And we can build a dyson sphere as well. You and Choobs seem to be using two entirely different interpretations of "being able to do something."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And we can build a dyson sphere as well. You and Choobs seem to be using two entirely different interpretations of "being able to do something."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Do you also go around telling children about the logistics of Santa Claus? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Uhm, besides asking you how the undersea-to-surface worlds and their separation aren't partially based on human observations....or challenging your idea of separation in the first place.....it was an opportunity for me to figure out why you've been tagged with solipsistic ideas on the forum from time-to-time. Never mind, that's probably a meta tangent we should avoid at this juncture. :eek: :Noob:
The past is becoming an increasingly poor metric for predicting the future. The world changes faster than ever, not just by generations or decades, but by single years or even months. Many countries have changed their government officials, either through uprisings or elections, since the Great Global Recession and the Arab spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Economies and political policies have been using outdated empirics far too long. They aren't connected to the realities of rapid change, medical or scientific advancements, and human longevity. It's pretty stupid to make 21st century policy based on post-WWII successes.
I'm also not sure why "democratic traditions" and people voting their best-interests doesn't include, to a degree, "others making the decisions for them" via legislation. I suppose some might call that Totalitarianism (or SSSocialism, or tyranny of the majority), and explains why the US is in such a polarized and paralyzed place. Can you expound on that, and what you meant by scapegoating?
That's absurd. Just because we can think of something doesn't mean we can or would do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Furthermore, and correct me if I'm wrong, our odd thread of discussion has revolved around this hypothesis:
The US could or is likely to become totalitarian, nasty large scale war will naturally ensue, the world will be sterilized as a result.
You say there is no theoretical limit to the power of fusion bomb. Ok, leavining aside other limits like cost and engineering, why would a totalitarian state, or any state at all, build a fusion weapon with the power to obliterate the Earth???? The purpose would have to be the extermination of all life. You regard that as even a little plausible?
I'm still completely at a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The separation of deep ocean vent ecosystems from surface ecosystems is a physical fact. They do not depend on the surface for energy or nutrition at all. We could pave over the entire planetary surface, oceans and all, and those communities would thrive as they always have just as if nothing had happened.
I think the solipsism stuff originated with some statements I myself made at one point - jokingly, btw. I've always regarded the followup comments as jokes as well. I mean seriously - if I honestly believed this was all a product of my own mind, I wouldn't bother with it. Would you?
Why don't people read Lem...Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Or, for a more popular culture point, have you not seen Dr. Strangelove?
Kinda pointless. Must not all things at the last be swallowed up in death? It's not like its an event you can really plan for, and in the event of a governmental or societal collapse, is it really anything you'd want to survive? No juice or running water or toilet paper... hardly seems worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Arguably, there's never been a case of a long-standing, prosperous democracy either. Even the US didn't really achieve prosperity until Europe started paying us to help them kill each other en masse. And as pointed out, not only is the sample size incredibly small and over a tiny fraction of human history, but you've also got relatively prosperous democratic countries that have turned away from democracy (like Russia and Venezuela), kind of proving that it can and does happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
All also true of, say the USSR, or other totalitarian regimes that have fallen. The fact that things are working, more or less, at the moment, is no guarantee that will always be the case. If anything, now (in the context of world history) would be the time to bet against our current governments surviving. The pace of change is accelerating exponentially, and our governments are getting slower and slower to react and only making things worse. Honestly hard to see how our governments are going to overcome some of the technological challenges ahead of them, and as is always the case, the smart money is on progress, not progressives. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Dude. I have read Lem, on your recommendation! And I have seen Dr. Strangelove; indeed I named my first dog Stanley after the director!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Things to keep in mind when you choose to inform your world view with this sort of source material:
1. Their works are fictional with the primary intent to entertain and provide a living.
2. To the extent their tales are cautionary, they were expressions of a narrow, unprecedented, extreme and now largely resolved era in human history. Dare I say they are not relevant to the world's new normal?
3. It is important to note the fictional scenarios these stories portrayed never came to pass nor is there any evidence I'm aware of that the character types are realistic. No Dooms Day device was ever built. No automatic nuclear trip-wire was ever constructed. No high ranking military offical ever tried to instigate a nuclear exchange, nor is there evidence a single general could do it unilaterally. And no deterrant eliminating technology was ever developed, nor is there evidence it would be sought and implemented.
4. To cite these materials as evidence to support your fears is equivalent to calling for a halt in computer research and shutting down the internet because of the Terminator 3 story line.
5. And I'm still looking for a non-scifi mechanism a totalitarian America could use to kill all life on Earth. Then we can talk about why that political entity would do such a thing. I'm not aware of any historical precedent . . . .
It is not science fiction to suggest one builds a device on their own soil which'd, to put it in poetic terms, cracks the Earth in half. It'd be feasible, I think. If you gave me a lab and some able people, I think I could do it...
From a strategic point of view, it is the perfect deterrent. You shove me too much, whoops, there goes the whole globe. And once you have it, no one's going to stop you from having one, either...
It takes a certain kind of regime to wield devices like that. It is my (somewhat informed) opinion that the Nazis would have.
And this is just the crudest example. There are others, other wonderful devices I can think of... It doesn't take much doing, but it takes will. The wonderful thing about Nazism was the power of will over matter. It can be done. So many choices...
If you started building something like that, literally everyone in the world would bomb you.
You don't tell them! It's not that hard to keep a secret, either. Plus, there's joint interests; if Berlin wanted one, Helsinki wouldn't be opposed. Moscow would be. Would London? There's all sorts of games...
No, it kinda is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
It isn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Why does this feel like the birth of Nessus the supervillian? One of those, "they said it couldn't be done" 007 movie plots
Certainly the scientific opinion of Little Fuzzy weighs heavier...
I don't think he was remarking on the scientific or technological feasibility so much as on the sort of thing eg. Steely mentioned.
o rlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
bomb.Quote:
Helsinki would
bomb.Quote:
Moscow would
Bomb? Yes.Quote:
Would London?
There is but one game.Quote:
There's all sorts of games...
And there is an argument I couldn't make any more persuasive!
Nesus, no one wants your fucked up doomsday weapon. If anyone builds one, we'll just bomb them till either they stop, or there's no one left to build it.
http://trileafdesigns.com/blog/wp-co...oppinBombs.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-mu6dW4pra...00/bombing.jpe
http://www.oklahomacitybombing.com/o...-bombing-4.jpg
I'm going to have to agree with Steely. Anyone who tried to build such a weapon would be arrested or assassinated. If they managed to get this weapon near working order, they would surely be bombed.
Sometimes we bomb countries who weren't building doomsday weapons, so we'd definitely bomb ones who were.
What I'm not entirely sure about is what Nessie's beliefs on this topic lead to, ie. how they influence her other beliefs about eg. what--if anything--should be done (by people, by nations, etc).
Who would bomb you guys? Who would arrest you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am not Oppenheimer, I know how toxic my beliefs are; in my heart, a National Socialist...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I thought the point was about private individuals or rogue states doing this? The US can already do a pretty good job of blowing up the earth with nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Chaloobi's question was, how to blow it thoroughly... I know of ways. Many ways... He claimed, as did Little Fuzzy, that they were impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's not technically true. The Soviets built one, and by most reports, it's still in effect. It's called Dead Hand, and can purportedly launch all Russian ICBMs if their automated systems detect a nuclear strike on Russian soil.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
The degree of automation, and even its implementation is debatable, but really, it's hard to see either side's nuclear arsenals as anything short of a doomsday machine.
(Which is not say you're wrong about the general point or anything, but well, whatever, you've been drinking, so I felt compelled to point it out. Or something like that.)
Using real world limits on possibility rather than absolute limits, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
These are "facts" only humans recognize. After we've explored, hypothesized, studied, and analyzed millions/billions of years of history. Our planet, solar system, galaxy, universe....existed long before any of our human ancestors grew from the primordial ooze pool. It's kind of cool to realize that we're still in the midst of "mining" that information, and putting into human context. (Even though we still have flat earth biblical fundies who insist the planet is only 5,000 years old :rolleyes: )Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Yeah, maybe I would. If I thought all of this was just a product of my imagination, or the machinations in my mind, it makes sense to keep it going, right? I've had really great dreams that worked that way, and awoke feeling rather disappointed that I couldn't keep the dream going. I've also had dreams within dreams, and awoke within that nanosecond of a time warp, when the brain can't distinguish between what's "real" or imagined. Hollywood is better at exploring and portraying those moments in our subconsciousness than we are. It's easier to categorize it as "entertainment", than admit the schizoid or paranoid thoughts in our own brains, I suppose. Rather like driving off a cliff with a bag of popcorn instead of a parachute.Quote:
I think the solipsism stuff originated with some statements I myself made at one point - jokingly, btw. I've always regarded the followup comments as jokes as well. I mean seriously - if I honestly believed this was all a product of my own mind, I wouldn't bother with it. Would you?
:bulb:
I suppose it is an academic point, until someone gives me a lab. Or someone like me... The real world doesn't limit us that much, not that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy