Recent comments in /f/Futurology

CloserToTheStars t1_j8j5izt wrote

So you are specifically talking about a time period in which decisions gradually shift overtime. Why? You can not control anything that happens anyway. Well see when it comes. There is a lot more to worry about than what if we would be in a future where this or this would be the topic of conversation. That’s a lot of guess work and seems like a lot of wasted energy. It’s as if you say 10 years back I see Facebook now let’s all think how to guide the social structure towards a more accepting online culture towards coming out of the closet when your are gay. while we have cancel culture, 20 genders, body dysphormia, fake news etc etc. So 1 you do not know the details of the problems 2 you do not know if it will happen 3 you can never guess what will happen when and you will be wrong, looking for an old metric in a sea of a million new variables. I like the mental gymnastics and do it myself as well but ur kinda throwing a needle in a haystack and ask people to be on the same path as you.

1

niboras t1_j8j4gip wrote

No just making up an example to say we have that exact possibility right now and the system as a whole still “works.” There will always be people who opt out of the gene pool. Technology doesn’t change that. But getting into peoples private lives isnt somthing we should be doing if it doest affect the broader population in a harmful way. If social media is so addictive no one is having sex, you dont force people to procreate, you regulate social media.

2

SoylentRox t1_j8j4b4y wrote

Hardly. The bigger the system the larger your buffers can be. You are talking about trying to keep people alive in a hab the size of ISS and with I guess just a few hours worth of surplus oxygen.

A multi kilometer long hab with isolated grow machines (so toxins etc can't cause them all to fail) and months worth of food water and oxygen stored in tanks, and redundant power, and redundant manufacturing, and a few other hand nearby within a reasonable travel distance with enough population cap to house refugees... would be much more stable.

1

AnarkittenSurprise t1_j8j1mzl wrote

I don't think we're communicating on a foundation of common values here.

These labels of innocuous things as degenerate, depraved, abomination, ect. are severely problematic.

Futurism is exciting, but you need a strong base in human history to get a feel for where we're going. If you think the future should be defined by stifling innovation under some form of central cultural authorities, then I'm not sure you have a good understanding of Humanity's trend towards self-determination.

The most successful, stable, and innovative cultures will be the least oppressive. The role of a state in modern, let alone future times should be to protect individual liberties wherever possible, not curtail them.

Traditional group think and monoculturalism is a system of violence against those who don't fit the mold, and will lead to stagnation and revolution.

3