Zippy @ Zippy @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

771

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well when you invade a country then threaten nukes it certainly shows Russian aggression as you say.

A good BJ usually includes a good handy. If you like the latter alone then a BJ should just be that much better.

I tend to agree with you. The one exception I find is that when there is a single narrator, it seems bit off when they voice the opposite sex.

Now I am depressed about all that list time I can never get back.

I choose to not die.

First I will say the culture series is one of favorite books. But I would start by suggesting a post scarcity society would be difficult in the limited size of our solar system. The main reason being resource theory. Like animals with unlimited food, they will grow in population untill there no longer excess food. Humans likely would do the same until there again is a limit of resources and things develop value. Ie. There is a limit of ocean front property thus we will make a reason to toil to better ourselves and get the best view.

But that diverges somewhat from the question you ask. Could we be happy in such a society if it could exsist? If we bring up the culture series, nearly every character in those books have purpose. Actually great purpose in that often they are doing some deed to better humanity. So it is hard to really use that as an example. So the question then becomes could a regular person be fully happy be having all their needs met and not having to do anything? I rather think of the hedonism bot in Futurama. He does nothing all day but all his needs are met. He has to expend zero energy. To me that seems quite depressing. I would rather be doing something to better myself and overall other people but in a post scarcity society there is nothing physically anyone would need thus there would be little I can contribute. Now could there be a true post scarcity society? I suggest not While money should not exsist, there will still be currency. That will be in the form of fame or talent or power. Creative people will be in demand and trade that for favors. Actors same in that they will gain favor. People in power will use their influence to have access to interests that others may not. But these people would be the minority. The majority of people always will be your average Joe. Will they be happy just comfortable exsisting? Honestly I really don't know. Maybe we can evolve to that.

I will bring up one other point. In the history of humanity, during times of great difficulties are also the times when humans evolved the fastest. Could the opposite occur? If we have all our physical need met, might our overall intelligence decrease. I suspect it might. Then again, might it be better to be dumb and happy than intelligent and depressed?

For me I agree. But you get use to what you grew up with.

If all you drank was the alternative, you likely would think dairy is not so good.

Anyone heard of innocent till proven guilty? Secondly you fine with heavy handed tactics? On a child no less?

I never smoked for any length. What everyone says is pretty much correct. I did occasionally take a few puffs when I was younger. Did give you a bit of a short rush but also could make you feel bit gross after.

Nasty habit though and seriously hard to break.

They can go to the boys home. They can have the boy brought back to an office. In the classroom of an adolescent is ridiculous. Was there is a clear and present danger.

Unless you think this kid will make a run for it, then it can take place with less publicity. Did you think he will be leaving country?

Asking you which movie you would rapidly come to extremely hate the least.

Lol

You might as well be out of business if you're result comes up on the second page of Google. :)

Some comedian said that in a comedic way IIRC. It kind of stuck with me and definately holds some truth. No one clicks on the second page unless they are desperate.

Real question. What information could he provide that would be of real value? Inside policy but I suspect if the policy makers knew he was spilling the beans, they would adjust as needed.

Technical information? I doubt he barely knows how to use a smart phone much less give details on a f35.

I would be curious what the intelligence community would consider high risk if a past president flipped.

The world is burning. Too much plastic in the ocean. Serious war in Europe. And whitelist/blacklist is somehow a concern. We are doomed.

You don't need a purpose and in fact most of the purpose people identify with are rather unnecessary for lack of better word. But people without some feeling of purpose are definately more prone to depression. Countries like Mexico should be less happy being people have far less wealth and have to work harder but the opposite it true. I find people are overall more happy and content. Now I would normal discount my experiences as being limited but if you look at the suicide rate of say the US to Mexico, the US has 4 times the rate.

This is actually true for nearly every developed to developing nations and I think speaks a great deal about human nature.

Thanks for the reference. I couldn't recall exactly how it was explained. Certainly most sci-fi requires you to suspend belief and that is fine. Often there are technologies employed to make a movie interesting. Technologies that are very unlikely to be possible.

In the Matrix, everyone was in a virtual reality and as you quoted, they could have entirely made up physics as we know it. Possibly a perpetual motion machine is viable in the real universe and that is the belief you need to suspend. Which again is fine But it is such a weak minor plot. If that were possible, why use humans? It should be possible with some algae slurry or by mechanical methods or as said, just use animals. Non if them would be a threat. In other words, what makes humans so unique that only they alone can fill this function?

As someone said earlier, the books suggested the computers wanted the processing power of the human brain. That is a fairly easy concept to explain, is an item unique to humans alone and actually in a far future society, might be something that is truely possible. It hardly required you to even suspend belief. Not sure why they didn't go with that.

Drive in theaters rocked. Miss them.

It is fine to watch an entertaining movie as long as you do not think fiction as fact? Take Chernobyl. It was nearly all fiction yet people bring it up all the time.

Could you put a common after dead to make it less ambiguous?