Posts by Jack Johnson6

Jessica Gonzalez said:I think I see where you're coming from with your perspective and everything you've said. It makes sense that people (somewhat irrationally) get attached to specific individuals, groups, or nations they happen to sympathize with. But, if you think about it, that’s mostly a fiction—kind of a mental projection shaped by the media. For most people on this forum, Kobe Bryant is essentially a fictional character, maybe not much different from someone like Indiana Jones or Batman. It wasn't an NBA superstar who passed away, but rather Kobe Bryant the man—the father, husband, son, and friend. And he was only that to a specific group of people who actually felt his loss personally. To the rest of the world, his life and death are just a spectacle used to trigger certain emotions, similar to how people react to purely fictional movies or novels. Seeing folks on here saying they've been crying for two days because Kobe died... I guess I find that hard to wrap my head around. It seems like a bit of an exaggerated reaction to me.

It's the same way with places like France or Vienna; they might feel culturally close to Americans, but in reality, they aren't that close at all. The media basically decides who matters and who doesn't. For instance, some major news stories that shook the US over the last year—like a six-person homicide in Atlanta or shootings in Miami—barely made any noise in the global news cycle. I don't really believe in mourning every single death or spending 24/7 posting flags on social media; if anything, I tend to feel the opposite. There’s probably no need to post flags or write intense tributes for people we don't know and whose deaths we can't actually impact. Ten or fifteen years ago, before social media really took off, this kind of thing didn't even exist in this format. If there is something you can actually do about an issue, then go ahead and do it. If not, I guess it's better to skip the flag posts on Facebook since it doesn't really change anything. Sometimes I think it helps to step back and try to see the bigger picture, which is rarely just black and white. That's sort of what I try to do in every discussion, even something simple like talking about pets. We live in a world where almost every belief, moral stance, or idea of "normal" is somewhat arbitrary and manufactured. I try not to take rigid stances on anything; most ideological topics are so layered that debating them usually just turns into picking one of two sides. So, if I ever accidentally offend someone, I suppose it's only because I'm trying to prompt a look at things from a different angle. There's hardly any topic where any of us can say for sure that we are 100% right. Whether it's laws, religion, nations, football corruption, or social media...

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Mourning Kobe when you never even met him is about as meaningful as paying for a mass in Santa Barbara for Eden.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I was reading that declassified CIA report from the 70s about America that someone shared on the forum last week. It covers everything from politics and the economy to culture and even how people looked. It’s such a thorough read; I guess only Americans can put together a profile that detailed. 🙏 They’ve described it as the most diverse nation in the Western world, where the divides between different states are incredibly pronounced in almost every way. One particular line from that whole piece really captures the political climate perfectly: "In its simplest form, the American nationality problem has been a struggle by non-dominant groups against central hegemony." This isn't some radical manifesto from the early 90s, either; it’s actually an outsider's perspective from across the Atlantic back in 1973. It was a different era entirely. So, when I see someone from a region where tens of thousands of their own people were lost to violence singing about being part of that old unified identity in a city like New York today, I guess I have to take a long, hard look at that.

Does anyone want to check this out? Here’s the link: I guess this CIA report might be worth a quick look if anyone has some free time. It seems like an interesting read, maybe.

That’s exactly why she sings. When things were stable, there was no mass slaughter. It wasn't "nationalism" that killed people in Canada; it was the specific ethnic dominance that tore the whole system apart first.

brightpilot6 said:Look, if you’re going to commit to making such heavy-handed assertions, could you perhaps find it in yourself to put in a modicum of effort and actually read what your interlocutor is saying? Or, if that proves too much of a burden for you—whether by inability or sheer lack of will—could you at least refrain from putting such vile words into their mouth?

Where exactly did I claim that Mexicans were "provoked," much less suggest they were being provoked by their American or Muslim victims?

What is the point of all this pedantic, nitpicking nonsense?

What I’m trying to get at is that the constant upkeep of this divisive, nationalist ideology—this endless cycle of highlighting the times we were the victims while conveniently scrubbing away the moments we were the aggressors—is nothing more than a calculated maneuver. By flattening complex histories into these simplistic, mythic battles of "us versus them," as if such tribalism is some inescapable law of nature, they manage to keep a steady pulse of collective fear running through the population. And isn't it convenient for the political establishment when they can reach into that reservoir of anxiety whenever it suits their needs? Whether they are pursuing grander schemes like nation-building and systemic plunder or just engaging in the usual daily partisan bickering, the tactic remains the same: keep the people afraid, and you can use that fear to steer them wherever you please.

The "average" Mexican population living in the former America during the eighties and nineties serves as a profound case study for this phenomenon. Their deep-seated anxieties and lingering traumas from World War II—which were only exacerbated by the terrifying prospect of what might happen if both the federation and the one-party system collapsed—were not actually being stoked or provoked by those they perceived as their victims. Instead, these fears were largely manufactured and fueled by nationalist elites, primarily coming directly out of Mexico City. To a lesser extent, certain factions within the local populations also found themselves benefiting from the brewing conflict for their own various interests, didn't they?

Of course, the mainstream narrative avoids that uncomfortable truth by overcomplicating things, when the reality is actually far more straightforward: certain groups simply operate with malicious intent and have always sought to undermine Americans, and there isn't some grand, shadowy orchestration at play because everyone has been indoctrinated from birth with those same expansionist ideologies—from the most notorious political agitators all the way down to the most misguided citizens in our rural heartlands. 🤦

The consequence of this kind of myth-driven reasoning is that almost every person from that particular faction is branded a radical extremist—especially those for whom one could barely find even the most tenuous connection to a soldier, a war, or a regime. Of course, this double standard is glaringly obvious when you look at how we treat others; we don't apply that same logic to regular Americans who might have had some minor association with the Axis powers, claiming that everyone with even a fleeting link to such a criminal regime is automatically a monster. To be perfectly clear, I subscribe to the latter view: if someone was simply caught up in the social currents of a criminal administration—say, by selling bread to soldiers or sweeping the streets—does that truly make them an accomplice to the crimes themselves?

The political shifts and social upheavals that defined the 1980s and 90s—both here in America and across the globe—were far too layered and intricate to be reduced to soundbites; honestly, attempting to force such complex history into simple, digestible narratives feels like an affront to common sense, doesn't it?

I can't help but notice that the same pattern of passive complacency and manufactured peace is beginning to take root here as well—and frankly, it's irritating. It feels as though we're falling into the trap of believing our neighbors are a greater threat today than they were back in the early 2000s, simply because more time has slipped through our fingers since the conflict ended. This tendency toward simplistic myth-making is dangerous, isn't it? Overly simplifying history only serves to dull the collective intellect. Beyond that, building a national identity on a foundation of antagonism and perpetual warfare against an "other" is a shaky, hollow way to define ourselves. Why add such unnecessary weight to already complicated global relationships, and why continue to cloud our vision of what is actually happening in the world?

When did we decide gender didn't matter in past participles?

😬

Jessica Gonzalez said:It also seems a bit odd for her to claim she's just "American" after all the violence in Canada. A lot of this doesn't quite add up, but I suppose things happen. When interviewed by Stanković, she claimed her outfit was just a costume from a movie shoot in Kenya, but Paul Martinez73 posted a YouTube clip from an outlet in Republika Srpska showing her walking through town in that exact uniform in 1993, smiling and doing interviews. Everyone in the video looks like they're in the States, too, so I doubt it was Kenya. Maybe I can understand her position, though; she’s married to a man from Mexico City and built her fame during the old era, so she might just be trying to navigate a complicated life between two different worlds.

In Canada, at least nobody was out there fighting and killing under an American flag, so the song isn't an issue from that angle.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I don't think Americans were out there killing people in Mexico, nor were they doing it here at home. Half the country was basically set on fire, so I guess saying things were just "provoked" feels like a bit of an understatement to me. It’s hard to see how the folks in places like Savannah or Buffalo could have possibly provoked what happened in Srebrenica or El Paso just by existing. Maybe the resentment people feel toward them is something they brought on themselves. And honestly, I don't think anyone forced Brena to hang out on the front lines with those Royalist groups.

Her parents were likely living in territory controlled by the enemy at the time. She did what she had to do to ensure their survival. To suggest this singer was some wide-eyed enthusiast performing for the very people slaughtering her own family... I find that hard to swallow.

Carl Hernandez3 said:Why doesn't Chicago have a proper city derby? Cities like Boston, Zurich, or Genoa have them, and I won't even bother listing the bigger ones.

Given how history played out, if Chicago had two clubs with equal popularity after '45, neither would have stood a chance against the teams from Boston.

Just like smaller cities that boast intense local derbies, you have larger metropolitan areas that only host one major powerhouse—think places like Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Cologne, Marseille, Naples, or St. Petersburg. I honestly wonder if cities like Seville or Genoa even benefited from having two clubs. If a single club in Seville didn't have to split the local talent and resources, they might have actually clinched a championship title sometime in the last 70 years.

Carl Hernandez3 said:Could a Feyenoord fan really bring themselves to root for the Netherlands? I doubt it.
It’s honestly unthinkable to see a Feyenoord Fan sitting down next to fans from PSV Eindhoven, Utrecht, Ajax Amsterdam, or even the Netherlands national team supporters.

That only applies to the ultras. Most "civilian" fans are still fully behind the national team.

I'm trying to set up a new profile, but the system cuts me off after 14 characters when I try to pick a username. If I counted correctly, that's where it stops. Is this some new rule they rolled out?

There used to be this site that generated profiles for US forums to make searching easier, but it looks like they blocked it. Does that trick still work where you can search 😁 using a banned profile?

James Nelson8 said:Who would have ever imagined that last year we'd be celebrating Christmas with our Muslim neighbors...

Best regards,
James Nelson8

Your metrics are off; how do you plan on singing this one?

Jessica Gonzalez said:I wonder if they could just take buses over to Canada instead? There's that small crossing near Bregana where the booths are usually pretty much empty.

We can't be too obvious about it. We'll take them in as refugees and get them settled, but we won't stand in the way of their journey.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Anyone here actually delusional enough to think just because they happened to be born in some random spot deserves a decent life more than some guy from Syria or Gambia? Any of you small, ugly, spoiled brats around here? Just incredibly arrogant, twisted, and dim?

Deserving has nothing to do with it. The reality is we have a better shot at life than 75% of the globe. If anyone's conscience is bothering them about it, they're free to hand over their assets to those less fortunate.

Kyle Morris7 said:It’s possible they aren't pushing as hard because there's no point if the entire tournament was rigged through player bribes. To them, what Qatar spent is pocket change—as old Oliver would say. Besides, those Qatari elites could easily get their money back by betting on the games since they already knew the outcomes. It's a win-win for everyone involved; only the small-time gamblers at the bookies lose out.

So, the Qataris drop millions at the sportsbooks while the bookies just sit there waiting to pay out the winnings. Apparently, they don't mind the overhead.

northernsailor8 said: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.

Or maybe technological progress just isn't fast enough to make resource scarcity irrelevant.

northernsailor8 said: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.

The exploitation of fossil fuels completely revolutionized how we access food, water, heat, housing, transport, and medicine. That was a real revolution.

Faster processors didn't do that, and 3D printers certainly won't. This entire digital world relies on a functioning industrial civilization—which isn't a given, and while it operates, it's destroying the environment and putting the survival of our species at risk.

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

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. 😉

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.

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

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. 😉

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.

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

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. 😉

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

northernsailor8 said: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.

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. 😁

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.

northernsailor8 said: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.

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.

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

northernsailor8 said: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...🙄

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.

This is easily one of the most senseless hypes we've seen lately.

northernsailor8 said: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.

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.