[removed]

[removed]

Living longer and living forever are 2 different things. I'm inclined to think that humans won't live forever.

You mean encrypted layers over the normal internet? That is nothing other than a darkweb.

But it could be that users will retreat more and more into something like that. It will be called differently and treated differently, but then one will be network X, the other will be network Y.

Yes, generally these kind of excuses being used as propaganda.

But it is a dirty tactic. Using a good/naive aspect as a curtain to pragmatic goals.

[removed]

First we need stop eating meat and dairy. Nature will get rid of us if we abuse our power.

Imagine if all immortals races act like we do today...

Yes, but not in the crypto-form that's currently the hype. Crypto is inherently flawed as it uses wat too much redundant power and scales up with people's greed, making it less efficient. However, the internet itself is highly decentralized and i s ahuge succes, especially as it is extremely robust. You can take out part of it, but not the entire internet, and data always finds a route to its destination.

So yeah, decentralized definitely has a future, but not the monetary one.

If only people realized that’s how human minds work too.

It’s Ship of Theseus all again.

[deleted]

They wont own the land, they will own a tradeable picture of that land

Surely we'd need to understand the basis of consciousness first. What is the principle construct of matter that forms consciousness? At what point does consciousness arise from organisation of matter? What are the mechanisms involved etc?

But I don't know if transfer of consciousness to another entity is immortality or just duplicating yourself? You know what I mean? It's like transferring your memories to an identical twin instead of you prolonging your life.

Any technology that reduces the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the rest of the world is a promising technology.

Decentralization is a mechanism for people to take back power over larger application networks, so over time it seems likely to be a bigger deal as people eventually get fed up enough with the private options. It stands the test of time better in theory as you don't need to have an account on 5 different platforms to see what all your friends are doing, you can have one instead, which is an appeal that will most likely catch on as tech and the internet continue to get more complex.

The key thing is the ability of the community to support it. When private businesses die, they mostly just stay dead and the remnants left behind are community driven efforts. When an instance on mastodon dies, mastodon continues on. As long as one mastodon instance is live, mastodon is live, and that's something private alternatives can't provide due to their reliance on income and control.

Yes, of course they do. If you look at people’s browsing habits, you’ll notice that they’re becoming extremely conscious of their privacy. You know what that means? Yep, decentralized technology will take over. No data collection, no data leaks, and you remain fully anonymous. We already see that with people using decentralized messengers like Qamon and Wickr, and right now we even have decentralized NS, like ENS and Ever Name. I would even argue that without decentralization, there is no future for the internet.

They do. We conducted an audit to find out exactly that and sales number went back on track after only 4 months. Now we actually have much better performance than we did before the test was implemented.

I can't understand why Western societies aren't implementing tariffs for environmentally destructive products from countries with lax environmental regulations

I mean really how much more would it cost to just safely get rid of the waste. It would 100% save you on cleaning the water and environment in the future…

[removed]

Absolutely not. First off you can't just buy land and form a country... that's not how it works. Ownership of land doesn't grant sovereignty.

Even if you did somehow accumulate enough power and resources to somehow start a new state... why on earth would you? It's much cheaper and easier to simply coopt an existing government than try and form a new one out of whole cloth.

[deleted]

> So what can we do? The realities of this field can be depressing as fuck and I've often had people ask me this. For the average person, I recommend two things: Do the best you can for your conscience, and sometimes the best we can do is to mitigate. This is the reality we're facing now in everything climate and pollution related. We can't stop it. We have to start preparing to deal with it in other ways.

We can, though, but it requires political organising and active political will, and if enough people pour their energy into those pursuits (i.e. towards circular economies, sustainable societal infrastructure, global solidarity, and anti-capitalist and green socialist political movements) that's going to have an outsized impact. Most of all, we need to drop the pretense that individual action from relatively poor people, even in rich countries, is going to have an impact. Stop the private jets, luxury fast fashion and superyachts and you've a good start going, both because of the direct impact of those industries, but also because that kind of action has symbolic value: your money doesn't protect you, and doesn't mean that you are not responsible and can't be held accountable. Rather the opposite in fact.

Sure, if you can be politically active and do the small-scale individualist consumer-power thing as well, that's good, but only through collective, political, direct action, are we truly going to get anywhere.

[removed]