Also you talk about corrupt politicians. I've already made the point in this thread that the pertinent question with politicians isn't what they believe but who owns them. Then take that step further, where did the people who own the politicians get the power to do it, oh yeah, it's money and that money came from our system of trade for reward. There isn't much that's wrong in our society that can't be traced back to trade at some point. Trade or resource control, whatever you want to call it, brings out the worst in us.
But you're wrong, trade brought us Tang, not government. Government just made it popular
Originally formulated by General Foods Corporation food scientist William A. Mitchell in 1957, it was first marketed in powdered form in 1959.
Sales of Tang were poor until NASA used it on John Glenn's Mercury flight, and subsequent Gemini missions. Since then, it was closely associated with the U.S. manned spaceflight program, leading to the misconception that Tang was invented for the space program.
JJMcClure (May 5th, 2011)
Now we're moving from sounding like Pol Pot to eugenics. Hey let's influence embryos to get rid of homosexuality, make everyone nice and white. But that would never happen because the AI wouldn't let it happen you say. Why wouldn't it? If the AI determined that homosexuality caused conflict or that it was a waste of breeding material would it not be best for humanity to eliminate it? It certainly wouldn't break the prime rule of AI, it wouldn't "harm" the person. The same for race or any other "undesirable" quality.It would if the weak existed. We're already at a stage in our technolofy where we can influence how embryos develop and select for preferable genetic development.
Source?we were so good at collecting food (except in exceptional circumstances) that there was plenty of time for leisure, there's archeological evidence of that.
Simpler, maybe.Life was simpler and easier, populations were under control, people were stronger and fitter and had a healthier diet than the crap we eat now.
Stronger and fitter, yes
Healthier diet, doubtful or at least doubtful that they could have as healthy a diet as you can have now if you choose to do so. Trade has given us a myriad of choices, not all of them are great but I'd rather have the choice than not.
As much as I enjoy your completely unfounded statements I'll have to call you on this one as well. Can you let me know what his time was in the 100m so I can compare it to people who train constantly, get a caloric surplus, and have the benefits of modern science.Put Austrolapithicus into a 100m race and he'd kick the ass off any current Olympic sprinter
That's darwinism at work.we've devolved in many ways. Our brains got bigger, our bodies got weaker.
I do have to admit that your opinions disturb me, or they would if you had clout in the world. You really seem to skirt the lines of eugenics, how brutal times were better because it weeded out the weak, how trade and religion should be abolished so that a benevolent dictatorship could take care of all of our needs.
It's obvious we don't agree on some core values, so that will be all I have to say in this discussion, arguing it is futile.
Come on, stay with it. You agree that scarcity is what caused the behavioural adaptation we call trade to develop, so why is solving the problem of resource scarcity ridiculous? I think it's a goal worthy of the efforts of all of humanity. To erradicate disease, poverty, wars over resources or ideologies based on ownership and greed, pollution, land shortages, hording of resources like information, devastation of the environment...... etc etc etc As tke says, "There isn't much in our society period that can't be traced back to trade" so we solve the problem not by alleviating the symptoms by removing the disease.
How could that be a bad thing?
To do it though, we have to get off planet to where the resources are. I hope my perspective is becoming more clear.