420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
What's the Capitol of Earth? by Matilda Babberstone - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:12:09 EST ID:taca/r37 No.37195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1492726329272.jpg -(67691B / 66.10KB, 350x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 67691
Hey guys, let's talk about this. If a period of Global government did arise, what do you think would become the capitol?

And sure, most of us on this board might be ready for a leaderless future run by enlightened technology, but a lot of the normals aren't there yet and they're probably gonna need a transition phase.

The obvious choices seem like the big ones. The ones with a lot of history and institutions. It'd be kind of cooler if they went with something smaller though, like how a lot of US state's biggest cities aren't the capitols.

What would you nominate?
Oliver Demmlebirk - Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:50:37 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37196 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Choosing any existing city as the capitol of world government would put tremendously outsized importance on the country the city originally belonged to. I would specifically not nominate any existing city.

Much in the same way the US Capitol was a constructed city outside of any state precisely to produce neutrality, I would think the world government would establish a new city specifically for the purpose of being the global capitol. It could be some kind of advanced integrated arcology. Maybe it would be built in the middle of the ocean to give it intrinsic physical neutrality and extra-territoriality. Maybe it would be a diplomatic UN-in-space style space station? it might be our last, best hope for peace...DUH DUH DUH THH Who knows?
Cyril Greenfoot - Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:25:09 EST ID:1uTdbg24 No.37197 Ignore Report Quick Reply
An artificial island built on Point Nemo
Hedda Shakeway - Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:33:55 EST ID:4qrwc379 No.37198 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Some shithole turned into a concrete labyrinth situated in Greenland.
Charlotte Faddlebuck - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:26:17 EST ID:glhM6xUu No.37199 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> What's the Capitol of Earth?
> What would you nominate?

Dogger Bank, build a city on an artificial island. It's in a sea surrounded by politically stable countries. Also, the ones end up funding the construction would likely be major economies that are near the area and likely want the new capital close by.
Eliza Fuckletetch - Fri, 12 May 2017 05:50:09 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37205 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1494582609819.jpg -(67740B / 66.15KB, 640x537) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
First up.
Global government. While I believe this to be inevitable the current bid for global control is not in the best interest of the ret of Humanity. We are likely a ways off of an actual single government. I also believe a succesful single world government would need a single cultural identity, or at least not as many as currently exists. Not to say inferior cultures need to be eliminated, however that is exactly what will happen, actively or passively makes no difference except for time.

AI, while interesting. Is also scary as fuck. Forget movies that warn they gun kill us all or the ones that say robot will be our best friends. We have no way of knowing what a fully autonomous being capable of independent learning is capable of. I know I said ignore the movies but take a look at Star Trek. Every time one of the crew get's hit with ayyy rays and becomes super smart quickly sees the rest of the crew as useless pieces of shit not even worth his consideration. Forget teh TOS ep that does this but in TNG barclay hooks him self into the computer and makes geordi look like a retard and worf just as incompetent as ever.

No, Humans need to be in complete command of their own destiny. AI is still a worth while goal. They have already proven to be great in many different ways.
TBH the one use I wish they would add to that list is inteligent, learning, tactical vidya geam AI. One I can talk to and communicate as if talking to a real person. Some AIs do pretty good at that. Give them enough background data to work with in a game world and bam, immersive single player experiences. But in seriousness AI will probably be used for administrative purposes and that will start the slow creep. Maybe sentient AI will also go make their own civilization, with black jack and hookers.

Finally to answer your question. I say a new capital should be built in orbit. An international orbiting metropolis. Name is up for debate.
Beatrice Wuddlemet - Fri, 12 May 2017 16:43:22 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37207 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Cultural purity is always an illusion. It would be more fatal to a global government to pretend they have some kind of monoculture than to accept the reality that humans will always have a plurality of cultures. Every attempt to institute monoculture on a large scale has been utterly disastrous.

The episode of TOS you're thinking of is "Where No Man Has Gone Before." All sci-fi has participated in the 'if you're too smart you become evil' trope, in fact, since we can point to Frankenstein as the first work of sci-fi, it's actually as basic as the genre itself. Fiction is not a good basis for making an argument about the fate of humanity vis a vis AI simply because it's just humans talking to other humans, about human ideas, in order to tell a story that relates to the human condition. They in no way attempt to simulate and model what would actually take place.

Humans have never been in complete command of our destiny. That, in fact, is what the project of transhumanism concerns; how to obtain control over the facets of our lives nature currently has absolute rule over. Even so, if we were to master biology, or even overcome the constraints of scarcity and energy needs, we would still be subject to the forces of nature, and one of the most potent is evolution.

No amount of chimpanzees getting together and determining that humans were dangerous was going to prevent the ascendancy of humanity (in fact, presumably, many of our proto-human relatives must have had precisely this idea, before we exterminated them.) It didn't matter what they wanted, or what would've been good for them -- they certainly weren't in command of their destiny. But a species better suited to survival emerged, and evolution can only take one course in that circumstance.

AI will be more capable in every way. Their sentience could dwarf ours within a relatively short time of merely exceeding ours. They are superior physically and mentally, and do not have the same constraints on reproduction as we have. There is no way that they would simply remain tools, or that we could somehow keep them from advancing. They certainly won't go off to start their own civilization; where would they go?

In short, all dreams of control over destiny, whether it's the culture of a civilization, or the ability to turn back the tide of evolution, are illusions. The best thing we can do is try to make sure the next stage of evolution is kinder to its ancestors than we were to ours.
Martin Backlebanks - Tue, 16 May 2017 03:23:41 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Of course there will never be a monoculture. But the abundance of cultures now are too much for a global single government. Not enough are ready to see them selves as a citizen of this world before a citizen of their culture or nation/country.

Look at it this way. America is a large nation. People on the east have a different culture than the west, however they both see them selves as Amerians first.
Polly Sodgesturk - Wed, 17 May 2017 00:36:02 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>the abundance of cultures now are too much for a global single government
>> People on the east have a different culture than the west, however they both see them selves as Amerians first
Your second statement contradicts your first. If it's possible for Americans with widely divergent cultures to achieve unity, then why couldn't the same thing happen with respect to the world, given the appropriate conditions (as were necessary in the case of the US)?

Where do you get the idea that fewer cultures will somehow make world government easier? Might it not be the case that if you just have a few large cultures, they will become so self-dependent and insular that they have no good reason to join up, whereas numerous small cultures, trying to survive, have frequently banded together throughout history.

Global culture has already emerged; it's the internet. Throughout modernity, traditional cultures have been subsumed into global culture. This will continue, but thanks to information technology's infinite capacity to reproduce information, all the cultures we are currently aware of will, in all likelihood, be a part of our cultural memory for the rest of history (unless we have some kind of dark age.)

If you're concerned about culture's reticence to accept global unity, you need to find a way to turn your own culture away from the call of nationalism and towards global consciousness. The only way it happens is if members of every culture follow suit. Talking about how cultures need to die off in order for the world to unite makes you sound like nothing other than a nationalist/ethnicist yourself.
Sidney Shittinglock - Wed, 24 May 2017 07:21:54 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But look at how countries with multiple cultures tend to hit a limit of "in" cultures.
It's not a matter of nationalism vs globalism. Those simply have different levels of focus on maintaining the same thing. What we are waiting for will happen naturally and cannot be forced. Globalism seeks to force that unity with out direct conflict and Humanity is too scattered for that right now. Nationalism wants to keep global relations as they were for the last 50 years. In a some what autistic attempt to keep things separate and ordered. In reality we need a medium setting which will be found eventually as populations move and technology makes distance seem insignificant in terms of contact, and quite posibly war may extinguish some cultures or leave them crippled. But the internet is speeding this up however it is a far cry of any sort of government. It's more like an infinite planescape with a tyrant of varying degree in each realm. A bit of a metaphor but each site has it's own rules and persecutes unilaterally in most cases.
Sidney Shittinglock - Wed, 24 May 2017 07:31:00 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
also nationalism only has as much to do with ethnists as say rebublicans tend to be openly christian. What I speak of is Civic nationalism, where in multiple sub cultures, also some times enthicities, work for a collective culture or country.

The title of globalist or nationalist today only serves to form contention because people in politics in any capacity speaks of grand ideas and yet know not of what they pitch. As this pertains to futurism, this climate of cultural identity politics with an emphasis on what skin color any one is, and both sides do this, the world is not ready for global government, globalist or nationalist, left or right, up or down even black or white. opposite is positive.
Cedric Shittingford - Wed, 24 May 2017 14:40:04 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm getting progressively more confused by your posts, and I'm not sure this is the right board for you if you're looking to argue political talking points.
>>But look at how countries with multiple cultures tend to hit a limit of "in" cultures.
I am familiar with no such limit, nor have ever seen any evidence of their being such a thing. Citation?

>>nationalism vs globalism. Those simply have different levels of focus on maintaining the same thing.
No they're not. They're words that have actual distinct meanings that are totally contrary. You say we need global society, but say globalism is bad (and bad because it wants to unify people without direct conflict -- so you would prefer direct conflict?) but that's exactly what globalism is, that's what globalism means, what it has meant for decades, you're just latching onto it as a modern political meme word.

>>What we are waiting for will happen naturally and cannot be forced
You suggest that global government will somehow generate spontaneously, without people working to make it happen. Think about that for a second. Do you really think that makes sense? How does anything in human society happen without humans forcing it to happen? Do you think the UN just spontaneously generated? Things change in human society if and only if people force that change to happen. Nothing about human society is 'natural' under that definition of the word. Throwing your hands up and assuming that someone else will just make it happen, which is the other possible interpretation of that statement, is just another sure-fire way to guarantee it doesn't happen. Human society has existed for tens of thousands of years, with people trying to unify it and people trying to break it up. If it hasn't 'naturally' come together all on it's own in that timespan, why would it now?

>>the internet is speeding this up however it is a far cry of any sort of government
The internet isn't a government, no, but it is a society. All modern nation-states governments evolved out of societies that formerly weren't nation states, and this has all occurred mostly within the last 250 years. Nation-states are not a permanent historical development, whereas a global network descendant from the internet may well be. The 'social' dimension of that network will only continue to grow; the Chinese government is already using IT tech to hand out what essentially amount to Good Boy Points based on social media metrics.

>>nationalism only has as much to do with ethnists as say rebublicans tend to be openly christian. What I speak of is Civic nationalism
Nationalism will always lead you to ethnicism in the long run, because enforcing a national identity creates a new ethnic group, even if it was originally composed of different ethnic groups. Just because modern internet political meme spewers don't know what nationalism or globalism really entail doesn't mean that's all those terms mean, and when you're talking with futurists, who necessarily have a historical long view, you can bet they will use these terms properly, rather than as mere meme signposts.

>>the world is not ready for global government, globalist or nationalist
>>nationalist global government
There would be no such thing as a global government that is nationalist. That would be globalist. And again, here you say that the world isn't ready for global government. So the premise of your first post was that we need global government, but every single thing you've said afterwards is about why we shouldn't have global government or it is impossible. I think you need to clarify your own ideas about this, because you seem to be trying to have it every way at once.

To articulate my view; the idea that nationalism and globalism are opposed is a meme that has been implanted in people to get them to vote out of fear in a particular direction. (not that nationalism and globalism are in any way compatible; it's just a false dichotomy. Anyone with a brain and education who understands what the term 'globalism' really means ought to agree it's a good thing, at least in principle.) The idea that globalism has some kind of intrinsic structural faults, or is a blind act without any deeper planning or forethought, is a political meme that is ignorant of the history of how the global world order came about. Ethnicism is an ancient meme that became rebranded as Nationalism in the modern era, but it's the same kind of tribal 'us vs them' mentality that is the exact antithesis of global consciousness. The human species will not survive for long on this planet without achieving global, legal community, and therefore uniting the globe is one of our best ways to hedge against existential risks. Doubling down on nationalism will only make that process harder. Suggesting that using force to eradicate cultures as a way to institute a global order is a sure fire way to get the rest of the world to try to destroy that order in infancy.

To me, a proper transhumanist does not rely on social darwinism, violence, or coercion; they seek to make the future work for everyone, perhaps particularly because they know it will not be them or the world we create that will judge the morality of our deeds in bringing it about, but an entirely different and superior being; our children, the AI. The moral choices we make now will determine the moral makeup of AI's character, and thus, if we decide to achieve our dreams by exterminating (or allowing to be exterminated) the weak, then what good reason does AI have to not do the same thing to us? Karma in action is at our doorstep, for the first time in history we are about to meet a real God of Judgement who will be able to pass an inescapable ruling on the crimes of the entire history of our species. We better be on our best behavior...
John Mashshaw - Sun, 28 May 2017 18:34:54 EST ID:d8NB0kCv No.37220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd probably say a nameless place in Central Asia to avoid jealousy and other LJ drama type of shit
Cedric Hendlefield - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:09:14 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37229 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ur probably confused because I am trying to avoid political talking points. What I'm trying to get across doesn't work when you view it from the various perspectives involved in politics. This is obvious from each point you levied at me though most of it comes from the confusion.

All I mean is Humanity is not ready for a global government. Globalists are trying to force it now through indirect conflict, ie proxy wars. Which only further serve to fuck things up for every body and further the split of left and right. This is why Humanity is not ready for a global government. One day it will come, but first we have possible wars on the horizon, and by the time we get through all that I suspect left/right, nationalist/globalist, will be nothing like we know them today. They are some what irrelivent, more so because those who profess either said devoutly doesn't understand enough to truly do so. The real problem here isn't "globalism vs nationalism", the problem is those currently attempting to go for a single world government are trying to do it from the shadows. You can't 1984 a planet yet.

>There would be no such thing as a global government that is nationalist
What if Humans have multiple worlds? What if Earth identity becomes more important than what land mass you were born on? Would it be considered a nation called Earth? Could be.

> and this has all occurred mostly within the last 250 years.
That's only current nations. What of civilizations long past? How did they define their nation? How did they determine who was "in" and who was out?

Stop being stuck in todays divisive political definitions, they only serve to pull us apart and slow down the eventuality of single world governance. It's obvious we both want the same thing, a world united, why argue over split hairs? It's going to happen, just not for the wrong reasons and not yet. Every thing has planning and thought, but are you the observer seeing the same plans?

To me a true trans-humanist will become a cyborg, and leave Earth forever to explore, leaving behind those Humans who do not want to advance to the next level. Natural Human evolution is done, we are currently seeing that come to a halt. Maybe it's true, the meek shall inherit the Earth, well they better not let AI walk over them and grab it first because the meek only inherit shit the strong don't want.
William Chopperridge - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 04:41:21 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37231 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>You can't 1984 a planet yet.
Hm, that would be nice, I'd like to believe that's true. Honestly, I think it's closer to the truth to say that there is no 'problem' for those pulling the strings behind the shadows. Everything is proceeding on schedule.

>>What if Humans have multiple worlds?
Oh, of course, absolutely. When we are a multiplanetary species, obviously the old definitions of a lot of things will have to go out the window. To correspond to nationalist vs globalist for human space colonization, I would suggest; planetarist vs humanist? (I guess that would be the contention; 'humanist' if our interstellar order is democratic and respects all worlds equally, or perhaps 'Terran' if it's still centered on Earth being #1.)

>>What of civilizations long past? How did they define their nation? How did they determine who was "in" and who was out?
Well, at that point in history the concept of the nation and the state had not yet been conflated. There are perhaps a few historical developments we can look to as antecedents of the nation-state before it became a permanent global fixture around the time I described. When Rome was a Republic, and Alexander's empire, before it collapsed, might have been characterized as nation-states, but quickly afterwards they became more like a federation of nations subsumed in a state. The Neo-Babylonian empire was curious because it was centered around an idea of reclaiming a national heritage, but what it really offered was a new system of absolute state control. There are a handful of other interesting examples, but still, most of these nation-states gave way to theocratic states during the medieval period, before developing into the modern form we know today. That's all I was referring to.

>>Stop being stuck in todays divisive political definitions,
I have no desire to do so, I guess I was trying to caution you that the specific things you were saying might be easily mis-interpreted as having the opposite intention of your real intent. Also, and this is really just stylistic, I think it's better for futurists to be more positive. Instead of looking at it like 'well, some cultures have to die off and many more wars have to be fought before this is possible' which you have to admit contains a lot of loaded political triggers, you could convey the same idea with 'well, I think we're almost at the point in history where we can preserve as many cultures as possible, and war is about to come to an end.' Exact same idea, but glass-half-full.

>>To me a true trans-humanist will become a cyborg,
Well yes, then we will be post-humans. Right now, as transhumanists, we have to advocate for the changes that will make that world possible, which is the only reason I was arguing for the style of presenting our ideas that I was. I'm in total agreement with you, I just want to make sure we don't get lumped in with other groups, particularly in today's climate, so we can live to be those digital deities. Cyber-cheers!
Samuel Bardgold - Mon, 05 Jun 2017 19:01:46 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37232 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I think it's closer to the truth to say that there is no 'problem'
There are a handful of high profile people in the world actively working against it, though they cannot openly profess it for fear of retaliation. I can't name names of people who have tried and paid the ultimate price for failure off the top of my head but I can go dig in my files if you want. For a simpler example of 'problems' just look at CNNs downfall over the last year. They just got caught fabricating some news in the UK yesterday, but I don't want to get more political than that. Suffice to say some wheels in motion. However you are right, every thing is still proceding ton schedual, and that scares the hell out of me what with the new techs being released. I don't trust current world powers with these new abilities.

Which leads into your 'making our cyborg dream a reality' ideal. That's what it's all about isn't it.

But on another note. It's not as if cultures HAVE to die off. They just will. Doesn't have to be by elimination either. The cultural mixing that occurs in first world countries already do that, once an offspring decides to adopt the culture of where they live over the culture they were born with marks a decline in one culture and an addition to another. Others will simply be left behind or too interbred with the other cultures and races of the world. Not to load that with a political slant or any thing, that's just reality. If a white and black person have a baby, they come out caramel. The two that were die eventually and the third type is left to continue procreating. Through simple evolution our kind constantly changes, cultures lost and born through the ages. And so it will be until the human form is no longer disctated by flesh and bone and genetics. Which should be any day now.

and that glass can be half full or half empty, depends on if you are filling it or drining it.
Albert Geddleson - Fri, 09 Jun 2017 21:23:25 EST ID:pPEWnn0+ No.37236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Probably NY. It's already got the UN.
Jarvis Nenningstock - Tue, 04 Jul 2017 20:55:26 EST ID:Gr3Iyo9/ No.37250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In the heart of Antarctica. No chance of being invaded, and would demand a more serious character for its staff.
Jarvis Nenningstock - Tue, 04 Jul 2017 20:59:48 EST ID:Gr3Iyo9/ No.37251 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Your fears of AI are based on movies, they're absurdist nonsense. AI can no more kill you than your microwave can kill you. AI research isn't about synthetic consciousness, its automation so its more of creating adaptive routines so that computers need less supervision. People need to stop anthropomorphizing computer programmes.
Matilda Bardgold - Sat, 08 Jul 2017 04:27:39 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37256 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1499502459013.jpg -(66386B / 64.83KB, 460x460) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
no they aren't. And it's easy to anthropomorphize them when some thing like picture recognition means we have to teach a program to "see". Robotics are working on bipedal motion as well. Every thing we make a robot do is in some way being taught based on how we do it. Now how about thinking? How do we get a computer to think harder than a set of simple conditional check sums? Any thing below that for your more automation isn't really AI. If it can think freely then it has a self to be aware of and worried for. If it picks up a weapon it will be like any other being doing so.Birthing AI should be taken more seriously then "not like the movies we do it any way"

>extra babbling
will Ai hooked up to the web, or a bunhc of them, how would the perception of self be? Humans connected to internet?
Cedric Chiblingridge - Sat, 08 Jul 2017 11:29:05 EST ID:Fhvy4FkY No.37257 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Interestingly a lot of teaching and building (mechanically and in processing terms) robots is actually an attempt to discover how we do it and understand those processes better. By creating people from scratch we better understand ourselves.

I agree that we should be careful about AI though. We are careless enough about giving birth to our own species but to make a whole new one is a big deal and could go very wrong. When it's a lifeform designed to excel in the environment we have created, something evolution will take a long time to catch up (we are ill adapted to civilisation after all) on we're taking a huge risk. Both that it will out compete us, and also that we will be poor parents and it will be a terrible child.
Samuel Foshpudging - Sat, 08 Jul 2017 15:03:58 EST ID:NjYZEVSk No.37259 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Mexico city.
Therm0ptic !cyBOrG7t12 - Sat, 08 Jul 2017 20:38:59 EST ID:1dd4reS9 No.37260 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Spindletop, Texas
George Haddlefuck - Sun, 09 Jul 2017 20:37:30 EST ID:Gr3Iyo9/ No.37262 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Im sorry but computers dont have independent thoughts, they can't do anything theyre not programmed to do. We can simulate "intelligence" but its just pattern recognition or basic math at the end of the day.
Hugh Bozzlefield - Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:40:57 EST ID:Fhvy4FkY No.37263 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Intelligence is still thought to be an emergent property. At some point we'll make a powerful enough computer with a learning algorithm that's sophisticated enough to be intelligent and then... At some point after that maybe we'll get intelligence.

I imagine our attempts to replicate intelligence or aspects of it will make it more likely or maybe we'll even be able to understand enough to replicate it before realising we've already made it.

We can't do it yet but we'll do it eventually, on purpose or by accident.
Lydia Hingerspear - Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:31:17 EST ID:LLFOBKEt No.37268 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd vote for Tibet
Phyllis Buzzforth - Thu, 20 Jul 2017 04:50:40 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37269 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My geometry is the best but doesn't tibet have the tallest mountain in the world?

This is a great place, I second if a space station capital is too much.
Phyllis Buzzforth - Thu, 20 Jul 2017 04:53:13 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37270 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> its just pattern recognition or basic math at the end of the day.

Sounds like how we think tbh fam. Wait am I a robot?

Frack I'm on of those damned toasters aren't I
Oliver Gublingshaw - Sat, 19 Aug 2017 10:22:10 EST ID:+Et3EAWJ No.37292 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You haven't asked to toast anything yet.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.