Bottom line - the problem is not the starving people, they've done nothing wrong except not rise up and overthrow their well armed colonial governments. The problem was created and sustained by the interference of Western governments. If our goal was to help them, then doing nothing whatsoever would have been a better long-term strategy than what we've done.
Ignoring for a moment the fact they had no functioning system of production before we got there, not slaughtering your oppressors is wrong.
Longevity research is health research. Look into The SENS Foundation. Nobody with a lick of sense believes biological immortality will come from a magic pill or injection, it will come from solutions to a myriad of problems. "Old age" isn't a disease in itself, it's a category we throw a bunch of shit into. The actual cause of death is usually multiple organ failure, but they don't just cut out one day - over years they get less efficient and they fail one by one while increasing the strain on the complementary organs, glands, and systems. Ultimately that culminates in a critical organ failing - typically relating to bloodflow (e.g. the heart or a stroke) because we don't tend to call people "dead" when they have a kidney fail or when they develop crippling Alzheimers or liver failure or kidney stones - though each of those things is likely to happen before being claimed by "old age."
They will all be forgotten in time and without immortality so will our whole species, nothing they did will have had the slightest influence on the universe.
It's not my advice, I want to live forever and I have not suggested otherwise in this thread. Thus the hypocrisy of the moron I'm arguing with to suggest he welcomes death while being unwilling to take his own life.
Every post you make further proves my point that you don't want to accept the basic reality of your worthless existence, so much so you lash out at the mere suggestion of it.
It's not infinite, it just appears that way because we're so small (well, large if you're looking at the scale of fundamental biological systems like protein-protein interactions, but relative to our perception, which is kind of intrinsic given a system can't define itself and the limits of our perception will always seem complex.) Time is an illusion at a fundamental level and the multiverse theory is mostly true, but there aren't infinite multiverses. The big bang never stopped, it just moved into other dimensions. For every particle interaction a new set of universes emerge, the existence of which merges with the rest of the universe in a process not unlike that of a Rindler horizon. The multiuniverse taken as a whole is infinite, viewed from any point it is finite. We are finite until we crack biological immortality and time travel and then use it infinitely many times. The math to make time travel happen does already exist, and is entirely consistent with the statements I made in this post up to this point. Take two Kerr-Newman black holes (Kerr = rotating, that gives them an ergosphere, which is to say double-singularities, the space between which has time and space components which invert separately instead of at the same time like a normal black hole,) (Kerr-Newman = spinning AND charged, which lets you control their position relative to eachother from the outside with a big enough electromagnet,) and cross their ergospheres. This will produce an ergoregion wherein time flows in reverse AND a conduit to the outside universe which allows you to get inside safely. Now spin them up much faster (achievable by injecting matter at a precise angle, even if it is just rotating around without crossing the event horizon you can change the rate of rotation with some effects I'm not going to get into for the sake of brevity, but it boils down to the way matter falling into a Kerr type black hole will orbit around the equator in a particular direction regardless of the starting direction) and you can increase the rate at which time seems to reverse for the outside universe from the inside. You've just made a galactic-scale time machine capable of moving a solar system arbitrarily far into the past, use it to go back in time, build a new one, and do it again as many times as you like (do it for eternity and you are no longer finite.) Controlling two black holes in the manner described is certainly a massive engineering challenge, but if we crack biological immortality we'll have a good deal of time to figure it out.
Christ, with the pop-sci. You don't sit in the ergosphere indefinitely, if you had any idea what an ergosphere was or what crossing two of them actually meant you would know that.
Kerr type black holes (rotating) produce ergospheres, which are put simply similar to but unlike event horizons (you can cross them from some angles without getting torn apart and the spacetime components don't reverse together.) Ergospheres can be projected a significant (safe) distance from the inner event horizon based on size and rate of rotation. Kerr-Newman black holes are charged in addition to rotating, with enough of a charge you can control their position with a large enough device. Take two such singularities and cross their ergospheres and suddenly you have a time machine (not a time machine in the sci-fi sense since time is just an illusion and doesn't actually exist, but a region of space you can step into which will move you to a previous point on your worldline and diverge into a separate universe from the moment you step out.) You can avoid the heat death of the universe just be looping back in time infinite times. This is proven math, it's just an engineering challenge.
What's the point? So third worlders can reproduce at exponential rates and increase the net suffering in life with ever-strained resources? Before we started "helping" the third world there were (low) millions of starving people suffering. Now that we've "helped" them there are billions of starving people suffering. The only help for people who can't manage their resources effectively is a quick death.
Even if we crack immortality today chances are Tesla will be forgotten within a few billion years, so yes, sadly he's worthless, just like every other great mind you never even knew existed because they were already lost.
Yes, everyone in history is worthless, without a doubt. They are dead, they are nothing, they are worthless. You will die and your memory of them will fade, along with everyone else. Should we crack immortality then they will still all be forgotten. Everything finite is worthless, no exceptions.
There are known solutions to avoiding the heat death of the universe, even now. Since you'll ask or demand references I'll give you a hint toward the most obvious one: align two rotating black holes in such a way that their ergospheres overlap and cross outside of the event horizon of either, then jump between them and the outside universe - you basically get infinite space. Feel free to research the topic before spouting off since it's likely you don't have any clue what that even means ("ergosphere" is a good keyword to start with, "Kerr-Newman singularities" would be some others.)
There's zero difference between you dying now and you dying 60 years from now after losing everyone you love. Save yourself (and the rest of us) the grief of your continued existence or stop spouting hypocrisy. You want to live or you want to die, no mental hoops will change that fact (whichever side you actually fall on.)
I am, but I wouldn't need to be to know you're an idiot arguing because someone you've never met said something which contradicts something you find so repulsive you have to set up layers of cognitive dissonance to cope with it.
And each and everyone one is absolutely worthless in the grand scheme of things unless people crack immortality and one of the people who has it cares to remember them. Great inventor, great scientist, great leader, great politician, poor person without a family, it's all exactly equal: worthless due to mortality, not one will be remembered because mortality inherently means that either the species will cease to exist or that such a span of time will have elapsed as to have wiped all record of their existence from the universe.
Yet you're the one arguing to die? Just kill yourself, go ahead with it. Nothing is stopping you, oh, but you don't want to die yet? You're a shitbag for speaking hypocrisy.
That's a combination of two factors: A) by that age you've seen everyone you care about die and B) evolution made us accepting of death at that age, to the point of giving us a massive dose of super potent and all-natural hallucinogens when we're approaching death's doorstep so we don't freak our progeny out crying about ceasing to exist. If everyone knew they just had nothingness to look forward to, like really knew it the way you can only know it if you watch everyone older than you that you give a shit about die from some horrific thing like kidney failure or heart disease or stroke or whatever else (pretty much everything other than suicide bomber is guaranteed to be unpleasant for the person dying) - then they would most likely commit suicide before reaching reproductive age, or fighting age, or discovering anything of merit to push us forward. Religion didn't just form without reason, the notion of an afterlife in some form or another held civilization together for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years (even gorillas have "rituals" of piling stones at the base of trees they've lost loved ones at as a memorial.) You are either an idiot denying their fate and refusing to fight it in that denial, or you are a senile old man hallucinating on his pre-death meds, there is no middle ground and either way you are poisoning society with your beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Based on just the first couple of pages of your posting history, I suspect that's entirely true. What you are is way, way worse.
The guy who fucked your mother?
Bottom line - the problem is not the starving people, they've done nothing wrong except not rise up and overthrow their well armed colonial governments. The problem was created and sustained by the interference of Western governments. If our goal was to help them, then doing nothing whatsoever would have been a better long-term strategy than what we've done.
Ignoring for a moment the fact they had no functioning system of production before we got there, not slaughtering your oppressors is wrong.
Longevity research is health research. Look into The SENS Foundation. Nobody with a lick of sense believes biological immortality will come from a magic pill or injection, it will come from solutions to a myriad of problems. "Old age" isn't a disease in itself, it's a category we throw a bunch of shit into. The actual cause of death is usually multiple organ failure, but they don't just cut out one day - over years they get less efficient and they fail one by one while increasing the strain on the complementary organs, glands, and systems. Ultimately that culminates in a critical organ failing - typically relating to bloodflow (e.g. the heart or a stroke) because we don't tend to call people "dead" when they have a kidney fail or when they develop crippling Alzheimers or liver failure or kidney stones - though each of those things is likely to happen before being claimed by "old age."
They will all be forgotten in time and without immortality so will our whole species, nothing they did will have had the slightest influence on the universe.
It's not my advice, I want to live forever and I have not suggested otherwise in this thread. Thus the hypocrisy of the moron I'm arguing with to suggest he welcomes death while being unwilling to take his own life.
Every post you make proves your cognitive dissonance on this matter.
You don't want to accept the truth of your worthless existence.
I research biotech and physics. I aim not to be worthless.
Every post you make further proves my point that you don't want to accept the basic reality of your worthless existence, so much so you lash out at the mere suggestion of it.
It's not infinite, it just appears that way because we're so small (well, large if you're looking at the scale of fundamental biological systems like protein-protein interactions, but relative to our perception, which is kind of intrinsic given a system can't define itself and the limits of our perception will always seem complex.) Time is an illusion at a fundamental level and the multiverse theory is mostly true, but there aren't infinite multiverses. The big bang never stopped, it just moved into other dimensions. For every particle interaction a new set of universes emerge, the existence of which merges with the rest of the universe in a process not unlike that of a Rindler horizon. The multiuniverse taken as a whole is infinite, viewed from any point it is finite. We are finite until we crack biological immortality and time travel and then use it infinitely many times. The math to make time travel happen does already exist, and is entirely consistent with the statements I made in this post up to this point. Take two Kerr-Newman black holes (Kerr = rotating, that gives them an ergosphere, which is to say double-singularities, the space between which has time and space components which invert separately instead of at the same time like a normal black hole,) (Kerr-Newman = spinning AND charged, which lets you control their position relative to eachother from the outside with a big enough electromagnet,) and cross their ergospheres. This will produce an ergoregion wherein time flows in reverse AND a conduit to the outside universe which allows you to get inside safely. Now spin them up much faster (achievable by injecting matter at a precise angle, even if it is just rotating around without crossing the event horizon you can change the rate of rotation with some effects I'm not going to get into for the sake of brevity, but it boils down to the way matter falling into a Kerr type black hole will orbit around the equator in a particular direction regardless of the starting direction) and you can increase the rate at which time seems to reverse for the outside universe from the inside. You've just made a galactic-scale time machine capable of moving a solar system arbitrarily far into the past, use it to go back in time, build a new one, and do it again as many times as you like (do it for eternity and you are no longer finite.) Controlling two black holes in the manner described is certainly a massive engineering challenge, but if we crack biological immortality we'll have a good deal of time to figure it out.
Christ, with the pop-sci. You don't sit in the ergosphere indefinitely, if you had any idea what an ergosphere was or what crossing two of them actually meant you would know that.
Kerr type black holes (rotating) produce ergospheres, which are put simply similar to but unlike event horizons (you can cross them from some angles without getting torn apart and the spacetime components don't reverse together.) Ergospheres can be projected a significant (safe) distance from the inner event horizon based on size and rate of rotation. Kerr-Newman black holes are charged in addition to rotating, with enough of a charge you can control their position with a large enough device. Take two such singularities and cross their ergospheres and suddenly you have a time machine (not a time machine in the sci-fi sense since time is just an illusion and doesn't actually exist, but a region of space you can step into which will move you to a previous point on your worldline and diverge into a separate universe from the moment you step out.) You can avoid the heat death of the universe just be looping back in time infinite times. This is proven math, it's just an engineering challenge.
They would be idiots not to keep it all - even low quality investments would beat inflation by several tens of millions of dollars a year.
What's the point? So third worlders can reproduce at exponential rates and increase the net suffering in life with ever-strained resources? Before we started "helping" the third world there were (low) millions of starving people suffering. Now that we've "helped" them there are billions of starving people suffering. The only help for people who can't manage their resources effectively is a quick death.
I'm not arguing with you. I am pointing out that you are a not too bright Millenial.
You never made an argument to begin with, you just defended your special little view on reality which leads you to believe you aren't worthless.
Even if we crack immortality today chances are Tesla will be forgotten within a few billion years, so yes, sadly he's worthless, just like every other great mind you never even knew existed because they were already lost.
Yes, everyone in history is worthless, without a doubt. They are dead, they are nothing, they are worthless. You will die and your memory of them will fade, along with everyone else. Should we crack immortality then they will still all be forgotten. Everything finite is worthless, no exceptions.
There are known solutions to avoiding the heat death of the universe, even now. Since you'll ask or demand references I'll give you a hint toward the most obvious one: align two rotating black holes in such a way that their ergospheres overlap and cross outside of the event horizon of either, then jump between them and the outside universe - you basically get infinite space. Feel free to research the topic before spouting off since it's likely you don't have any clue what that even means ("ergosphere" is a good keyword to start with, "Kerr-Newman singularities" would be some others.)
Not a millennial, you retard.
There's zero difference between you dying now and you dying 60 years from now after losing everyone you love. Save yourself (and the rest of us) the grief of your continued existence or stop spouting hypocrisy. You want to live or you want to die, no mental hoops will change that fact (whichever side you actually fall on.)
Wow. You must be a scientist. So knowledgeable.
I am, but I wouldn't need to be to know you're an idiot arguing because someone you've never met said something which contradicts something you find so repulsive you have to set up layers of cognitive dissonance to cope with it.
And each and everyone one is absolutely worthless in the grand scheme of things unless people crack immortality and one of the people who has it cares to remember them. Great inventor, great scientist, great leader, great politician, poor person without a family, it's all exactly equal: worthless due to mortality, not one will be remembered because mortality inherently means that either the species will cease to exist or that such a span of time will have elapsed as to have wiped all record of their existence from the universe.
Yet you're the one arguing to die? Just kill yourself, go ahead with it. Nothing is stopping you, oh, but you don't want to die yet? You're a shitbag for speaking hypocrisy.
That's a combination of two factors: A) by that age you've seen everyone you care about die and B) evolution made us accepting of death at that age, to the point of giving us a massive dose of super potent and all-natural hallucinogens when we're approaching death's doorstep so we don't freak our progeny out crying about ceasing to exist. If everyone knew they just had nothingness to look forward to, like really knew it the way you can only know it if you watch everyone older than you that you give a shit about die from some horrific thing like kidney failure or heart disease or stroke or whatever else (pretty much everything other than suicide bomber is guaranteed to be unpleasant for the person dying) - then they would most likely commit suicide before reaching reproductive age, or fighting age, or discovering anything of merit to push us forward. Religion didn't just form without reason, the notion of an afterlife in some form or another held civilization together for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years (even gorillas have "rituals" of piling stones at the base of trees they've lost loved ones at as a memorial.) You are either an idiot denying their fate and refusing to fight it in that denial, or you are a senile old man hallucinating on his pre-death meds, there is no middle ground and either way you are poisoning society with your beliefs.
By whom? Moreover, how would their opinion be at all relevant in the long run if they also die?