BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

Shocking wrote:

Improving the quality of life for everyone doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. Besides, as soon as we start mining one space rock it's going to mark the start of a whole new industry aimed at space mining & exploration. It will spark progress. Then there's the realisation that we would have an almost unlimited quantity of very cheap resources at our disposal which in turn will enable us to conduct scientific experiments of absolutely enormous sizes. I see the consumerism part as being a good side-show.

There's always a better way. I'm particularly interested in moving beyond our archaic impulse to mine fossil fuels. It's incredibly inefficient, dirty, and devastating to our ecosystem. .. especially when compared to other, more potent sources of energy.

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Why does it bother you?

It doesn't bother me, its Kmar's point.

Why would it bother you if I were bothered?

No, it's real progress. Lithium ion batteries and ever increasing chip speed didn't happen without the products being bought. Should we have waited three hundred years for some research university lab to perfect it before we all went out and bought one?

Incremental technological andvances and progress aren't the same thing.

It's the very definition of progress.

you're so wrong it's untrue. have you been reading hegel? rofl

technological advances =/= progress of civilization

My point was that its pointless mining space rocks if it just means more people will be able to put more gadgets in landfill.

Its not as if society is aiming for anything as it is, why would mining space rocks change that?

Dilbert_X wrote:

My point was that its pointless mining space rocks if it just means more people will be able to put more gadgets in landfill.

Its not as if society is aiming for anything as it is, why would mining space rocks change that?

And your suggestion is... what? Continue strip mining rainforests? Regress technologically, out of some misplaced sense that old = better?

Spart wrote:

And your suggestion is... what? Continue strip mining rainforests? Regress technologically, out of some misplaced sense that old = better?

Of course not, however every technological advance is immediately negated by the population outbreeding and/or finding a more banal way to waste the benefits.

Give people cheap food they just get fatter and breed more, cheap petrol they buy bigger cars, more efficient micro-chips they put them in graphics cards for video-games.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-20 04:54:43)

and when will those plans be enacted? oh yeah when we're done selling an ipad to every person in the western world. why is it that whenever scientists discuss 'progress' and the 'future' their normally rational, empirical and rather down-to-earth materialist mentality glazes over with this wide-eyed 'i smoked too much reefer' carl sagan bullshit. the human race is caught up in the myopia of late-capitalism. your claims nowadays seem as faintly ludicrous and fantastical as those sci-fi 1950's "soon we'll be living on the moon in peace and prosperity" statements.

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

My point was that its pointless mining space rocks if it just means more people will be able to put more gadgets in landfill.

Its not as if society is aiming for anything as it is, why would mining space rocks change that?

And your suggestion is... what? Continue strip mining rainforests? Regress technologically, out of some misplaced sense that old = better?

his suggestion is clearly technological advancement motivated by real causes, rather than bullshit we don't need. 99% of the material harvested nowadays is for self-indulgent bullshit, and it's unlikely to change when we suddenly start farming gas on jupiter's moons.

Jay wrote:

every watt harnessed is one less joule expended by humans

Not even close, we're well beyond the point of needing to pull plows ourselves, in the West at least.

Every watt harnessed is a watt we find a new way to burn up.

Watts =/= Joules BTW.

Spark wrote:

But the point I was making with the internet forum remark was that if, say, all the computers and computer derivatives across the world were to cease functioning this second, or disappear, modern society would, with absolute certainty, collapse entirely. The most advanced parts of it - us in the West - falling within a few days, and with the rest of the world following soon afterwards.

Now consider all those fairly rare materials used in computers...

lol so dependency on technology = 'human progress' to you? okay. how deluded.

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

It's the very definition of progress.

you're so wrong it's untrue. have you been reading hegel? rofl

technological advances =/= progress of civilization

That's nice. Which reactionary anti-science philosophy have you read recently?

oh i don't know, any philosophy rooted in the 20th or 21st century? this whole 'great march onwards towards progress and enlightenment' idea was thrown out and terribly unfashionable, chap, at the end of the 1800's. it was also very hegemonic and western-centric, with a nasty imperialist-political slant on it, too. technology no longer means advancement in the same way that fashioning tools from stone did, or inventing the steam engine did. technology now often means an over-reliance on bullshit we don't need. technology now often means marginalizing of human resources and skills. not that i'd expect you to be well versed in any contemporary thought or philosophy though, with your snide irony; i expect your half-rate college only had the budget to take you through the essential economic, political and philosophical thought of america from 1700-1850. nevermind, there's always amazon.com!

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

you're so wrong it's untrue. have you been reading hegel? rofl

technological advances =/= progress of civilization

That's nice. Which reactionary anti-science philosophy have you read recently?

oh i don't know, any philosophy rooted in the 20th or 21st century? this whole 'great march onwards towards progress and enlightenment' idea was thrown out and terribly unfashionable, chap, at the end of the 1800's. it was also very hegemonic and western-centric, with a nasty imperialist-political slant on it, too. technology no longer means advancement in the same way that fashioning tools from stone did, or inventing the steam engine did. technology now often means an over-reliance on bullshit we don't need. technology now often means marginalizing of human resources and skills. not that i'd expect you to be well versed in any contemporary thought or philosophy though, with your snide irony; i expect your half-rate college only had the budget to take you through the essential economic, political and philosophical thought of america from 1700-1850. nevermind, there's always amazon.com!

You can't see the forest for the trees. Every aspect of your life was built on technology. You had the free time and money to get a reading degree precisely because of technology. You have the free time and opportunity to troll on the internet because of technology. The books you jerk off to weren't hand copied by monks. The philosophs you admire were ignorant, so they were fearful. No different from the religious.

Should've taken a physics class uzique.

Last edited by Jay (2011-07-20 05:12:20)

Uzique wrote:

Spark wrote:

But the point I was making with the internet forum remark was that if, say, all the computers and computer derivatives across the world were to cease functioning this second, or disappear, modern society would, with absolute certainty, collapse entirely. The most advanced parts of it - us in the West - falling within a few days, and with the rest of the world following soon afterwards.

Now consider all those fairly rare materials used in computers...

lol so dependency on technology = 'human progress' to you? okay. how deluded.

You're thinking far too much about little trinkets and what not like iPads and the like.

What I'm thinking about is the automated systems that run our power plants, dams, water treatment plants, etc. Without which we would be royally fucked in an instant but are basically impossible for humans to manage. Without which we would fall back to a quality of life that I think most of us would find unacceptable given the alternatives.

And I'm still yet to hear an answer to my question.