HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| kram1032
kram1032
βοΈ
[5534582]
[2007-09-11 19:44:48 +0000 UTC]
"Mark"
(Austria)
# Statistics
Favourites: 3058; Deviations: 193; Watchers: 49
Watching: 100; Pageviews: 25894; Comments Made: 7657; Friends: 100
# Interests
Favorite movies: really hard...Favorite bands / musical artists: ...to decide
Other Interests: many
# About me
Current Residence: Austria
Shell of choice: those, you find at a beach
Skin of choice: mine feels just fine...
# Comments
Comments: 1897
Happy Birthday to you!
I hope your're doing well where ever you are.
π: 0 β©: 0
I wish you a very Happy Birthday!
I hope you a great day!
π: 0 β©: 0
Just checking if you're still alive!11
π: 0 β©: 1
sorta 
π: 0 β©: 0
Happy Birthday to you!
Hope you have a great one.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'll quote you as a reply:
"I usually don't do the whole "tagging" thing"
Ok?
π: 0 β©: 1
Key Mark! (hmm, sorry. Mind if I call you like that?)
Quote (E3): Reggie Fils-Aime, Satoru Iwata and others announces the first details about the successor to the Wii at its 2011 Media Briefing.
- [link]
I was RIGHT! Told you guys! 8-D
(1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011...
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, it's still a Wii, just better
Wii U.
What a creative name...
Wii watch U while U phail
Either way, what it can do looks nice and so does that controller. Kinda looks like Nintendo trying to join the tablet market though xD
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, that's what I thought too. :-|
I personaly would have prefered that they work only on the new controller, and make it compatible with the current Wii instead of creating a brand new console. That sux hard, I'm tellin' ya. T_T
Anyway, such a non-that-much-innovative device was expectable. After all it's a -1 year (1981, 1991, 2001, 2011).
Super-innovative things always appeared on years -6 (1986, 1996, 2006).
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't think it's that not-innovative. It highly depends on what the developers do with it.
Especially as it explicitly does not rely on exclusive usage. You could rather use both the (good old) WiiMP, aswell as any other controller.
Of course, buying a whole new console for that is a tad bit lame, though its processing abilities are widely improved over the Wii, allowing for a lot more advanced stuff (graphically, physically or simply in size)
YAY, Zelda overworld where it takes you an actual day to get from one end to the other xD (Nah, that would be too big, I'd guess^^)
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not "uninnovative". I just meant consoles like the SNES, GC and WiiU aren't comparable to stuff like the NES, N64 or Wii (as those ones were consoles where they invented something totally new, instead of simply improving something we see everyday).
They could make new parts you can add on your old Wii to make it more powerful instead tho. A new big product every 5 years is sure nice for their wallet, but not that much for the environment... :-/
What Zelda are you talking about?
π: 0 β©: 1
the Zelda graphical demo they showed on E3 to demonstrate capabilities of the WiiU
You know, simply from a company's point of view, where at least two other companies heavily compete with you, not bringing something new every so often would basically end your company.
Sony and Microsoft will do something like that too. There always will be the "hardcore" Nintendo fans, that will stick to what ever comes from Nintendo but over an interval of time, those will become less and less, if Nintendo just sticks to a system of geeration (current generation)-10...
And if you are talking about environmental care together with development of computers, that's kind of a two-edged sword:
Producing computers of any kind is extremely anti-environmental.
Sticking to old ones instead is even worse because they're less efficient.
So, the consequence is, you either use "cutting edge" or no computer at all.
Now try to nowadays never come across a computer. Much luck xD
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't care about companies. Legend of Zelda series is nice, as a Miyamoto creation with Kondo music, not as a Big N product.
And in any way, Big N always did things different to other companies, hence why they lead the way on many things. I really can't see then why they would have to do like other companies to stay alive... But even if they die, oh well...
As you know it, the graphics aren't much of a problem for several of Nintendo's series. They easily jump from 3D graphics to 8 bits pixel (OoT vs Oracles), and that's the same for releasing games like Wario Ware while the Wii and even the DS can do much better.
People buy for the scenario, and the gameplay. Those who buy only for the graphics buy the stuff that sucks from Microsoft instead. XD
About environment, I didn't mean to protect computers. They are as bad as video games. I won't buy any new soon, and the last laptops we bought were remanufactured.
And finally, I don't get how the less-efficiency of old comps is bad for the environment.
π: 0 β©: 1
they do different than the others, but not to 100%. - That wouldn't work.
The other companies essentially learn to copy them but then improve upon that/put some eye-candy into the mix.
Of course, the best Nintendo Franchises don't depend on the graphics that much, though younger generations of players couldn't be bothered playing 8-bit games, without being somehow introduced to an "up-to-date" game of that franchise, graphics-wise. (It's not totally general of course but still the biggest amount of young players)
less efficiency means more power plants for the same effect.
There of course are environmentally relatively friendly power plants but if you really look, none do no harm at all.
Also, due to how the electricity demands happen in everyday life, you can't just take a single type of 100% environmentally friendly power plants and stick to them all over the world. You need at least three types.
One that basically gives you electricity for all the time, never to be shut down ("basic energy level"), one that quickly pumps energy into the system but also quickly halts after that. It should be quick and easy to turn on and equally quick and easy to shut down ("peak energy level") and then one that is in between, to be used during elevated usage. ("plateau energy level")
A possible combination would be:
Basis: Atomic Power Plant (Bad. No, I mean BAD)
Peak: Pumped Storage Power Station (You pump water up somewhere while the Energy usage is low and then, during the peak time, let the water flow through a generator, all at once - mostly environmentally friendly, requires other Power Plants to run, though)
Plateau: Reservoir Power Station (You simply cut off a river and thus don't need the exta pumping... in theory. - This one on the first glance is quite nice while on the second glance it's a severe change of environment.)
Stuff like wind energy, while being really nice to the environment and by now quite efficient, lack their steadiness. You can't ensure, that there will be wind every day.
Imagine we would still run on electron tube computers. Those back then where as big as probably your room and took equal amounts of electricity while having the effective power of your average cheap calculator.
Running even just NES-games on them would be... Well, you'd probably need an atomic power plant for your own, or two...
π: 0 β©: 1
It seems like anything coming from the industry does something bad anyway. Materials as well as power plant themselves. Look at those metal and other stuff mines... How many people get sick in there? How much are they paid?
I guess if we would use less of all that and completely stop using things like plastic, it would help a lot.
Aluminium for instance is pretty expensive at the moment since someone wanted - and succeeded - to build the whole economical system upon oil and its derivatives.
But Nintendo or other technology-maker companies could actually use aluminium for all of their covers, and that would be way more ecological, while staying a light product, I think.
Of course those big ww2 calculator-things as big as train wagons would be a pain! XD But that doesn't have much to do with video games in any case...
In modern times, I don't think my 10 years old computer (died last year) was using sooooo more energy than my current one. It sure did use a bit more, but I'm happy we kept it for so much years instead of replacing it with a new machine made of new plastic and other dangerous materials every 2-3 years. Plus, the old computers would have been sent to overpopulated and overpersecuted places like parts of India and China were people live on our garbages. :-/
Ah, anyway...
They sure are somewhat right when they talk about Degrowth, safe for the term is wrong choosen. We would actually be growing a lot if our world changed to get simplified.
I guess if we focus on having a nice life, taking care of each others and fighting that ideology that destroys us and our families day in day out, we'll end up in a nice place. Maybe we won't even feel like playing video games anymore!
...I have to say I play waaaaay less when it's summer and that I feel so nice.
π: 0 β©: 1
Everything has its positives and negatives. Aluminium isn't the ultimate material either.
The biggest problem using metals in computers in general is, that you need some kinds of isolators.
Though, no doubt, we could save a LOT on usage of plastics.
However, the biggest field to sparsen it probably is in food packaging. That's the worst thing: Food that generally often stays fresh for merely a week, is foiled in plastics that stay for billions of years. And you could just aswell use (recycled) paper or something.
Paper recycling should work well enough to not need to cut too many trees to make the ecosystem colapse. (It would be a huge advantage if people didn't insist on 99%-white paper where 75%-white would hardly affect the contrast and at the same time even be easier to read in super-bright situations.)
And even if insisting on that, by now I bought 100% recycled paper that WAS perfectly white without the use of chlorine. So technology on that apparently improved too.
Either way, eco-discussions could take forever and there could be done a LOT that isn't done now. Partially because of some groups that have their monopole-like thing, partially because of pure laziness.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, I know for aluminium. It's somewhat hard to exploit anyway...but I don't think plastic can beat it on hardness. x__x
Food packaging sure is a mess. We don't need it actually, the food won't get that dirty.
The other problem related to food is also how much of it that they throw away. It's said that 55% of the food produced in Canada is thrown away (like, without being eaten at all). That's simply disgusting and terrible.
I know people who collect food in the supermarkets' containers, and that food's still great! I've eaten only fruits and juice from garbages when I was at the farm 10 days ago!
Yeah, I also use 100% recycled paper. And I have to agree, it can't be more white than that. O_O Anyway, I wouldn't mind having beige paper...(It would actually be nice
I think if there's not much good done, that's because the main industries - who sure control the whole economy since they drive it all on their own - are based on unecological products. Either they think changing their ways to do things would harm them, either they purposely want to destroy the world. Who knows... x__x
Hey, I'm back from the Summer Montreal Unschooling Gathering!
π: 0 β©: 1
they sure don't want to purposely destroy the world. It's just that by now, generating plastics from oil is a LOT more cost-efficient than other techniques, apparently. - At least if they gotta rebuild their industries to allow them to use different materials instead...
Well, luckily more and more plastics are recycled aswell, which, I guess, makes them a lot more economically friendly. But still, most of it just lands in nature where it can't be disposed by that same nature, though...
There are some fungi that are able to destroy plastics, but they are terribly slow.
However, evolutionary I wouldn't worry too much. In a couple of generations (still quite possibly a lot of them, like 5 or 10 or so, meaning about 500-1000 years), there might be enough evolutionary adaption into that direction that plastics could be called an actually usable factor in ecology.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know...
I personaly can see that money was invited in the very purpose that there'd be inequalities. So to me it's highly possible that those capitalist dudes have no moral and just want to doom everything. :-/
(...lots of them are said to be sectarian. Like, they think they descend from ancient kings and that they have the right and the "mission" to be rich and slave the rest. Dunno.)
I guess fungi and bacteries sure are purifiers. They adapt and evolve to always be cleaning their environment from the dirt, no matter what dirt. So if the dirt's plastic, they'll get rid of it. And if the dirt is us, they also will...
π: 0 β©: 1
Money originally was invented, independently by several cultures, for convenience sake.
On one hand, it helped unifying price-thoughts, like, for instance, one cattle has the value of, say, 20 chicken or two pigs,
and on the other hand, it helped transporting stuff too, e.g. you could trade something but take it with you later-on.
It all started to become odd when money was changed to make money. (interest)
THAT was originally made to keep very expensive stuff still affordable but basically with additional "service"-costs. It's a very good thing that you can buy a house in steps. Only a tiny fraction of inhabitants in the world could afford their homes in a single money transaction.
Still, this interest allowed for a lot of ill-formed trades of weird relations.
I'd be careful with calling them "purifiers". Technically, we're purifiers too by that matter, by cleaning the world from the dirt that's called "plant" or "animal".
It's just a big circle.
Though, fungi are the most diverse "splitters", we have.
For instance, did you know that there is no life-form that can actually get rid of wood, except for certain fungi? That's one reason why wood is a great material
π: 0 β©: 1
Trade and money are kind of two different things I'd say...
Money is like that very thing some private organisation :
1. Creates
2. Decide how it's worth
3. "Distribute"
I mean, those big private banks control everything. :-/
And when money was simply based on gold (it isn't anymore btw), a country which had more gold in their soil was richer than the others just because it was lucky. Period. (And stupid.)
As for the house-building business, if people would simply have their basic needs (food, house, parents) filled for FREE, then we could call it a living. But nooooo... You are forced to have your house built with the materials produced by the industry even if it's more expansive, plus there are lots of laws on building, and finally the Construction Management is controlled by the mafia (here at least it's official, I mean, on the National TV and all). And we know how much they like to rise the prices...
...Hmm, I really can't see what humans got rid of that had to be gotten rid of... >_>
π: 0 β©: 1
When money was first invented, there where no such big companies. That need only emerged from more and more money-based trade. Slowly it developed to the monster we have today.
So, your first point isn't quite right^^
Here, money never was based on gold.
I know, the Dollar was at first, which was a problem when people started to massively exchange $ for Au.
It's by now a purely imaginary system of value that went very important in peoples lives.
Actually, in that it's slightly like some Internet- and Computer-things, like MMORPGS (Warcraft,...), Imaginary lives (Second Life...), Social Networks (Facebook, Twitter,...).
Though, the imaginary value "Money" has a physical representation in bank-notes and coins, MOST money is purely digital. The amount of money in the world (including accounts) in bills and coins would take up ALL the metal and paper that the world currently has and probably even more.
That in theory means, if somebody where to destroy those computers, s/he would destroy most of the money in the world with that as well. At first thoght, that would be terrible. At second, there might be some sense of change if something like that became even nearly true.
Mafias are a different topic...
For local interactions, money isn't necessary.
But if you have longer paths, it becomes more and more impractical to just take that cattle with you. It's not necessarily the best example though^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Hmmm... So why did the European king send peeps to America to look for gold if money wasn't based on it? o_O
And, I know for virtual money. It sux even more than usual money. >_>
Hopefully someone will crash all those comps...
As you said, for local interactions, money shouldn't be required.
As for international interactions (if really there's a need to do that in a good world...), people should still be able to manage with trading. I really can't see what a money system has to offer then :
- If money is gold : some countries are naturally rich, and some others are naturally poor
- If money is produced by a private organisation : they produce as much as they want, and the people don't have any control on it even if it should be theirs
Real, actual ressources, are still way better than some kind of worthless money or soft yellow metal. As long as you live in a country which is the leasyt livable (I'm not talking of Alaska...), you have various ressources.
But still, simplicty and moderation make people's life way better than overproducing and consumerism...
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, that soft yellow metal does actually have some uses that are quite a lot better than the normal money-equivalence
(It's an excellent wire-material, for instance)
I personally think, the main problem of money is its unboundedness.
By including interest into the game, humanity basically generated a biological system that consumes and reproduces, in a virtual world with unbounded material to consume.
This last part of the sentence is the very difference from an actual biological system.
I'm not sure as I didn't quite do the maths or anything, but I think, money could be much less harmful if one considered some kind of upper limit, combined with a logistic (e.g. bounded growth) equation.
That way, nobody could ever be richer than a certain value, say, a billion $.
In fact, somebody who'd be that rich, must have had infinite time to reach that, or he must have all the money in the world, which is equivalent to making money useless at that state or alternatively making that value unreachable.
It also means that a billion $ would be unaffordable, no matter how much money you had.
That would truncate prices a lot and limit them to somewhat manage-able amounts.
I'm not particularly sure if a transform like that would actually solve anything or if it caused the same stuff in disguise, but I'd love to model money that way to find out...
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I know for gold. But it's barely used in electronics, because it's so expansive.
I personaly think that the main problem of money...is money! XD
I get your plan, but I think it's a bit too complexe and that indeed it would end up to be the same stuff in disguise.
At the moment, money isn't completely unbounded. I mean, of course they gnereate more and more money with the years, but they also work hard to make sure only them will take advantage of it.
Like, the longest they can price up everything while the workers don't notice their salary isn't proportionnal, the longest they'll take profit of that amount of money they created.
It seems like they don't really care if everything crashes. ...Well, I don't either. XD
On the other hand they also try to reduce more and more our independance. On of the greatest example is how they caused downturns so they could buy everybody's lands and little companies and banks to control everything. Now most people live in city, forced to work in a useless job just to get money that they will use to buy food, while the few others makes GMO monocultures that will finaly be used to feed sick cows, or to send to other countries. So of course we need to buy food grown in other countries too, and then the big multinationals win once again : now they are the heros who take care of enslaving south-americans and africans by also stealing their lands, and then they transport the food by trucks, planes and boats so their friends who have a oil company take profit of this horrible business too!
You know what? I'm really amazed of what those industries succeeded. They organised and executed the worst economical, humanitarian and ecological plan ever, and people got so deeply fooled that they became nuts enough to help those companies go on. Incredible, really.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Like, the longest they can price up everything while the workers don't notice their salary isn't proportionnal, the longest they'll take profit of that amount of money they created."
Erm, WHAT? xD
Those workers noticed a LONG stretch ago and still no sign of change in sight...
They are actually the ones who will have the biggest profit from such a crash. Well, parts of them.
Others, in fact the "minors of the majors" of money, will loose everything, though. It's this two-sided situation, that makes money's stability itself instable. (E.g. wether money is stable or instable is itself an instable situation)
The rest is quite true though^^
Well, mostly.
People feel that they are forced to go on, as they're dependend on money.
infact, most people believe, money==life.
Life is so much more than money, but those companies make you believe.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah... .__. People don't get that money's not edible. So it can't be everything. And it can't especially be life.
Hmm, what I mean by the weird phrase was that people are easily fooled. And I think I know why : it's not in our natural instincts to be able to face manipulation. And that's exactly where they got us...
π: 0 β©: 1
"where they got us"...
This sounds like if "they" are not human... xD
Evolution is a very rough concept:
Survive or Die.
"They" got us with that concept, by linking money to survival, switching on all our instincts to only farm that one resource to own them all.
Humans are good at manipulating things. Unfortunately, they aren't as good at avoiding to be manipulated.
The reason probably is that we are kind of careful at manipulating ourselves. Compared to the billions of manipulated people that are manipulated, only very few actually die due to that manipulation, causing next to no evolutionary pressure.
It's all just a matter of selling luxury as the one and only goal of survival while at the same time, poverty as death.
Yet, there are STILL very poor villages out there which hardly use any money and mostly live autarkic. Despite having little resources at the same time. Probably BECAUSE they have that little resources...
Homo Sapiens. Sapiens means intelligent. It's the human(oid) who is able to think through actions beforehand.
Though, this ability is a very dangerous one, selling a lot of security for freedom, in a way.
Of course, I can't know for sure, as I can't look in the future, what evolution might bring, but it's hardly imaginable, that there is a lot of possible improvement in that direction: In a way, we decoupled ourselves from evolution with this ability, being absolutely free to do things that wouldn't be allowed in a certain sense.
There is no doubt, any human being is able to act intelligently, but thinking ahead is slow. In quick decision-making, you hardly use that ability, and that's one of the manipulatory tricks. They make you decide quickly, not letting you time to think.
They themselves had a LOT of time to think through everything, simply showing up when their plan was finished, well prepared to trick you into any decision they want.
The default human approach isn't to think through. It's still the old instincts. Thinking still is too slow for survival.
That might be the marginal amount of improvement in thinking, that's still possible. Either decoupling our thinking from instincts even further, while making the former more and more present on a direct basis, or integrating the instincts directly into the thinking, taking some kinds of shortcuts that causes our thinking to be as fast as our instincts. - Or what ever hyper-creative solution evolution comes up with...
Either way, I think, while evolution in general speeds up over time, quickly approximating a local maximum of perfection for the given tasks, in case of humans it probably slowed down a lot, just because of ethics.
That's now a dangerous topic in many senses, and it's difficult to decouple emotional, clear conscience-preserving arguments from pure rational reasoning, without sounding either like a foolish idiot or a wicked professor, but I'll try...
For instance, while our medical standards nowadays are amazing, from an evolutionary point of view, they are like driving with handbrake on. The effect probably isn't that strong yet, especially as those medical standards aren't that old, but when time goes on and even more ethnically great but less survival-driven things are achieved, the amount of slightly disabling genes will increase.
At the same time, many people die in accidents that are totally decoupled from any kind of evolutionary pressure, expecially if the person who dies is NOT the person who caused the accident. - by now, that's afaik the most important cause of non-age-related death, humans have to face. (I'm not totally sure about that, though. There might be some stress-related diseases like heart-attacks or such, that are more important)
Also, this one is bad both from an evolutionary and an ethnical point of view: At first, humanoid intelligence exploded, due to great success. But now, average intelligence starts to slowly fall, while only few families have an increase. It's because only few are needed to keep or improve the current life-situations (luxury-wise), but further improvements even accelerate that development.
Brains are like muscles. A lot of thinking-capacity currently is merely redundancy. Redundant parts over generations shrink to minimal energy-usage, as it's wasted energy to keep something alive (inside your own body) that isn't even used. That's the reason, why nature is that compact. You'll have a terribly hard time to build a generic machine that can do every single task a human can do and at the same time consume even less energy than a human does, for the average task. (It's though fairly easy to construct machines that do simple tasks more efficient than humans. - In fact, you can see that directly in nature, with a lot of, probably even most animals being much more efficient at a certain set of specific tasks than humans.) Either way, this redundancy causes us to, over generations, loose a lot of our potential, because our luxury way of life isn't very difficult. But this is a highly artificial kind of ease, currently relatively stable, but as it seems, on the edge of failing. It's a great luck that this edge is reached "this early" (only VERY few generations into that development), but if our response is the usual human reaction: "Fix it up for another generation, hoping that that generation finds another way to keep the standard", we might be able to keep the artifical ease alife with artifical fixups for time intervals that actually matter, until we entirely went into a dead-end and basically crash.
If those fixup-timeintervals come in near-regular fashion and we really are able to keep all those standards for long (which I really doubt), there might be some evolutionary solution, where certain generations of humans behave VERY different from most other generations in a periodic manner. (That happens with certain grasshoppers, for instance. They have a period of five-or so generations, where every fifth is VERY different to the other four. - It even LOOKS different) - that could rescue us in the long run but it's highly improbable...
Our current way of life is like a huge pan-humanoid tumor. Maybe even Global, pan-life. This tumor is already too big to simply be cut away. You gotta hope for our self-healing abilities in a global sense. And totally change direction.
I'm confident, that there are ways to have luxury that is challenging enough to keep ourselves healthy (without feeling bad because of too much work or something) and at the same time lasting enough to keep nature healthy. - Though, it will be a very different kind of luxury than we have today. I can only hope that we 1) find it (there are chances that models of this already exist) and 2) actually have the faith, courage and self-fairness to go those paths.
π: 0 β©: 1
You said that βEvolution is a very rough concept: Survive or Die.β
I'd rather say that evolution was more survival than death. I mean, you don't really evolve when you're dead... XD lol
I have to admit I agree with what you say. Honestly, I wouldn't have thought we could have so much common opinions.
There has indeed not been much physical evolution in a while (for humans I mean). And I think that's due to the fact that people are very little exposed to nature, and rather live constantly in the same small and artificial place, doing jobs that ask way more of intellect (not necessarily βthinkingβ though) than physical.
I think that there's still been evolution for the last centuries, but it was mostly all intellectual evolution : people developed skills to be able to do 50 things at the same time, to live in stress day in day out, etc.
Of course, it also destroys them, as that environment is still insane and too extreme. And also maybe...maybe that evolution isn't recorded in the DNA yet, hence why people have to show their children how to be obedient workers who live in stress and manipulation.
Yeah, car accidents are a pain...
But I'd say that around me cancer seems to kill much much people too. And that is of course related to the way they live and the way they eat.
To get that kind of good βluxuryβ you talk about, I think we simply have to find what we're meant for. I mean, every creature is built for a particular way to live (built by evolution and all). Living that way, they are fed, they are free, they are healthy, they are happy, and finally they don't ruin their environment.
I think that if we come to the way we're made to live, our survival nor happiness won't require much work from us, and especially not unhappy work at all.
π: 0 β©: 1
The technical evolution of the last centuries was mainly a steady improvement in keeping more and more information in less and less space and at the same time making that saving cheaper and cheaper. Top level for now: Internet.
It's not actual evolution in the sense that some "types" of humans life genetics-preferedly more successful (with the nature's definition of success: Make successful offsprings, as opposed to not being successful and dying without successful offsprings), due to knowing how to use a computer.
Cancer is very stress-influenced, yeah. It might be the only way of nature to still influence evolution, but I guess it's still slower than if we where directly exposed to nature.
It slowly destroys the ones of us who aren't up to the task.
Main problem: Cancer hardly ever causes people to stop raising offsprings (most cases happen after that stage) and also, while there are genetic chance-differences for cancer, the actual genetic influence is too weak against the influence of lifestyle to really be "selected" (evolution) by that.
And even if there is a (creepingly slow) change happening due to that, other phenomenas, found directly in nature, might stop this development from speeding up: Certain currently highly important resources are on the edge of going non-existant...
Oil will last for the next couple of decades, roughly one active generation, for instance.
One of the biggest challenges of humainty is one of its biggest gifts by nature:
We're hardly perfect at anything.
We're acceptable at nearly everything, though.
Nature basically "constructed" us in a way that makes us free.
Humans do have the might of total decision. - You could even decide to not eat at all anymore or just jump down the next cliff.
Of course, such decisions are usually made by people who already do have problems, but still, they had a decision.
With great power comes great responsibility. - That's basically how nature could "justify" (If that makes sense for an abstract noun) something like a human.
We are able to decide, though we're also able to think through things beforehand.
If we think through things carefully, we'll make the most successful decisions. That's exactly why we came as far as we did, up to a point, where decisions started to become harder and harder to think through.
As we look at how nature develops with or without us over time, we see more and more often that it would behave "better" without our influence.
I guess, that's a big lession: We gotta learn to let things be. Watch but don't Touch, so to speak.
It's quite against our (indeed) natural curiosity, though. And also against our bias to modify things.
Of course it would be too extreme to just say "do not touch nature anymore at all", as that would mean, to survive, we need a totally artifical world or something like that.
It's not yet too late to turn. It's too difficult to do a 180Β°, though, so let's stick with 45Β° or something like that for now, but multiple ones of those in a row. Eventually, we'll get there and be where we should be.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah...
Oil might last longer if they start making it out of organic matter...like corn for instance! XD
That's just ridiculous. .__. Hopefully they'll just stop.
Also I wonder if oil had some use in the balance of the planet. I mean, is it harmless to even remove it all from the Earth? o_O ...
I wonder if we really have the ability to make decisions, the power to choose...
I mean, the guy who jumps the next cliff, doesn't that inescapably happen because his life sucks so much that he is filled by boredom and tiredness? Did he have any kind of control of that? Or was it all caused by predictable things?
I feel like the only thing that actually makes us think we have the freedom to βchooseβ, is that all our choices are caused by a very complex mesh of things. But I think in final it's still just an inescapable fate, leaded by those things too complex or too numerous for us to understand. I guess I'm not the first who has this theory tho...
I think there is still a way to live with our natural bias to touch/modify things by moderating its use to only what we need and only the natural materials. But I understand your point, as I think the same on that too; It'd probably be better if we simply didn't have that bias at all. :-/ Oh well...
Sometime I understand what those religions and peoples meant when they were saying we were βhalf-godsβ or βsons of god(s)β. It means that gods are creators, and that we humans also have that need to create β thus modify what's around us to do so (use wood, straw, metal, etc.). Anyway...
It's probably even too late to make a little 45 degrees turn... Seems like it's rather all gonna crash...or at least I hope so! XD That would be faster to get rid of everything that's, hmm, say, βuninterestingβ.
(Late answer is late. Sorry, I was on an island(s) on the St-Lawrence river for the last week.
π: 0 β©: 1
If what ever we do is fate, we do not need to worry about anything.
Worrying is only needed where things can be changed.
So, the only reason why we would have this discussion, would be, that we have the ability to choose.
Also, suicides do not usually happen out of boredom.
Boredom is the lack of any kind of emotional or eventual occation..
Suicides usually happen during or due to very strong emotional occations.
Usually sadness/depression, but sometimes also some other crazy thing, like irrationally strong belief. Either way, while our early lifes might be heavily influenced by our parents, at a certain age, possibly quite early, we can already influence that ourselves into the direction we want. - There, we can't go 180Β° against our parents (except if they allow us to, but that usually leads to terrible issues) but you can slowly 1Β°-affect them until you're where you want to be.
OR you grow older without doing that and eventually explode in furyrage of doom and flee from your previous life.
OR it so happens that what your parents want is what you want.
OR you stick to your parents' opinions and life a live you never wanted, despite having the choice to change that. (Lots of people are stuck in that last example. They aren't happy but they have no idea what they want. That's generally the main problem. The top 100 most successful people in the world are all extremely good at knowing what they want.)
If you don't know what you want, the natural bias takes over +/- what ever you where shaped into in your early life.
But if you know what you want, you can really quickly work around that. Eventually you become so good at knowing what you want, that you do not depend on your youth at all.
Of course, what you want to some extend is based on what you learned and on your nature, so there might be some kind of preset factor, but you can cancle that out easily. (See masssuicide in sects. They do actually believe, the world ends or what ever. That's TOTALLY in contrary to trying to stay alife, which is the whole point of the natural bias. - Those suicides do not happen due to sadness. They happen because people in sects are deeply changed in their thinking. They use their abilities to affect their lives perfectly but in a bad way. EVERYONE is able to do that, but in any way s/he wants.)
Late answer is fine
π: 0 β©: 1
Worrying might be included in that fate.
Also this discussion sure was inescapable too!
I meant "bored" as "tired". In french it would sound like that anyway. I mean that people suicide because they are tired of this world, tired of their awful existence.
I don't know... It actually is pretty hard for a child to go against the dominion of his/her parents, but desobedience has always been a strong part of my nature. I just can't help it; sooner or later, I stop following, even if my survival depends upon it.
Knowing what you want is hard when you've always been exorted to do the things the way they are. And with time there is just less and less freedom in this world, and less and less nature to go to and find your way back through freedom.
I think people in sects for example - civilisation and capitalism really being sects too... - are just so manipulable because they never had what they needed, and they're just so looking for answers, and for something to be devoted to, at any cost.
Christianity leaded guys like that one in the US to sue a doctor who was helping very ill people to suicide to get to jail. For Christians it seems like the only right thing is staying alive and suffer. So if you don't, they will have you do it.
Order of the Solar Temple leaded people to suicide in the belief that they would join God on Sirius through a shuttle or something. And those of the sect who finally changed their mind...were shot.
This capitalist Society leaded settlers to kill the american natives who taught them how to live in this new world. It also leads policemen to arrest and electrocute rebels who just pacifically try to keep their rights like having sane lands, etc. And finally, it leads parents to mistreat their children, from the belief that children know nothing until you teach them anything, and that they must become "tough" to "be able to face the world" and "find a job to make money".
Yeah...
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>