Hypothetical Question

[cogsandspigots]

Simple rules:

Answer the previous question and then post your own.
The question cannot have a definitive answer.



If I were to kill and eat an intelligent alien, would it be hunting or murder?

[ٶȻhriʂ]

lul Vsauce






















Ignore pls

[Astropilot]

Murder if they live in a society.

Be free and live uncomfortably or live comfortably without freedom?

[Apie2]

Be free and live uncomfortably.

If the toilet was alive and you poo on the toilet, does it count as pooseckz?

[Jhon]

Be free and live uncomfortably.

If the toilet was alive and you poo on the toilet, does it count as pooseckz?

No, since that might be the toilet's mouth (brb puking).



If humans became immortal, would it completely contradict religion and the idea of an existance of god/s?

[cogsandspigots]

Not necessarily.
Human "immortality", as perceived by most scientific predictions, would be transferring your consciousness/soul into a computer. This means that you are still you, but the vessel you use to interact with the world has been changed. And this vessel is not indestructible, at some point it WILL be destroyed, time conquers all. When it is destroyed, your soul will then be left to be judged by a deity (I believe that it will be the Christian God, but to each his own). True immortality is not bound to something physical.


If the world has a bountiful surplus of resources and everyone can live life without need, would the situation be good (endless supplies have turned humanity into a greed-less populace who only want to follow their dreams and personalities are the real commodities) or bad (excess supplies have driven the world into decadence and boredom, leading to spikes in crimes and suicides)?


Could you guys put some explanation into your answers, please?

[·UηİŦ··]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'd say it all depends on who you ask, at what "time", and in which place. Anything can happen if you give a simulation infinite resources.

 It's very possible in my mind that infinite anythings given to people like us (with the superpowers' "buy buy buy do do do sex sex sex eat eat eat happy happy happy" mindset, and the overpowering sensation of having more than enough possibly corrupting/blinding with bliss those who used to sleep in dirt) would majorly lead to a "giant homicidal hedonistic self-destructive buttfucktwister" that would probably never end if there were boundless resources.

 Think about it. How many people out there want to go around and do, everything?

 Blow stuff up? Live a life full of pleasure and pleasantries, only the finest? You'll have 7+ billion of those people, some lot of them will want to do what every human being usually tends to do when given power; control. It's almost hereditary, sometimes compulsory to want to order the environment in some shape or form (eg putting some sticks against each other to make a hut, then pimping the hut out with seashells you found on the beach, after you feel you are completely set).

 So now you have maybe... 3-4 billion (?) people wanting to control the entire planet right from the get-go, and everyone else with equal power. Some have had this kind of power for maybe a decade or two, and now that balance would shift. You could say that some men are more equal than others (eg a pioneering scientist with boundless resources vs a man who used to spend his life in a dumpster) but since we've been given boundless resources, it has to be assumed that if using the current model for society (us right now), before anyone goes off the rails, that the governing bodies may attempt to raise the global Human Development Index due to the Status Quo of the apparent, benevolent Superpowers... 3 times out of 5.

 Again, Obama could just decide to run a giant brothel using all of the supermodels in the world first thing first in this simulation, but generally there's an established moral pressure on people not to do that, so I'll try to argue the better of two states.

 Anyways, just imagine all that chaos. All minds trying to rope in the general consensus of reality as we make of it into some kind of fantasy or paradise, from their perspective. With all that power, at the same time.

 Then throw in all our other problems like biases and beliefs and concepts and our inability to not approximately gauge the actual truths if there even are any and what not and just

 aaa

 If anything, you'd be welcome to a physical representation of one notorious face of the internet where sliding scales of things... just happen. The most complete and unrestricted display of human aptitude, in any shape or form. White, Black, Gray, and maybe even some Orange. The population may actually manage to outpace the amount of human deaths among all the other lifeforms present (may not be the best kind of offspring though if everyone everything their every single fantasy). If there wasn't anything convincing me to not say the Earth would just be in such a state of disrepair that it would no longer be viable for anything, ever, I would say just that. But you pose the question of "if the Earth were to supply bountiful resources", which means you can't Wreck-It Ralph. Now, it may also mean that information could be as easy to obtain as breathing is usually easy to do, which may or may not let things play out differently... but unlikely.

 But, let's say it won't even if it should. I think that there is a slight possibility that, after maybe a really drastic and horrible age of what have you, everyone will become tired and burned-out from constantly being all they ever wanted to be, save for some individuals. That means eventually things would calm down, and whatever anyone did would practically not even matter or seem to exist in the minds of the many. Life would probably pan out, slow down and become goal-oriented again (though what goal one may have besides being human and achieving everything a human needs to achieve besides occupying all space ever is not something I can easily imagine for 200 billion people).

 Mind you it might be a backwards-ass society by then, and their concept of general good or benefit may differ. Like, "Optional Weak-Acid Bath Day".

 But you know what, anything could just even. People could just take those resources and rocket off from Earth into some unknown vector in space, maybe colonize Mars and utilize that infinite data to construct some kind of idyllic paradise- becoming a giant living computer. But it's unlikely. This is Earth post-iPhone 5 after all.

That's my take, and sometimes I have a tendency to be stupid... please read what I type not as fact, but as an opinion/onion.

What constitutes forever? Is forever truly infinite, or is 'forever' just the span of time in which something is able to consciously perceive it?

[Osme]

Forever is until the universe reaches its point of maximum entropy (assuming...).

Assuming (any) religion is true, what is the reasonable origin of the proposed god?

[coolzeldad]

Assuming (any) religion is true, what is the reasonable origin of the proposed god?

Assuming that; would supercede time ( no beginning/end || cause/effect logic applicable ) and space ( no bounds so no point is referenced ) and therefore impossible to quantify.

How could humans live for humanity and not threaten to destroy humanity ( rationalizing use of weapons vs not having them )? aka. Is the concept absolute peace possible while maintaining the ability for humans to act willfully and independently?

[Osme]

Assuming that; would supercede time ( no beginning/end || cause/effect logic applicable ) and space ( no bounds so no point is referenced ) and therefore impossible to quantify.

How could humans live for humanity and not threaten to destroy humanity ( rationalizing use of weapons vs not having them )? aka. Is the concept absolute peace possible while maintaining the ability for humans to act willfully and independently?

Humanity as a race would have to be constantly rational and work together under a single omnipotent government that truly does work for the people, and has no corruption within it. Simply put, humans are dicks, therefor a reasonable state of peace isn't possible.

Reincarnation?

[Xrain]

Assuming that; would supercede time ( no beginning/end || cause/effect logic applicable ) and space ( no bounds so no point is referenced ) and therefore impossible to quantify.

How could humans live for humanity and not threaten to destroy humanity ( rationalizing use of weapons vs not having them )? aka. Is the concept absolute peace possible while maintaining the ability for humans to act willfully and independently?

Absolute peace is a political extreme, similar to successful communism etc.

It relies on the principle that every human is rational. Which may to some extent be true, but what one human considers rational another will not. Which is why in practice both are unsuccessful. They both demand that people stop acting like people. Absolute peace would require either perfect arbitration between every party that has a grievance with each other, with that perfect arbitration both parties must leave completely satisfied.

This perfect arbitration isn't possible, as many parties have wants that are in direct opposition to each other, therefore the ideal compromise in this case leaves neither party happy (ie. Two people divorcing, both want the iphone, most equal solution is to cut iphone in half, which renders it useless. Or split custody of the iphone which leaves one party unhappy 1/2 of the time.)

The only way to achieve absolute peace is drastically rewrite how human being think and behave. Probably would look similar to the Borg in the end.

Only real possibility for people to achieve peace would be to act without self-interest. It might be achievable on the majority (ie right now a majority of people are at peace with each other), but there will always be outliers who will break the peace.


My question:

What are the societal rammifications that you foresee if anyone ever perfects cybernetic technology, and makes it accessible to a majority of people. (think ghost in the shell cybernetics)


Edit:

 Damn you ninja, I suppose will just have to answer your question too.

Reincarnation? I'm not quite sure what you are asking about it. If you are asking about its plausibility, I am not one to say as it is a religious belief and its not really my position to judge people on theirs.

Personally I am a Christian so... Jesus was reincarnated after dieing, and there are a few other examples of reincarnation in the bible. But I suspect that isn't the reincarnation you were referring to.

[Tezuni]

Humanity as a race would have to be constantly rational and work together under a single omnipotent government that truly does work for the people, and has no corruption within it. Simply put, humans are dicks, therefor a reasonable state of peace isn't possible.

Reincarnation?

Our lives are composed of our experiences, recorded in our memories.  The concept of reincarnation into a new body does not bring those into your next life.  Would that really be you?

Do you think it's possible for people to truly understand each other, and achieve a global understanding, perhaps through some futuristic communications method developed in the future, bringing about real peace? (think emotional communication, where you can feel what they feel like you are their childhood friend that knows exactly what they're feeling and how to talk and treat them accordingly.  then think about that happening with everyone)

Ahh Xain popped in, lol.  I'll answer his too just to catch this thing up)

My question:

What are the societal rammifications that you foresee if anyone ever perfects cybernetic technology, and makes it accessible to a majority of people. (think ghost in the shell cybernetics)

Perfect cybernetic technology would be a huge aid, and it will happen.  It starts as exterior pieces, like google glass, but it will get smaller, cheaper, and more advanced.  Eventually people will have implanted technology, and it will feel like just another part of their body.  Though perfection of this technology would be a great aid, I can also see it as a double edged sword; it could be used to enhance communication, or be used as a distraction from socializing.  For example, you can use the internet for email, IM, video calls, etc and you can slo use it to play WoW 16 hrs a day and leave your room once a week for a food trip to stock your mini fridge.  lol.

[Xrain]

Our lives are composed of our experiences, recorded in our memories.  The concept of reincarnation into a new body does not bring those into your next life.  Would that really be you?

Do you think it's possible for people to truly understand each other, and achieve a global understanding, perhaps through some futuristic communications method developed in the future, bringing about real peace?

I am just being ninja'd all over the place here.

Yes it is plausible to think that it might be possible one day. Is it advisable? absolutely not. Think of what would happen if everyone knew absolutely everything you thought about them.

It would be awfully tough to have any friends.


Repeating my question from before.

[·UηİŦ··]

I'd borrow from what Tezuni said about it being a great aid to general being and possibly even a revolution of inter-connectivity between those with upgrades. If it's the same tier as Ghost in the shell, then I also think that it would turn into a distraction... provided that we are not living under a omnipotent government that works for the people, and everyone is still inherently Human.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

However, on that note, it'd seem like those who cannot afford/refuse to 'upgrade' (those not of the majority) will immediately be thrown out of the loop. Like an Anomie scenario. Just imagine the drastic implications if the majority of society is now re-tooling their bodies and sensory input, and now you have a league of parkour runners that communicate almost instantaneously through cerebral messaging, with replaceable limbs, enhanced vision and whatnot- that have daily quarrels with those who have become walking calculators, versus the everyday person who cannot run faster than 16 MPH. In terms of Ghost in the Shell, it'd sound like a lot of people would love to hack other people... which I will get to later.

Another thing that bugs me is, how that would affect the individuals or hive mind who have become one with the fairly-folded unreliable hardware we call brains (that supposedly learn most aspects of connectivity through repetition and memory) that work in tandem with silicon/quantum prosthetic attached to it... that are able to force each assumption, observation and belief to pay rent without error... using instantaneous hard logic and pre-determined values that can self-correct at any time? God mode? What kind of networks are we interfacing with, if we have cyberbrains?

Basically, what happens to someone who can harness the full potential of a human brain, work with/shape the bubbles that sometimes occur, and then add immense computing power and speed to that said brain, plus a sea of information and constant corrections and iterations of perception on the fly? What happens when you multiply that by a small community, and then have them interact with powers-over-powers of computing... power? Do they just progressively become the Borg, like Xrain said?

A whole defrag of self-identity, because everyone is suddenly closer to one another, and suddenly 3/4ths of the globe is in-sync?

Though, if we all re-tool ourselves, doesn't that open up to better possibilities? Being optimistic, if one were their own walking laboratory, they could very well work with 700 other walking laboratories and achieve some neato things. Maybe. If you were the calculator in your head (and not just a brain that remembers how to calculate but has potential to forget), would it mean that the sum work of 500 people doing a plethora of arithmetic towards infrastructures in society could very well improve them at an exponential rate? What about architecture? What about changing the human languages such that they were far better at describing qualia? Could you see everything that I saw, as in, if I told you how blue the sky was, you could see my blue without me having to connect directly to your head?

Could we go from making fossil fuel power super efficient, to eradicating the need to burn "non-processed" fossil fuels, to some strange yet fitting/practical application of fossil fuels while using new technologies currently not yet applied en masse just by working in tandem with our new shiny tools, and new cybernetic grounds to explore?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

By non-processed, I mean to imply that the majority of things found to be fossil fuels like coal or oil are found in stores or quarries. We don't make them, but we get them pre-made by the environment and dying things. If we are to do Thermal Depolymerization to the point where much of the things considered unusable or un-convertable become valid and eligible, then we are taking the plastics and such that we have processed, and changing their states back to crude oil or other oils... thus, in the sense, processed fuels. Almost renewable, to an extent. Then again implying that we can take Thermal Depolymerization to that level could suggest that we can turn dirt into gold by directly modifying the atomic structure of covalent compounds, ionic bonds, or even just elements.

Else, how safe is perfected cybernetics? I've never seen it, so I can't say. But in my mind, if it's perfect then it shouldn't have security flaws. Or general flaws. Which then concerns me, because if we are talking about the human body and the human brain and not any other body or brain, then current examples in society and biology have shown us just how easy it is to alter the perception of the world around an individual, and how easy it is to reprogram or damage the brain. Implying that this technology is perfect must also mean that once it becomes us, our bodies and possibly our minds (barring whether or not we still talk in 1st person) will then have to become infallible as well. This would also mean that individuals who became deviants from whatever the technological singularity was, for whatever reason, would be unstoppable. They'd be perfect. Like everyone else... does perfect cancel out perfect? Does the fact that they are now perfect (in the view of the majority who are perfect) stop them from being a one-man army in an orphanage of "Naturals"?

I don't know. Maybe it's a moot point, because I don't believe that within a decade individuals who'd be considered malicious would have access to the holy grail of self-modification, and by the time they would have the potential to manifest from the pool of consciousness or integration of human-likeness, Humanity might be something akin to a living computer or UFAI such that it caters to itself, and then would probably have some set of rules or utilities, maybe even protocols that would prevent such a personality or entity from becoming real.

Kind of like the Borg. But, that's an ideal scenario in my mind. Anyone could potentially get their hands on tools for the self, even someone who wants to eradicate all life on Earth and commandeer all of our scary weapons against us.

I don't know what else to touch on that question per whatever I think I know. I also don't know whether to categorize a human brain potentially grown from birth with cybernetics as a cyborg or an android with human stepping stones... or an AI loaded up into a human platform, or... Ack.

If humanity were to advance technology exponentially until the point wherein technology will only improve every 5 years after 2027, only starting with the most superficial of things (like communications or the internet, or phones, or lights, airplanes, etc) before moving onto the heavy-lifting (energy, industry, manufacturing, etc)... how fast do you think we'd be able to start colonizing planets in terms of habitats and small mining operations?

To add, do you think there are a sort of rules or guidelines/responsibilities that should be put into foresight before going around and "fracking" things like Mars, or even the Moon? You don't have to answer both, but I don't know how to spin this without asking two questions in series, without it dragging on or sounding more awkward.