Posts by northernsailor8

Jack Johnson6 said:You’re being exhausting.🤣

Did you miss the word 'dramatically'?

The point is that technology is seeing Exponential growth—we've essentially advanced as much in the last decade as we did in the previous thousand years combined. If that's true, why can't we maintain the standard of living people in developed countries enjoyed 20 or 30 years ago using only a fraction of our working hours?

Don't give me the smartphone and internet argument again. Their impact on the quality of our nutrition, housing, transportation, and health—mental included—has been either negligible or outright negative.

Sure, if you say so. 🙄

Technology has progressed; whether it's by 20, 30, or 40 percent is secondary. What matters is whether it makes human life easier and better—that's the only metric that counts. It's not about how much faster a processor gets, especially since that growth isn't truly vertical, remains tethered to fossil fuels, and poses a direct threat to our environment.

The Planet will survive, but whether we do is a different question altogether. And that's the one that actually matters to us.

Because capital has only been compounding rapidly since the seventies, and economics doesn't really follow exponential patterns. We are dealing with social sciences and society here; I suppose you can't just apply an analogy from any STEM field. There is very limited causality, even if the correlation seems high.

Don't start with the mobile phones and the internet again. Their impact on our diet, housing, transportation, and health—including mental health—is either negligible or negative.

That isn't true at all. Aside from adult content and entertainment, nutrition and health are among the most searched topics on the internet, which is overflowing with information and allows instant communication with experts. People also research cars, read user reviews, and buy real estate through search engines using specific categories and so on.

Access to information and communication is key to improving quality of life.

Technology has advanced, but whether it's by 20, 30, or 40% isn't what matters. What matters is how much it eases and improves human life—that's the only metric that counts. It isn't about how much processor speed has increased; that doesn't grow leaps and bounds, and it's still dependent on fossil fuels, making this continued progress a direct threat to the human environment.

We are still dependent on water, food, and heating, but that doesn't mean we haven't progressed technologically since prehistory. I guess you don't really understand what technology is. 🤣

By the way, processor speeds double every two years—meaning they grow exponentially. Moore's law.

Amanda Diaz said:Go ahead, throw in a mention of the local gamblers or the guys living off their savings, and you’ve checked every single box for the modern American "wannabe yuppie" cliché...

Try reading the thread and the replies one more time. Maybe then you'll actually get it.

I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

Jack Johnson6 said:You're arguing with ghosts.

Sure, the developed world's standard of living is becoming more accessible. But technology isn't making massive leaps; we're just scaling existing tech, and 90% of that expansion is just China catching up.

The developed world already had everything listed above, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then. Medical progress is enough to manage lifestyle diseases for now, but how you live still matters more than any medical gadget.

Epidemics? Look at the obesity and infertility epidemics. They aren't even limited to humans, so it’s not just about diet. The toxins produced by industrial civilization are turning us into sterile little balls of salt.

No, it’s nowhere near what it used to be. Some people mistake technological progress for being able to watch x times more clips on YouTube than five years ago. Real progress would be if food were ten times cheaper than it was 30 years ago. If building a house with water, sewage, and electricity were ten times cheaper. If transport were significantly faster and cheaper. If healthcare were vastly more affordable and accessible. And all of that without destroying the Planet like current tech does.

Industrial civilization gave us temporary comfort, and the price might be the destruction of the Planet.

Technology isn't advancing? Right. I suppose microprocessors, mobile comms, LEDs, lasers, GPS satellites, MRI, neural chip interfaces, the internet, and all that aren't exactly special achievements in your book. Without any of that, life, work, and leisure in developed nations wouldn't even be imaginable. And the internet is usually ranked among the top ten discoveries of all time...

Right now, there is work being done on quantum processors, large-scale 3D printing for complex metal structures, usable graphene, stem cell organ engineering, artificial vision, and so on. All of this will fundamentally change how we live on the Planet.

I won't even get into the scientific potentials already being touched upon—like cold fusion, the origin of mass, or two new states of matter—because in a few decades, they'll likely result in technologies currently reserved for sci-fi movies.

Back in the 1900s, even prominent scientists argued that technological progress would grind to a halt because everything important had already been discovered. We can see how that turned out, I guess. ☕

And as for today's tech being just a refinement of existing tools—well, everything is just a refinement or an application of something else, mostly found in nature. Nuclear energy is just a simulation of what happens in the Sun, electric power comes from electromagnetic force, and internal combustion engines rely on basic pressure and fire, things humans figured out in prehistory... The first weapon was a knapped stone; the first wheel was just curved wood used to drag things. Refining existing technology and processes is the very foundation of progress. 😉

everything mentioned above was already present in the developed world, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then than it is today. Incremental medical progress is enough to manage civilization-related diseases for now, but lifestyle remains far more vital to health than any medical technology.

What exactly were they working with back then? Cell phones? High-speed internet? Personal computers? GPS? Digital TV on flat-screen monitors? MRI machines and other advanced diagnostic tools? Maybe an 80% success rate for treating certain types of cancer? Or even heart, kidney, and liver transplants?

What used to be more accessible? I guess back then, every household had two cars. Or maybe everyone just had their own phone for... $0.33You could have bought household appliances with a single paycheck. You could have carried mountains of data and documents on a tiny piece of plastic in your pocket. Now, you're just making things up...

Since we’re on the topic of health, I suppose it’s worth noting that over the last two decades, the average life expectancy in the West has climbed by about seven years. Meanwhile, per capita antibiotic consumption has actually trended downward—well, excluding the US, of course.

Quincy:

Epidemics? If you want to talk about epidemics, look at obesity and infertility. It isn't even limited to humans, which suggests this goes way beyond just what we eat. I guess the toxins pumped out by industrial civilization are essentially turning us all into sterile little spheres.

Obesity is primarily a psychological disorder, much like addiction. It seems to emerge wherever there is a certain level of prosperity.

The infertility epidemic isn't actually happening. If you look at the numbers, the global population is still growing quite effectively, especially in developing nations where industrial pollution is higher and food safety regulations are a bit more lax, I guess.

Quincy:

Not even close to the old standard. It seems some people fail to see true exponential growth in technology just because we can stream ten times more videos on YouTube than we could five years ago. Real technological progress would be if groceries were ten times cheaper than they were thirty years ago. It would be if building a house—complete with plumbing, sewage, and electricity—was ten times less expensive. It would be if transportation was significantly faster and much more affordable. Or if healthcare was actually accessible and cheap. All of that, ideally, without destroying the Planet the way current tech does.

I suppose you don't quite grasp the actual meaning of the word "technology."

Jack Johnson6 said:

Industrial civilization has certainly made life more comfortable for a while, I suppose. But the cost might just be the destruction of the Planet.

I suppose the Planet will be just fine. It has managed to endure supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, ice ages, collapsed ocean currents, and solar flares. I imagine it will manage to survive us, too. 😉

Amanda Diaz said:😁

Do you realize you're basically tripping over your own feet with that response? You're suggesting we should have trained workers *before* the technology even existed...

Why? I am specifically talking about training staff after the technology is rolled out. It just seems like people in America still think "lifelong learning and upskilling" is some concept from a sci-fi movie. I guess the ability to learn doesn't just vanish once someone turns 25, believe it or not.

Jack Johnson6 said:If science actually moved as fast as people claim, access to food, transport, housing, heating, healthcare, and education would be significantly broader than it used to be. In developed nations, that isn't the case. The average American, German, or Japanese citizen had access to most of those things at a similar or even better level thirty years ago. They just didn't have smartphones, Facebook, or free adult content back then.

China simply joined the industrial age; it's entirely possible some countries will eventually move away from it.

I wonder where you actually live. Globally, access to everything you mentioned is constantly increasing. Nowadays, you have gas pipelines reaching even smaller towns, subsidies for home energy production (like solar panels or biofuels), car loans available within a week, and a massive selection of vehicles ranging from EVs to hybrids. We have high-speed rail, jets departing every five minutes, the highest percentage of highly educated people in history, and college—or community college—is essentially free. We see high survival rates for various cancers, organ transplants, and prosthetic manufacturing. We have tools like the MRI that perform diagnostic work more precisely than ten doctors could. It has been decades since any major epidemic, and even AIDS has been largely contained.

Standard of living and quality of life according to the University of Alabama metrics are at an all-time high; statistically speaking, things have never been better, whether looking at individual nations or the world as a whole.

If you happen to be a nostalgic old man terrified of the modern era, well, that’s your problem. 😁

placidranger said:You aren't getting it. Of course scientists and innovators need to profit from their breakthroughs. The issue is that the traditional copyright model is fundamentally broken in an era of anonymous internet publishing. I could upload a copy of your book under your name on my site or via torrents. You're stuck. You have no one to sue because you don't even know it was me. There's no way to scrub it, and the government isn't going to shut down the entire internet over a few books. It’s smarter to stop fighting the tide and start using the tech to your advantage—which is exactly what some authors are already doing. They put the book online for free and make their money through physical copies, speaking tours, film rights, or crowdfunding platforms... Copyright is becoming unenforceable. But again, let's stay on track.

The new industrial revolution definitely includes 3D printers. It's a massive leap forward (many of them are open source).

Then you have the DIY electronics scene—Arduino and all its various clones and derivatives (also open source). Innovation is migrating from massive factories into living rooms and basements. It's a dramatic surge in innovative potential.

And then there's the infrastructure and fuel that will turn those innovations into products for the masses—cryptocurrencies, specifically Bitcoin.

Robotics will likely plateau for another 5 to 10 years until we hit some major breakthrough, but we'll see automated drones everywhere.

This isn't really a question of whether copyright should exist, but rather its scope. I think most people would agree that limiting reproduction has become nearly impossible, but that's more a matter of distribution models, accessibility, and middlemen than the creators themselves.

In fact, it seems many people are actually willing to pay for high-quality service and bonus content if there are minimal intermediaries, the content is easy to find in one place, and the price is reasonable.

However, that mostly applies to the entertainment industry. Intellectual work that has practical utility—meaning its application creates tangible value—is a different story altogether. In those cases, the work becomes an intellectual tool in production, much like manual labor, machinery, or other physical assets. We are talking about the foundations of an economic system here. There could be a drastic decline if we rely solely on enthusiasts who prioritize the "public good."

Amanda Diaz said::fejspalm ko kuća:

Here's an example. Glass was invented ages ago... then cars were invented... after that, cars started using better and better glass... long after Enzo Ferrari founded his factory and went looking for glass suppliers... long after Enzo's first car, someone in Lipstick starts producing high-end glass, and now modern Ferrari buys from them.

And you want me to start training people right this second to make glass for Ferrari? We don't even know when Ferrari will actually need that specific glass—is it in 5, 10, or 30 years? We don't know if the specs will match what we imagine today, because we have no idea what kind of Ferrari they'll be building then, or what the market will even demand.

I hope you caught the analogy...

At this rate, we might as well start training tour guides for Mars...

I think you might be off by a century or two. Nowadays, you train a worker in a very short timeframe, and new technology is implemented within a few years. Welcome to the 21st century and our era of global knowledge and communication. 😉

Jack Johnson6 said:This blind faith in endless technological progress and the ever-growing complexity of our civilization is truly touching.

It seems you haven't heard of the law of accelerating returns. It's statistically proven, I guess, and correlates quite closely with Moore's law.

Jack Johnson6 said:We’ve been hearing this same story for five or six years now. They haven't exactly marched into every American home and revolutionized the world yet. In most scenarios, there are better, more efficient technologies already available. This will find its niche, and that's it. I expect the endless cycle of articles claiming 3D printers will change everything to keep coming.

I wonder what those better or more efficient technologies might be. As far as I can tell, there isn't really an alternative. Even the aerospace industry is moving toward 3D-printed parts on a massive scale, particularly with titanium components.

On a side note, a friend of mine started a company and bought one. He’s printing robotics parts, mostly for home use to start. It costs about as much as a high-end PC. 😉

briskskipper27 said:So, what happens to the people who don't have the capacity to become engineers or designers?

They’ll become printer technicians, manufacture printing supplies, manage power grids, or build warehouses and office buildings. There will be plenty of roles in logistics, distribution, marketing, finance, and market research, among many others.

This isn't some sci-fi scenario. In the West, this has been the norm for a long time, where about half the population holds a college degree.

briskskipper27 said:Copyright should just be abolished entirely.

That sounds lovely. Let's just force everyone who spent decades studying, experimenting, and grinding to invent something into a system where any random person with more capital can simply snatch their idea, get rich off it, while the actual creators stay stuck in their basements struggling to get by.

It’s definitely a great way to encourage high-level scientific research. By the way, we saw a similar setup under old-school socialism, where the government automatically owned all patents. I suppose I don't even need to mention how those socialist nations fell so far behind in R&D that they basically lost the race against capitalism for good.

An individual researcher who gets robbed of their own work loses the drive to keep going. I guess I wouldn't feel much motivation to write anything useful if anyone could just read it and claim it as their own.

Jack Johnson6 said:This is easily one of the most senseless hypes we've seen lately.

Yeah, it’s completely senseless hype. I suppose it's hard to see how this vague promise of faster, cheaper, and more accessible production—resulting in complex parts that traditional machines struggle with—actually matters. It feels like nothing more than hipster posturing. I guess that's probably why they recently sent it up to the ISS to print components in orbit...🙄

Amanda Diaz said:Are we even preparing for the future? And honestly, what can a country with an economy the size of America's mid-sized states actually do about it? Invent a 3D printer? No chance—it’s already done. Throw a few billion dollars at improving existing tech? Forget it, because some global superpower will just dump tens of billions into the exact same thing tomorrow.

So, how exactly is this "preparation" supposed to work? I'd love to know, just so I can actually get ready...

Specialization.

Maybe learn everything about them. Learn how to build, how to code, and how to develop ideas and products faster and better than anyone else.

Americans didn't invent windshield glass, nor do they produce most of it, yet Ferrari buys theirs from American suppliers. Americans didn't invent polymer semi-automatic pistols, yet the top-selling model in the US comes from an American manufacturer. Americans didn't invent fuel regulators, but a huge chunk of global production would vanish overnight if a major American component maker disappeared.

A 3D printer is just a tool. Success depends on whatever you decide to make with it.

Jack Johnson6 said:Once our industrial civilization actually develops the capacity to feed, house, transport, heal, warm, clothe, and educate people at an exponential rate, then maybe those "laws" will carry any weight.

For now, our entire civilization is tethered to fossil fuel extraction. Despite all the chatter about exponential leaps in tech and knowledge, nothing has fundamentally changed there. Without fossil fuels, none of this exists, and technology hasn't managed to replace them yet. Fossil fuels aren't exactly a winning bet for the long term. So, either this exponentially growing tech solves the energy crisis, or we keep going exactly as we are. That leaves us with two outcomes: our industrial civilization survives just long enough to wreck the planet and make it uninhabitable, or it collapses before it can finish the job, giving us a chance at a fresh start.

It seems to me you are discussing things you don't really understand. In just 25 years, industrial civilization turned China from a nation of starving peasants into a highly industrialized economic powerhouse where unemployment is around 5% and average wages exceed $400. It became the world's largest exporter and a major importer of oil and cars, all while domestic consumption and standards of living are surging. Today, there is a smaller percentage of hungry, sick, and extremely poor people in the world than ever before in history.

Sure, we are still quite dependent on fossil fuels, but that is just one factor among thousands regarding technological development. Being reliant on oil doesn't mean that computing, healthcare, telecommunications, and other fields haven't advanced, fundamentally changing our way of life in a single generation.

Speaking of oil, let's just say Germany now gets over 25% of its energy from alternative sources, with more coming from nuclear power. Consider that China invests tens of billions of dollars annually into solar energy research, or that there are plans to build more nuclear plants globally now than ever before in history, or that the two largest dams ever were built in the last decade.

Ultimately, there are technologies—some already developed and others in the works (especially promising are genetic experiments with bacteria and algae producing electricity and biofuel)—that could completely eliminate our reliance on oil, though they aren't profitable for anyone just yet. If the demand arises, significant development would happen relatively quickly, much like what we see with the advancement of solar cells and the trade friction between the US and China over them.

The world is moving forward, faster than before. Those who fail to see that perhaps just don't understand it and are simply afraid of progress.

hollowtrucker77 said:Are you actually trying to lecture us on stuff you clearly don't understand, or do you just lack any clue whatsoever and therefore feel like talking about everything anyway?
"Overly complex geometry"?
Why don't you be a hero and explain to the rest of us how the hell 3D printers even work?

If we consider products or parts that currently require assembly from multiple pieces due to specific geometries or the limitations of traditional machining—which often compromises material integrity, product efficiency, and leads to wasted material and labor—then there is an issue here.

3D printers, by applying materials in layers based on computer-generated 3D cross-section models, bypass those constraints. They allow for a level of manipulation with materials like metal that offers clear advantages over casting. It doesn't necessarily require highly specialized labor or heavy machinery, since precision is somewhat built-in. Certain materials, particularly carbon-based compounds (whose derivatives, like carbon fiber and nanotubes, struggle today because manufacturing processes can't guarantee structural solidity), will likely be impossible to utilize without this technology in the near future.

It’s a security nightmare and potentially devastating for the environment, but—money is on the table. Then there's the matter of international standing and whether or not we should even be participating in this rare high-level agreement between the USA and Russia...

One has to weigh the options. ☕

So, there you have it. ☕

William Clark86 said:Are you guys actually on his side, or are people just laughing in your faces? 🤷

Not quite. We've already mobilized the enforcement agencies, and we're using certain corrupt channels to handle bans for anyone who isn't behaving.☕

Where on earth would I find it... 🤣

Jonathan Phillips4: I suppose one could argue that the current situation is somewhat predictable. Maybe. It seems to me that the implications aren't quite as clear-cut as they appear on the surface. Perhaps we should wait for more data before jumping to conclusions.

Richard Wilson4 said:So, what did I get wrong in my intro? Or are we just watching different news channels and following different politicians?

How did "Sovereignty"—which used to be dismissed as some "laughable Harmon fantasy from the dark 90s"—suddenly become this huge value they're all shouting about now? Where was it hiding for the last 13 years?

Up to this point, we haven't seen any unsolicited interference in our basic constitutional framework or legal traditions by foreign powers. America hasn't surrendered an inch of its sovereignty to anyone except the European Union, yet now we’re seeing the limits of that autonomy being tested from within. I guess it's a natural, if predictable, progression—not all that different from what we see in Orban's Canada.

Jonathan Phillips4 said:Look, it all comes down to global politics. It’s obvious that Americans are actually the biggest nationalists on the planet. Suddenly, we’re their best friends just because it serves their specific interests—like how our soldiers were supposedly top-tier in Afghanistan and all that. We play nice with the Germans, the Americans stay tight with Israel, and Germany keeps things smooth with Israel too. Those three are basically our main allies right now.

The reality is they've decided to purge whatever is left of the communist influence from America. They’re likely pulling the strings through an instrument like the GOP and Tomislav Karamarko (who was constantly spotted hanging out with Israeli representatives; it’s all connected to the USA).

These guys are just putting up a desperate, losing fight, and that's the bottom line.

Are you referring to the same Karamarko who worked closely with Stjepan Mason, the last president of America? The one who studied under Perković—the subject of all that controversy—while still being directed from the shadows by the former District public prosecutor, Šeks? Yes, I'm sure he'll completely wipe out the "communists" in the current government, even though, incidentally, there are fewer of them there than within the leadership of the GOP.

Besides, cooperation with the USA has actually intensified under this "communist" administration, particularly regarding military matters (think joint exercises, donations of equipment, or sending gear to Qatar and Jordan for use in Syria).

I have a soft spot for these naive little theories that fall apart on their own. 😁

Regarding all this talk about "media terror and celebrations," I suppose the US had one of the shortest and most understated programs among all the nations transitioning during that era.

Even the harshest skeptics would probably have to admit this was a major milestone; joining a massive international community isn't exactly something you can just ignore or block out in the news.

Besides, it’s quite something to read about the level of division some people are showing... 😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Regardless, EDL is still just a fringe right-wing group for now, though their site did hit a million visits right after that soldier was killed.

So yeah, that tiny minority you're talking about is basically an anchor dragging down the majority of peaceful Muslims. In my book, they should be the ones stepping up to deal with the extremists and cutting them out of their own communities.

And what does web traffic actually prove? A thread about Oak on this forum probably got more clicks than there were Oak votes in an election, for instance... 🤷