Recent comments in /f/Futurology

Ginger_Boi000 t1_jbmrvc4 wrote

Touch grass. Trans rights doesn't effect 99.99% of people in America and 99.99999999% of the world. State one single fact about a policy change from the past 40 years (post Soviet collapse) that indicates American hegemony retraction from the global stage.

I swear to god these fucking European retards got so much hubris that I'm starting to think Dresden was America's greatest achievement.

1

Jealous-Gate6014 t1_jbmqnkh wrote

Abortion wasn’t banned. It was returned to the state level where it should have been along. I love how you guys say “oh abortion was abolished”, no, this wasn’t even a ruling at all about abortion itself, it was a ruling on federal vs state rights. I’m not even a pro life guy, but if we are going to discuss it, let’s be honest about the facts

1

WhiteRaven42 t1_jbmpa5r wrote

Never once has anyone unironically used the phrase "it builds character" for anything other than privation or bullying. I said it as a joke because it is always a joke.

The concept is only used to excuse cruelty. Life contains challenges and we learn from them yes. We certainly don't need to create challenges and foist them on people.

1

zymuralchemist t1_jbmled2 wrote

Fantastic. Now do one better and simply stop existing.

I know for a lot of people the car is at this stage a necessary evil, but it’s an evil nonetheless. Trying to engineer a car that fixes the issues caused by the car is like trying to binge eat your way out of diabetes by sticking to almonds or something.

The Netherlands of all places hold the answer already, work on that some more.

−1

aarongamemaster t1_jbmkqn6 wrote

It wholly depends on how the technological context evolves.

​

To be honest, it'll be one of those 'went bad at first, but -despite some of the things we implemented to prevent what happened before again- are walking towards a light in the tunnel' voters.

​

A significant part of it depends on how we rationalize the fact that technology determines rights and freedoms. If we continue to see rights and freedoms as static entities, then dystopia is the endpoint. We have a chance if we see rights and freedoms as fluid constructs, dependent on the technological context.

​

Basically, we have to accept that one way goes into utter hells like the setting of the webcomic GENOCIDE Man (which follows what is essentially Super!Interpool... with the duty to kill ideologies wholesale with all that it entails) or Reign of Steel (a GURPS RPG setting that is Terminator with the serials filed off, oh and the machines already won) or go into something far more acceptable like Anno 2070 and 2205...

1

Binkythedestructor t1_jbmiyuu wrote

There is always a fine line between reality and marketing.

While it is undoubtedly true that the US had these things; checks and balances only work when they are exercised - and there is less evidence that is occurring. So in real terms, I think there is diminishment.

I agree in principle with all of your points. The fact that the world is not static makes it interesting

2

coffeeinvenice t1_jbmiand wrote

I read this article on the topic two weeks ago. If I have understood it correctly, it involves extracting energy, from a vacuum, where said energy originally comes from "somewhere else", i.e., somewhere else in the same universe.

If I have understood it correctly, the implications are astounding. It may one day be possible to build machines, batteries or vehicles that are essentially 'self-powered'. The machine extracts energy from the vacuum that originally comes from somewhere else in the universe. Said extraction may cause 'difficulties' in the place of origin of the energy...but if the origin is a star, a galaxy, etc., it's difficult to see how extracting the equivalent of the sum total of all human mechanical activity could significantly affect the state of a galaxy or even a single star. In practice, it could mean access to essentially unlimited (for human purposes) volumes of energy, forever.

15

nIBLIB t1_jbmh6ei wrote

Isn’t that only a problem if your energy source produces carbon? Like if I charge it off a coal power plant then try to re-capture it, then it’s net more CO2 than just removing it. But if it’s charged from wind power then it captures carbon and costs wind. Still a net benefit for CO2 levels, no?

1