i want humanity to gradually asymptote towards perfection
in theory, the limit of humanity as time approaches infinity is perfection
but perfection itself is mathematically unachievable
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on June 22, 2017, 08:48:43 AM
but perfection itself is mathematically unachievable
but the fact that perfection itself is mathematically unachievable does not mean that there is no reason to improve and continue improving along that asymptote, gradually ever closer towards perfection
But what is perfection or close to perfection? The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:51:15 AM
The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked
this is true but most of the responses you'd get would be flat-out wrong/nonsensical, as i'm sure you'd agree
if you value human efficiency there's only one general direction to move in that makes sense
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
What's upward for humanity is entirely subjective anyway!
i don't agree with this
we would all agree that war and protectionism, for example, are overwhelmingly inefficient, and it's no coincidence that they are some of the many products of generally unproductive emotions
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on June 22, 2017, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:51:15 AM
The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked
this is true but most of the responses you'd get would be flat-out wrong/nonsensical, as i'm sure you'd agree
if you value human efficiency there's only one general direction to move in that makes sense
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
What's upward for humanity is entirely subjective anyway!
i don't agree with this
we would all agree that war and protectionism, for example, are overwhelmingly inefficient, and it's no coincidence that they are some of the many products of generally unproductive emotions
Anyone would agree most responses would be wrong/nonsensical as almost everyone would have a different version of what that would be.
I don't really care about efficiency. Efficiency of what? I care about people being able to have food, water, health, shelter, safety. Not everyone does though. I obviously have a different view of morality than others, how could there ever be an established set of rules that would agree with everyone?
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on June 22, 2017, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:51:15 AM
The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked
this is true but most of the responses you'd get would be flat-out wrong/nonsensical, as i'm sure you'd agree
if you value human efficiency there's only one general direction to move in that makes sense
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
What's upward for humanity is entirely subjective anyway!
i don't agree with this
we would all agree that war and protectionism, for example, are overwhelmingly inefficient, and it's no coincidence that they are some of the many products of generally unproductive emotions
I'm sure there are many people out there who would desire to be the one to conquer the world to prove their superiority. Whose vision of a perfect humanity is one that is under their boot and at their command
valuing efficiency is what happens u are socialized in the center of the rat race HUB
Quote from: SVT on June 22, 2017, 01:53:37 PM
valuing efficiency is what happens u are socialized in the center of the rat race HUB
i think this depends on what you mean by "efficiency"
or to what extent "efficiency" is pursued
the pursuit of efficiency itself becomes inefficient if the net result in the long term is that more humans are harmed than are helped
because distressed humans themselves are less efficient, less productive, less creative, etc., than eustressed ones
source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3133577/
and at the extreme end, significantly distressed humans may even begin to become
destructiveand therefore, any attempt at ""'efficiency""" that creates or increases long-term distress is no efficiency at all
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 09:00:59 AM
I care about people being able to have food, water, health, shelter, safety.
...but wouldn't you agree that these are, in and of themselves, inherently efficient pursuits befuddlement
an organism with insufficient calories to burn is naturally going to be less productive
an organism with insufficient water intake is going to operate at a sub-optimal level
the poorer an organism's health, the closer its ability is to 0
and an organism without security (shelter/safety/etc.) is exposed to excess risk and wastes cognitive power being anxious, both of which of course make it less capable
weak, sick, miserable humans generally aren't efficient compared to physically and mentally healthy ones, so those sorts of basic needs must necessarily have solid foundations in order to maximize human output
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 09:00:59 AM
I'm sure there are many people out there who would desire to be the one to conquer the world to prove their superiority. Whose vision of a perfect humanity is one that is under their boot and at their command
if you teach or show a person the value of true efficiency, i suspect they'd be likely to willingly agree to its pursuit
if """efficiency""" requires actual violent conquering, either it's a terrible implementation of """efficiency""", or it isn't true efficiency at all
now i can't help but wonder what you guys have in mind when i use the word "efficiency" lol befuddlement
you make it sound as if it's necessarily cold and emotionless and downright evil
...well, i will admit to being cold and emotionless
but i'd like to think i'm not evil
[spoiler]
then again, nobody ever likes to think of themselves as evil
so maybe i actually am myface;[/spoiler]
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on June 27, 2017, 12:42:24 AM
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 09:00:59 AM
I care about people being able to have food, water, health, shelter, safety.
...but wouldn't you agree that these are, in and of themselves, inherently efficient pursuits befuddlement
an organism with insufficient calories to burn is naturally going to be less productive
an organism with insufficient water intake is going to operate at a sub-optimal level
the poorer an organism's health, the closer its ability is to 0
and an organism without security (shelter/safety/etc.) is exposed to excess risk and wastes cognitive power being anxious, both of which of course make it less capable
weak, sick, miserable organisms aren't efficient, so those sorts of basic needs must necessarily have solid foundations in order to maximize human output
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 09:00:59 AM
I'm sure there are many people out there who would desire to be the one to conquer the world to prove their superiority. Whose vision of a perfect humanity is one that is under their boot and at their command
if you teach or show a person the value of true efficiency, i suspect they'd be likely to willingly agree to its pursuit
if """efficiency""" requires actual violent conquering, either it's a terrible implementation of """efficiency""", or it isn't true efficiency at all
they may lend themselves to efficiency but my point is to guarantee people survival. I could care less about efficiency outside of the provision of these items necessary to survival. And also educational opportunities but especially the bare essentials
What I'm saying to you is there are plenty of people who don't care about efficiency and I don't agree that if you only explained it to them they would understand. Efficiency is only means to an end anyway and what specific end is that?
Of course efficiency is cold and emotionless and largely unempathetic, emotions are not ruled by rationality. If all you value is efficiency than many human characteristics are of little value and you may as well be a machine. You're free to idealize that of course but my general point is that utopians are impossible to begin with as what is utopian to one is not utopian to another.
but you don't want masses of people to just be "surviving" indefinitely at some base level
[spoiler]
that's how you end up with millions of depressed first-worlders who are miserable about their stable but stangant desk jobs[/spoiler]
most people want more than that
and healthy humans are generally motivated to seek more than that
so you have to ensure some minimum threshold of need is fulfilled sufficiently to enable a person to eventually take their life into their own hands, and then start achieving things and elevating themselves autonomously
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on June 27, 2017, 01:22:08 AM
but you don't want masses of people to just be "surviving" indefinitely at some base level
[spoiler]
that's how you end up with millions of depressed first-worlders who are miserable about their stable but stangant desk jobs[/spoiler]
most people want more than that
and healthy humans are generally motivated to seek more than that
so you have to ensure some minimum threshold of need is fulfilled sufficiently to enable a person to eventually take their life into their own hands, and then start achieving things and elevating themselves autonomously
yeah I'm not limiting people to that? It's a springboard. That is the minimum threshold of need. I wouldn't prescribe what people should do
Excuse me this board is for shitposting only not smart people words.
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 07:20:59 AM
yeah I'm not limiting people to that? It's a springboard.
i agree, that's the idea
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 07:20:59 AM
I wouldn't prescribe what people should do
and neither would i, nor am i sure where you get the impression that i would befuddlement
in theory, humans who have achieved a certain efficiency threshold would naturally maintain and improve themselves beyond that base level and eventually find their own most optimal path
Tec go the fuck to sleep baddood;
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on June 22, 2017, 08:55:06 AM
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:51:15 AM
The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked
this is true but most of the responses you'd get would be flat-out wrong/nonsensical, as i'm sure you'd agree
if you value human efficiency there's only one general direction to move in that makes sense
Quote from: YPargh on June 22, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
What's upward for humanity is entirely subjective anyway!
i don't agree with this
we would all agree that war and protectionism, for example, are overwhelmingly inefficient, and it's no coincidence that they are some of the many products of generally unproductive emotions
Is war inefficient? Hasn't war a lot of times sped up and been the driving force of technological advancements and medicines and medical practices. Plus there's the whole population control aspect if you delve into that.
ah yes. War, the very efficient process of eradicating populations and cities that has never caused wealth and technology to disappear from the earth forever.
Quote from: SVT on July 08, 2017, 02:30:17 PM
ah yes. War, the very efficient process of eradicating populations and cities that has never caused wealth and technology to disappear from the earth forever.
I mean, that is efficiency.
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on July 08, 2017, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: SVT on July 08, 2017, 02:30:17 PM
ah yes. War, the very efficient process of eradicating populations and cities that has never caused wealth and technology to disappear from the earth forever.
I mean, that is efficiency.
i guess if you just let efficiency mean whatever you want then yeah it's efficiency.
Quote from: SVT on July 08, 2017, 03:46:07 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on July 08, 2017, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: SVT on July 08, 2017, 02:30:17 PM
ah yes. War, the very efficient process of eradicating populations and cities that has never caused wealth and technology to disappear from the earth forever.
I mean, that is efficiency.
i guess if you just let efficiency mean whatever you want then yeah it's efficiency.
Glad you concede. Very refreshing to see on the internet these days.
NP, now bite the pillow cos im gonna give some efficiency to that boy possy of yours.
let me into your envelope you crazy cock slut !!!
And even more concession. You're on a roll now.
Though, those two posts do seem like sexual harassment, so I'd like to file a formal report with the administration and mod team.
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on July 08, 2017, 01:17:58 PM
Is war inefficient? Hasn't war a lot of times sped up and been the driving force of technological advancements and medicines and medical practices. Plus there's the whole population control aspect if you delve into that.
the net result of war is a massive loss of capital, much of which is nonrenewable
war may temporarily accelerate the rate of scientific advancement, but it also results in the destruction of science and scientific minds
and science naturally progresses whether humans are in a state of war or not
a truly efficient society would rely on more effective means than warfare for population control
science yielded contraception, for example, without war as a catalyst
i'll squeze ur balls too until you yalp.
i'll rape tec too
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on July 08, 2017, 04:26:51 PM
Quote from: donʼt letʼs on July 08, 2017, 01:17:58 PM
Is war inefficient? Hasn't war a lot of times sped up and been the driving force of technological advancements and medicines and medical practices. Plus there's the whole population control aspect if you delve into that.
the net result of war is a massive loss of capital, much of which is nonrenewable
war may temporarily accelerate the rate of scientific advancement, but it also results in the destruction of science and scientific minds
and science naturally progresses whether humans are in a state of war or not
a truly efficient society would rely on more effective means than warfare for population control
science yielded contraception, for example, without war as a catalyst
good points
rape is also inefficient, i'll have you know
nations should be led by superintelligent AIs smh
the most efficient form of government is benevolent dictatorship
Quote from: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim on July 08, 2017, 05:39:55 PM
nations should be led by superintelligent AIs smh
the most efficient form of government is benevolent dictatorship
cybersyn
But who should program that superintelligent AI? What logic would it follow? befuddlement
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on July 08, 2017, 05:41:41 PM
But who should program that superintelligent AI? What logic would it follow? befuddlement
ai programmed by an AI delegation. the source AI should be watson and me.
And how can you be sure you are most efficient? befuddlement
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on July 08, 2017, 05:46:18 PM
And how can you be sure you are most efficient? befuddlement
i am not a proponet of efficiency, i am a proponent of Me.
And that would disqualify you from being the basis for the Supreme AI. girl;
Quote from: Majorana's Mask on July 08, 2017, 05:49:29 PM
And that would disqualify you from being the basis for the Supreme AI. girl;
you'll just have to suck my farts because that's what happened here
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
What I'm saying to you is there are plenty of people who don't care about efficiency
well they should because peak efficiency is ultimately every human's goal, whether they realize it or not
in general, humans all trial and error their way through life until they find something that works, and then implement trial-and-error again until they find something that works better, and so on and so forth in the pursuit of whatever is (or seems) most efficient for them
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
I don't agree that if you only explained it to them they would understand.
'unifying the healthcare system would be most efficient because...'
'dismantling trade barriers would be most efficient because...'
'reducing income inequality would be most efficient because...'
etc., and then prove why it would be the most efficient thing to do in terms digestible to the audience
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
Efficiency is only means to an end anyway and what specific end is that?
perfection within humanity's set of givens
and "perfection within humanity's set of givens" means something like 'optimal use of (human) capital'
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
Of course efficiency is cold and emotionless
this is true
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
emotions are not ruled by rationality.
this is also true
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
largely unempathetic
but i would argue that this is not true
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AMIf all you value is efficiency
efficiency is not all i value, but true efficiency would, in theory, yield a great many valuable things
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AMthan many human characteristics are of little value
of little or outright negative value when applied inefficiently, that is true
for example, inefficient use of anger and envy/jealousy, both quite negative emotions, lead humans to fight, and fights grand and small are only ever destructive in nature
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AMyou may as well be a machine
and machines certainly have their use
if a machine is more efficient than a human at, say, flipping a hamburger or sanitizing a surface, then the machine must necessarily displace human labor in that instance, freeing the human to make more efficient use of their own time
if a machine has a comparative advantage over a human in any given task, then that machine must displace that human in said task, in order to enhance societal efficiency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
and i'm not advocating for the complete elimination of emotions if that's what you're implying lol
only for the efficient rerouting of emotions into productive tasks
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
utopians are impossible to begin with
i agree, but the idea of "utopia" is only there to serve as an ideal goal, or a motivating element
as the efficiency/perfectness of a society increases, the law of diminishing returns would kick in, and therefore make it impossible to achieve actual perfection
but that doesn't mean humans shouldn't strive for perfection anyway
Quote from: YPargh on June 27, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
utopians are impossible to begin with as what is utopian to one is not utopian to another.
i think this is provably false
norway, for example, is an objectively better society in just about every imaginable efficiency measure than, say, afghanistan is
But does that mean that Afghanistan shouldn't even try to work towards becoming more like Norway? befuddlement
That Norway is a better society than Afghanistan is completely subjective and I'm sure many in Afghanistan would absolutely abhor the idea of becoming more like sodomite Norway
If you think universal human utopia is achievable we have no points to argue because I disagree entirely
I still maintain efficiency means nothing on its own and is only means to an end whatever end you wish to produce