DescentBB

...autonomous vehicles cannot come fast enough.



Hopefully people like that woman will not ever be behind the wheel of a car ever again. We can only hope.

That dude who swerved out of the way to avoid that semi-car collision.. that dude sucks. Can't even keep it on the road.

I say a society that doesn't produce retards is better than automation

Burlyman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:19 am I say a society that doesn't produce retards is better than automation

Probably impossible

If neo got his wish, he would be the first to go.

Burlyman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:19 am I say a society that doesn't produce retards is better than automation

What? You advocating using a little eugenics?

TRUEpiiiicness wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:18 pm

Burlyman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:19 am I say a society that doesn't produce retards is better than automation

Probably impossible

Yeah

Ferno wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:51 pm If neo got his wish, he would be the first to go.

Even though I disagree with your opinions, and even though you're an elitist troll, I know you aren't wrong/illogical/foolish because you're retarded. That's the difference between you and me. I don't call you a retard just because you're my enemy.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:08 pm
What? You advocating using a little eugenics?

No, not at all. x_x I'm advocating remoralization, elimination of all the bad methods of population control, and a complete overhaul of the "education" system.

Who's morality do we use and what bad methods of population control are you referring to?

You know Burlyman. Evolution, or God, depending on what system or deity you believe in, already has a solution for dealing with the weak and mentally challenged and it's been around for a long time. It's called survival of the fittest in an unforgiving and harsh world. Those who are weak never survive. But since we're human beings and are intelligent and compassionate, doesn't that go against our nature?

In all my years, I haven't seen this "survival of the fittest" anywhere except in biology textbooks. As long as there have been sheep, there have been shepherds... Nowadays we have technology and food given to people who don't even understand how to produce such things for themselves. It's called compassion in an unforgiving and harsh world... maybe that's what you meant to say. Many people who have compassion also have weapons. Of course I'm not saying compassion is unlimited... cuz "I can only save your butt so many times before I have to let you die" that's what a protector will say XD Or he gets killed/suppressed by someone stronger. x_x

as far as population control is concerned, one example of a bad method is abortion; I made a thread about that but nobody wanted to discuss it. This could be balanced by a de-sexualization of the masses to help keep the birth rates down. I am just listing one example for now. "Education" ties into that too...

...but what I'm trying to say is there can be LESS idiots or more people who are less idiotic if they are raised carefully Autonomous vehicles can be a good thing, maybe, but it's just a crutch and I doubt it'll be 100% foolproof.

Well, you don't see mentally or physically weak animals running around, do you? The weak or malformed are either are abandoned by their parents or killed off by predators because they can't escape. That's the way it works in nature and I assume you believe God created nature. Even humans have practiced infanticide or neonaticide, abortion being the modern legal version of that practice. With the huge medical costs facing the parents in the U.S. today just to raise a deformed or mentally deficient infant, I'm betting it still goes on in secret and it happens a lot more of than we realize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

Edit: Just like in this recent example.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/decease ... 38946.html

Burlyman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:55 pmNo, not at all. x_x I'm advocating remoralization, elimination of all the bad methods of population control, and a complete overhaul of the "education" system.

Retardation is largely a scientific definition and there isn't anything a moral education can do to change this condition. I will agree that "survival of the fittest" is a misunderstood and misused term.

I didn't literally mean retardation.

I still see sheep running around, at least on TV. What does "weak" mean to you?

Burlyman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:12 amI didn't literally mean retardation. I still see sheep running around, at least on TV. What does "weak" mean to you?

Oh I see. Would you consider a healthy society as one where people have their rational and emotional sides in balance? Personally I think too many people are guided by emotion and lack critical thinking skills. Although I will admit being completely rational tends to drown out some of the more interesting things in life such as art and religion. A good mix is nice, acknowledging that people and ideas are complex and it's Ok to not have black and white solutions to problems.

Burlyman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:12 am I didn't literally mean retardation.

I still see sheep running around, at least on TV. What does "weak" mean to you?

Not having the mental faculties or proper physical attributes to protect oneself from predators or even know what a predator is, the ability to find, grow or hunt for food and the ability to seek shelter from the elements once that animal or person has matured. All this applies to adults and adolescents with most mammals or birds. The young need their parents to survive and to eat and to learn protective life skills in most higher animals and humans.

vision wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:01 pm Oh I see. Would you consider a healthy society as one where people have their rational and emotional sides in balance? Personally I think too many people are guided by emotion and lack critical thinking skills. Although I will admit being completely rational tends to drown out some of the more interesting things in life such as art and religion. A good mix is nice, acknowledging that people and ideas are complex and it's Ok to not have black and white solutions to problems.

That's an important part of it, yeah. Also, almost all entertainment is emotional content and doesn't require people to think much or make challenging decisions. I also agree that it's not a good idea to be completely rational as the creative side is necessary to come up with creative solutions to problems and thus is important for critical thinking, perhaps more so than the logical/rational side of the brain.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:40 pm

Burlyman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:12 am I didn't literally mean retardation.

I still see sheep running around, at least on TV. What does "weak" mean to you?

Not having the mental faculties or proper physical attributes to protect oneself from predators or even know what a predator is, the ability to find, grow or hunt for food and the ability to seek shelter from the elements once that animal or person has matured. All this applies to adults and adolescents with most mammals or birds. The young need their parents to survive and to eat and to learn protective life skills in most higher animals and humans.

That's a pretty good definition. With humans the elderly are typically weaker and need to be protected and/or cared for. I don't remember if animals have that problem, honestly. Ultimately, we're all weak since we are not invincible like Adam and Eve were. A lion can be shot and a strong human can be killed even if he has a weapon.

Is there an evolutionary reason for people typically thinking with only one side of their brain? Just something I always wondered about.

Burlyman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:01 pm Is there an evolutionary reason for people typically thinking with only one side of their brain? Just something I always wondered about.

That...doesn't happen. At all.

Burlyman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:01 pm.....Is there an evolutionary reason for people typically thinking with only one side of their brain? Just something I always wondered about.

Where did you come up with that idea?

In fact, evolution would produce the exact opposite effect. While humans do have a few vestigial leftovers, like the coccyx and appendix, those have stuck around because, generally speaking, there's no huge survival benefit to not having them. But the brain uses a pretty substantial portion of the body's resources doing what it does (and it's a good thing too), so it wouldn't make any evolutionary sense for those resources to all be poured into half a brain that wasn't doing anything. Both hemispheres of the brain are actively involved in a slew of processes.

I didn't mean to say that one hemisphere of the brain sits idle... I am wondering why some people use their "logical" side more than their "creative/artistic" side more and vice versa.

Typically, most mathematical and engineering types of people use the left side of their brain far more than the right. The right side is usually associated with emotional responses, facial recognition and language. There's probably a reason for that kind brain compartmentalization. Maybe it's more efficient doing it that way.

That bit of info needs to be binned, TC

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/le ... l-myt.html

While the article leans towards the simplistic (given todays' audience, it has to be), its still a decent read.

Hmm. I assumed something that's appears to be a total myth. Oh well.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... g-together