Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated March 22)
One of these days. by Walter Dunkinlock - Fri, 05 Jan 2018 03:23:30 EST ID:vWDrIt6H No.37385 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1515140610356.jpg -(31499B / 30.76KB, 757x310) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 31499
Do you guys think they'll roll out the death robots used to fight future wars gradually or all at once?
Eugene Pittdock - Sat, 06 Jan 2018 18:35:04 EST ID:76K+Q/+J No.37386 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Like, ¿in addition to the death robots that have been fighting in wars for the last 20 years?
Simon Claydale - Sun, 07 Jan 2018 05:51:19 EST ID:0qZWd2x8 No.37387 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah they are gradually rolling them out. More of them as they become more useful in a broader range of applications and cheaper and more effective in the things they already do.
Wesley Cocklenore - Mon, 08 Jan 2018 15:15:30 EST ID:fIS7VhYA No.37388 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah but, there are efforts around the world to ban autonomous weapons already taking place. As a futurist and a novelist (not the writer-type) I see the potential for autonomous weapons as a future clade of engineered peoples, but still think we probably couldn't handle that shit nowadays with our current global psyche. So, I guess I am for banning them for now, until we can get our shit together. Once we can can fix death by digital consciousness transfer into new bodies I think autonomous weapons will be fair game, then the real fun can begin.
Graham Dannermatch - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:11:11 EST ID:vvnF1i/0 No.37389 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If we 'have our shit together' what need do we have for weapons? I think any scenario where a large part of our planetary productive capacity goes to making better machines to destroy other parts of our planetary productive capacity simply because we are trapped in meat-ware tribalistic thinking patterns would constitute a people whose 'shit is fucked right up' rather than 'together.'

Say no to violence, whether you're thinking with carbon or silicon. Otherwise, what was the point of becoming silicon in the first place?
Reuben Wammerman - Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:44:00 EST ID:fIS7VhYA No.37390 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1515692640857.jpg -(262308B / 256.16KB, 900x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think you are underestimating the cultural and memetic benefits of digital resurrection and "resleeving" into a new body, biont, cybernetic or otherwise, and how much fun and adventure could come from IRL fps arena games, as well as what the elimination of permanent death basically means for every industry and nigh, activity, in the transhuman's arsenal.

Violence that isn't fueled by hate is just sport, which is really where you want violence to be played out.
Simon Gapperwed - Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:05:49 EST ID:UQqXUXz3 No.37392 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is all well and good, but their's not really a place for autonomous weapons in sport either. If you're not playing against other humans you should probably just do it in VR.
Polly Pockstone - Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:46:00 EST ID:eA9THK/8 No.37394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Or with disposable remote drones. Probably the safest way to avoid losing your consciousness in a freak accident.
Jarvis Clayworth - Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:28:48 EST ID:1mSkByiZ No.37395 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I get that when you aren't actually extinguishing life the moral equation around violence changes. But you still haven't made a good argument for why we should waste energy to make things just to waste energy destroying them. It's inefficient, and in evolution, inefficiency is death.
Jarvis Clayworth - Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:33:17 EST ID:1mSkByiZ No.37396 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To clarify my position a bit more, I don't deny that this kind of thing will happen and may even captivate post-singularity civilization for a time. But the 'cultural and memetic benefits' almost are exclusively reinforcements of our primitive biological instincts, and thus over time I think any post-singularity civilization will put aside such extravagances as childish occupations, or at least confine them to less-messy VR for those who simply refuse to give up meat-ware programming. nb
John Hadgewater - Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:59:11 EST ID:1mSkByiZ No.37398 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, I disagree with the idea that social inequality would be a necessary component of post-scarcity civilization at any level of space colonization. Social inequality didn't exist before the advent of the concept of scarcity, and I think they go hand in hand with each other, since the only thing that could distinguish social orders would be imbalance of access to meaningful goods, which post-scarcity economics obliterates. So once that's gone, I don't think you'll be able to maintain a stratified social order (ergo, no drudges.) I think this is something that species come up against within the event horizon of their singularities, since the idea of the singularity is inherently connected to the problem of scarcity, rather than being an aspect civilizations surmount in some far future stage of development. Of course, all this is speculative.

I do definitely agree with the notion that our existence is most likely just another layer within an infinitely regressed simulation though.
Cornelius Blobblepark - Sat, 03 Feb 2018 12:37:10 EST ID:tTFvrLq3 No.37400 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're right, if the civilization is confined to one planet/system/area of space where it can successfully reach literally everyone it deems as people and provide them a post scarcity lifestyle, sure, but I would argue that for a space exploring civilization there will always be colony worlds and newly built habs as well as outliers and escapees, that will consist of societies that aren't post scarcity. At least, I don't think that's how post scarcity works.

Here's the entry on "post-scarcity" from the Orion's Arm future history project. If you are unfamiliar with OA and dig futurism, I highly reccomend perusing their encyclopedia:

Post-scarcity is an informal term used to describe societies and economies in which materials, energy, information, and skilled non-sophont labour are so superabundant and broadly distributed that all of the material needs and most of the ordinary material desires of ordinary sapient beings in them are readily available. Most societies and economies in the Civilized Galaxy and many of those elsewhere meet this standard; post-scarcity societies have been common in the Terragen Sphere since early First Federation times.

Supporting technologies for post-scarcity conditions include sentient-grade programs, neumann-capable machines, advanced nanotechnology, robotics, gengineering, and fusion or conversion reactors, as well as the prerequisite technologies for these such as sufficiently powerful and robust computational media, information storage, and information distribution networks. The low population densities relative to resources that are typical for most Terragens are also a factor, but not the deciding factor. Social and economic systems that make these advantages available to any member of a population without adverse side-effects have been widespread since the work of early First Federation memeticists, and are also prerequisite to any sustained post-scarcity condition.

Post-scarcity socioeconomics are considered the norm in the Terragen Sphere, but there are many exceptions, particularly outside the Sephirotics. These may be the result of local restrictions on technology, the disenfranchisement of some segments of a population, or other individual or community choices. In some cases, as in so-called Cinder Systems, they may be the result of explosive population growth in a restricted area if some or most of the persons present are unwilling or unable to leave. They may also be temporary results of war or disaster, or of dislocations and miscalculations in the early settlement of a new star system.

Prim or low-tech societies that have such abundant resources that the inhabitants are well satisfied and such low knowledge that they cannot imagine having something more are generally not considered true post-scarcity societies. Neither are virch bottle-worlds in which the desires of the inhabitants are similarly constrained. The usual conception of 'post-scarcity' is that limits are very broad, not that the limits are invisible to the individuals concerned.

Autotopias meet the definition of post-scarcity societies, but they have many other traits beyond superabundance of material goods. For instance, life in a post-scarcity economy or society is not necessarily secure or pleasant, or even particularly long; it is just that material goods are superabundant.

Hamilton Panningson - Sun, 04 Feb 2018 03:04:01 EST ID:MUP1hbol No.37401 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Post-scarcity is a mode of economic production (or rather, a descriptor for a class of means of production), just like hunter-gatherer or agriculture are. Of course, if you don't participate in a means of production, you don't reap it's benefits -- but that doesn't mean the broader civilization isn't post-scarcity, or that it necessarily has the component of inequality. It could have inequality via some mechanism, but I don't think it's required to, and I think it would have a strong selective pressure against it for a few reasons.

For one thing, post-scarcity is different from all previous economic modes, which don't have abundance as a feature (primarily -- you could argue that 'abundance' or rather 'ignorance of scarcity' was the mode pre-hunter/gatherer, but that's more semantical.) In a closed ecological system where there are different societies at different means of production, all vying for the same resources, in general those with the most powerful means of production will take control of the resources, and take over those with more primitive means. So we can say that the most potent means of production will always win, even if it has reasons to keep utilizing weaker means (mainly because of how it enables hierarchical organization.) But in any ecological system where there is a means of production that is superabundant, it will completely disrupt the system of values which the other systems are dependent on. It also disrupts the systems that enable social stratification, like knowledge imbalance and centralization (if your productive technology is based on molecular nanofabs, it doesn't matter if you're on the central homeworld or a far flung colony, whether you're a mainstream elitist or an outlying eccentric, you would have access to the same material goods.) This seems counter-intuitive to us because of how different it is from the way society has operated for most of history, but I'm arguing that those historical features are largely symptoms of scarcity.

Think about it this way -- with stone age humans, it didn't matter how close you were to the other tribes, or how long you had been inhabiting the nearby caves. Everything you needed was around you in the natural environment, in amounts greater than your tribe could ever expend, and the only specialized things you needed were things your tribe already had the knowledge to construct on their own. It wouldn't matter how long you had settled in an area, because you carried your dwellings on your back and simply moved on as the animals moved and the weather changed. In the future, we'll have more in common with that lifestyle than what we know now. Energy and matter are ambiently around us all in space in levels beyond human comprehension, and with AIs and molecular manufacturing, every individual would have the productive capacity of the entire species in miniaturized form, so wherever we wander, we would be able to bring the same benefits with us. One needing to be 'provided' with benefits is a feature of centralized, industrialized production. In the past, as in the future, the means of production will be necessarily re-invested in the individual.

Now, I'm not saying that there wouldn't be some exceptions to this. Sure, there will probably be the planet of the Luddites, but crucially, no one will be forced to live like a Luddite just because of their circumstances, because technology will have finally taken away the imbalance of power that technology first introduced to human societies in the first place.

Realistically, also, we won't be colonizing space as biological humans. Consider the scenario where we colonize the galaxy using sentient Von Neumann probes which improve themselves with each generation via simple natural selection mechanisms (those probes which aren't destroyed by the rigors of space-travel are obviously those that configure themselves most effectively, and are able to pass on those configurations) -- converting all matter and energy into sentient probes along the way in a full blown Universal Paperclips type scenario. In such a civilization, the most central and oldest colony worlds would also be the most primitive and depleted of resources, whereas the outer rim would always be the most advanced and vibrant. Just another scenario to consider the ways in which post-scarcity civilization is counter-intuitively quite unlike our modern civilization.
Phyllis Socklewill - Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:51:24 EST ID:FYRAXKwS No.37408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
future is peace on earth and in the starts.
Cyril Meddlespear - Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:34:39 EST ID:8+IygiPP No.37411 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Idiots would probably H-bomb a network of developing posthuman intelligences.
And all it would do is figure out to redirect the explosions while the fireball is forming into streams of molecular assemblers that construct 30,000 earths worth of space habitats from solar wind.

No peace on earth won't come from the state of mind, the only thing that ever changed something is technology that was so good that leaves the general population ave struck while a few visionaries use it to lye the foundation upon a civilization is built upon.
Charlotte Dartville - Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:52:46 EST ID:mHRdLpqU No.37508 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is really well written, I maintained joy through reading all of it.
Reuben Corrytore - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:29:43 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37510 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thanks man, that's what I was going for
Esther Dobblestene - Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:59:46 EST ID:E0YBfopN No.37521 Report Quick Reply

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