesus and probably countless other stories where one tries to "educate" the mob, but the mob doesn't listen... and even retaliates aggressively from time to time.

"Education" is in itself something that's extremely painful. I am beginning to realize this more and more. Because it's painful to break away from old paradigms, and there are periods where we will mourn what we once believed/knew to be true. For example, you're married for ten years? You believed that your partner was loyal, you knew this to be true. But one day you find out that they've been cheating on you (actually, you were probably just in "denial" for a very long time prior to this breaking point at which you are now basically forced to face the facts) and now you actually mourn the old paradigm where you were once happy, safe, when you knew how the world worked... when things made sense. But now everything's changed... and that's terrifying.

At the end of the day, people don't want to break themselves away from old paradigms because it will require a kind of pain, the grieving of old ways. Mourner former selves.

But it's our greatest endeavor, wow. It is so important that we inch ourselves out of the darkness and into the light... that's education. It gave us clean water. Healthier diets. Medicine. Safer working conditions... and etc.

In the end, it's better to know than not to know. And we are inching out of the darkness, no doubt about it... and it's ok if we go slow.

And I get the enabling aspect of convenience but somehow we still move forward, because of the Zarathustra's and Jesus's and Aten's and Plato's Cave Man and Siddhartha and etc. who we always want to crucify because there they are getting in-between our netflix and popcorn and alcohol for hours in bed binges and urging us to get up off our fat a$s's and go to work towards doing something great.

Having said all of that now, I'm off to go watch some netflix. Ty and have a good night now.

posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 09:06 AM
a reply to: schuyler

But how do you explain all this to one of the brainless multitude so as to convince him you're right? And what will you do if you succeed?

I await developments in this thread with bated breath.

posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 02:59 PM

Another less flashy video of what the future of an augmented reality might look like.

a reply to: schuyler

The wilder aspects notwithstanding there's plenty of evidence of an agenda along the lines of the one proposed by the NWO conspiracy. In a lot of cases these people flat out tell us exactly what they're going to do.

But technology and politics intersect, they don't exist independently in a vacuum.

Being dumb and being exploited kind of goes hand in hand to me, I don't see it as a mutually exclusive situation.

Of course they voted it down now, the idea has only recently been publicly broached. It's very new to the public, wait 20 or 30 years. I actually think this speaks for what I'm talking about, with all these redundant people we're gonna need radical ideas to functionally transform our societies, something will have to give sooner or later. This is where technological planning comes in, as I see it it's the only rational way going forward. Going about this monumental change willy nilly would be foolish in the extreme.

Now, because of the potentially dire situation this is also a potential dream situation for anyone wanting to control a population. The combination of a society where a technological dictatorship is possible with one that is also facing great challenges is the wet dream of any totalitarian. This presents endless opportunities for manipulation as something will have to be done with all the problems. And this is the point, as a ruler intent on keeping power you don't want to lose out on all this potential chaos by solving all the problems, there has to be something to fix, something to scare the population with, something to use as a lever. Content people are harder to subjugate.

I think the Western escapades in both the Middle East and South America is a great example of intentionally creating problems. Our leaders couldn't have been more "inept" if they tried, they've been in the business of creating problems for a long time now. This whole schism between the Muslim World and the Western world in the 20th century has been intentionally created. Not by coincidence or bad luck but by senseless and agenda driven policies. They certainly don't hate the atheist Chinese like they hate us and I think that's saying a lot. If you want to pretend that geopolitical machinations is just happenstance and the product of isolated individuals and not groups of people effectively acting like glorified cartels then by all means do but this is not where the evidence points.

To think that our government institutions have remained free from the control and expansion of such mafia like groups is almost close to thinking that this type of thing doesn't happen at all. Like the people that didn't use to believe in the mafia. This is simply a scaled up version of how the mafia operates in certain neighbourhoods. The only difference is the sophistication, the age, the official credibility and esteem and the monopoly like control they exert over the foundational institutions of our societies: in essence they define the frame of reference; the public narrative; the official consensus. So of course, if you want to believe them when they say they aren't crooks even though all evidence points to that fact then by all means be my guest but I don't think that's a recipe for success for any society. Eh...

By the way, if you have a problem with "the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection" diminishing you should like eugenics.
edit on 14-8-2016 by TheLaughingGod because: Typo..

new topics

top topics


log in