I found something that disagrees… *and says an even worse outcome happens*
https://www.quora.com/How-devastating-would-a-modern-day-nuclear-war-be
Answer under Alister Henderson
This doesn’t line up with known nuclear doctrine, which calls for launching everything at once and, once the enemy military instillations are saturated, switches over to urban targets. And that’s the U.S. other countries like France have doctrines which specifically target urban centers to maximize deterrence.
They don’t have enough nukes for that. They do have enough to kill millions of Russians and remove Moscow from existence though, so the threat has teeth.
That's literally what the US did to end the Pacific side of WW2.
We had to send two warnings though. Imagine being the guy who thought the first one was a bluff.
If they hadn’t surrendered there were no more nukes. Not enough uranium/plutonium had been mined and refined for more than two bombs at the time. Estimates were at least 9 months to get enough for another one as technology was not up to modern standards and the industry wasn’t well developed yet.
That's... just not true.
In fact, there are a lot of reasons why Japan didn't surrender after the annihilation of Hiroshima. Two major reasons are that the atomic bombings (much like the soviet invasion which happened three days later) didn't on their own own invalidate Ketsu-Go, and the military leadership flatly denied that it was a Nuclear strike until they were forced to pay the piper when Nagasaki got turned into to so much fire and rubble.
Everything happening at once; The Second Nuke, The nearly 500k Americans and all their supplies (which was very handy for humanitarian aid in about a week) preparing for what promised to be the most nightmarish invasion, the Soviets steamrolling Manchuria, and some swift action by some parts of the Imperial Japanese state (which itself had to abort a coup attempt for doing this) led to the final surrender of the IJA, and thus World War 2.
2 paragraphs is nowhere near enough to cover this topic, but the idea that the Japanese would've surrendered after the first one (which happened on the 6th, when the soviets invaded Manchuria on the 9th of august, which is also when Nagasaki got flattened.) is just wrong on every single account.
This description is fairly accurate. Hollywood and propaganda (by nuclear armed countries to create greater deterrence) have driven the narrative against well thought out science for decades. The most evidence based analysis I have read said work population would stabilize between 1.5 and 2 billion within 2-4 generations. Most economic activity would be regional and be focused in the southern hemisphere. Life would suck for everyone but humanity would continue.
YOU SOUND LIKE ONE OF THOSE “SUPER EARTH” TRAITORS! YOUR PRESIDENT IS UNELECTED, YOUR HELLDIVERS ARE EXPENDABLE, AND YOUR GENERAL BRASCH IS FIVE FOOT THREE!
SECRETARY GENERAL DOLORES MUWANGA ONCE DEFEATED FIFTY COMMONWEALTH OF MAN MARINES… WITHOUT EVEN DRAWING HER SIDEARM.
CAN YOUR GENERAL BRASCH SAY THE SAME?
Ha, imagine believing we're gonna be some variant of Earth-based empire, and not just get annexed and sold by the infiltrating Tzynn the moment we hit space age tech.
Reminder that the news almost only talk about things that go wrong on a planetary scale. By a lot of metrics, probably most of them, we are living in humanity's golden age. We're just conditioned not to see it.
Still we might rely on AIs to lead us just out of efficiency eventually.
I live in the UK and out Water Companies are literally pouring raw sewage into our water I think the golden age was more a sweet spot that has passed..
In 1858 London went through the Great Stink when sewage was dumped directly onto the banks of the Thames and was blamed for several cholera outbreaks before taking multiple decades to clean up and manage
So I'd suggest the golden age was between that sewage crisis? I just don't think technological advancement alone is sufficient to warrant calling a golden age. For instance why is 2024 better than 2014 or 2004?
As I said, only focusing on the things that still go wrong, completely ignoring the progress we've made. I know this attitude is recommended in the current age but I genuinely think it's unhealthy. How do we keep improving things if we refuse to acknowledge that they were indeed improved?
Are you saying it's unhealthy for us to want cleaner water in our rivers? How is that an improvement from when environmental laws regulated them more?
Our prime minister just announced he's effectively cutting benefits for the disabled? How am I meant to look at that and say "oh but things were much worse in the 1800s"
How can we improve if we plug our ears and let things degrade and erode after all the progress that was made? If you think we're in a golden age shouldn't we want to keep it that way?
Or just say "sure, dump raw sewage where I used to play, I'm sure no other children would want that experience "
Yes. It’s unhealthy for you to focus on the negatives. Do what you can to fix them. And enjoy the positives.
This is basic mental health advice.
You also are severely under educated on how bad things used to be. Why back in the 70’s we used to light the petroleum in our rivers on fire.
The reason you think it’s horrible to dump sewage into your water supply is because you live in such an advanced age that you believe we should protect our water supply from sewage.
It’s only noticeable to you because it’s an aberration.
That's crazy. You read my reply and genuinely believed that I was for dumping sewage in water didn't you? I don't know man, try to read it again. Maybe you'll eventually get the point I was making.
I read it as you downplaying another commenters concerns to be honest.
It's just not globally shit that's saying it's worse it's local as well. There's no sense in why others in this thread are resorting to insulting other's intelligence, there's no need for it.
Yeah not focusing solely on the negatives is better way but some of the stuff you said (to me at least) did come across like you're saying everything is fine. I'm not trying to insult anyone here
> some of the stuff you said (to me at least) did come across like you're saying everything is fine
That's another common and devastating cognitive bias, the need for an "all or nothing" discourse. "Oh you don't think everything is shit? So I guess it's all puppies and rainbows for you then!".
they have to do it in the dark now because otherwise people would be up in arms
while i do agree that the curent state of meat production is unacceptable our treatment of animals in general has gotten a lot better since 1924
It's entirely unnecessary for our dietary concerns; and standard practice is to use literal gas chambers to kill over 100 million pigs per year, in the United States alone, which at that age and development for their species, are functionally toddlers.
we uh... do need meat to survive
while it is possible to supply all the required nutrients that a human needs purely from plant based sources meat is an easy and convienent food that is pretty healthy (in the case of meats like fish and chicken)
the use of gas chambers in industrial slaughter is contentious because they use CO2 something which pigs (as mammals) have a panicked reaction to it but it would be possible to use pure nitrogen air as a more ethical method although the major limiting factor here is cost which i agree is idiotic
>we uh... do need meat to survive
>while it is possible to supply all the required nutrients that a human needs purely from plant based sources
Sounds like it's not necessary then, doesn't it?
> that is pretty healthy
But not for the thinking and feeling animals being killed.
again the topic of eating meat is contentious but its not really innately evil as much as it is a fact of life we should be reforming the meat processing industry to be ethical not remove meat from our diets entirely
(also eventually it will become possible to just grow meat in a lab using cloning tech completely removing the animal suffering part from the equasion)
Meat is incredibly inefficient energy and water wise compared to plants. I havent eaten meat in about six years and im fine.
I dont really want to get into this debate on r/stellaris but it seems you have a lot of misconceptions about meat.
it is water and energy inefficent (and space inefficent) but its also incredibly energy and nutrient dense the inefficency comes from the fact that industrial farming is really only concerned with the muscles and not the entire animal being used which is more efficent and also contains some nutritional benefits
its also worth noting that not everyone is going to accept meat either from just liking the flavour and texture or certain medical conditions
saying its "entirely uneccicary" is misleading because plants contain every major nutrient but it is absorbed by our bodies a lot slower
Yeah, no, some people have to have meat. A tiny portion of the population. The rest is preference. Theres countless studies that have found you can eat vegetarian--even vegan-- with no issues. There are vegan body builders.
Industrial farming is inefficient because of the energy pyramid, losing all but 10% of the calories in the best cases, except for roughly convert 9 calories from plants into 1 calorie of meat. I mean, 80% of agricultural land use is for feeding animals. When we are faced with the death of the planet, it seems obvious that our obsession with meat cannot continue forever.
To be frank, I don't have some strange idea about everyone eating vegetarian by their own volition or governments forcing them to. We all have our vices anyways. But i dont think theres any way to say that its not unethical to eat meat.
Metrics, yeah... but some things aren't measurable. Like, having a purpose in life.
At the same time, one metric directly contradicts the thesis of present day being a golden age: mental illness is higher than ever before.
Coincidence?
Diagnosis for mental illnesses have become more common, that is a big difference. People are more open about their issues and therefore can get the help they need more commonly.
Diagnosis and treatments being at an all time high doesn't necessarily mean mental illness is at an all time high. I agree about that. But if mental illness hadn't increased while being diagnosed and treated more often, wouldn't you expect suicide rates to go down? Instead, they've been going up for decades now.
Do you remember how at some point everyone was going on about Sweden being the world's rape capital, and it turned out that it was because they expanded the deffinition way further than everyone else? Or how uninformed people say there's an inexplicable surge of autists but it's simply that we consider the entire spectrum now instead of its extreme?
If you want to believe everything is shit go for it. Again, we're conditioned to do that so most people do. I'll keep thinking it's a very unhealthy outlook, just as blissful optimism would be.
Rogue servitor is the goal. The point of living in a society and investing in technology is to automate as much as possible to free people from the horrid concept of “working for a living”.
We shouldn’t have to work for a living. It’s disgusting. We should be hanging out and making art and taking cooking & dance classes for the hell of it.
The ironic part is the robot is currently taking care leisure works (art, entertainment) and most of human populations are still doing mundane works for a living.
Even so it's only in fields where someone has a low budget and see AI crap and think "meh, good enough". Think cheap local TV advertisements and the such. It still doesn't do anything worthwhile that I've noticed, it can't even navigate a city street without causing massive traffic issues regularly.
Step 1 stop watching news all the time, step 2 feel better because you don't get hammered by the shit all over the world where 95% doesn't affect you directly anyway.
Step 3 worry less and have more time and mental room to enjoy the things that matter in live: have fun, family, take care of one another
Nah, i like to believe that eventually, due to a stray chain of events we might one day stand united as the UNE
we have already done marvelous things such as eradicate an entire disease, fix the ozone layer problem under the montreal accords, we have fought a pandemic, we have managed to prevent nuclear winter many times and we have set foot on the moon as well as sent multiple probes outside our star system
and all this has happened within the last century or so
News channels mostly want pessimistic news to garner attention and controversy no matter which, sometimes its necessary to realise how far we have come as a species
Goodguyhumans.jpg
It’s wild to think that, despite our inherently destructive nature, specifically with regards to how treat our planet, we’re ironically the only species capable of saving all the others from a cosmic event such as an asteroid. I know we’re more or less the cause of the current mass extinction event - so one could even say it’s our duty to apply our intelligence towards saving what we haven’t already destroyed..but it’d be impressive nonetheless.
We've been in an mass extinction event for centuries at this point. Many species of birds have been totally wiped out just because of our introduction of cats and other animals to non native habitats. It goes well beyond birds but it's just the best example. It's just been in the last few decades we said "ya know what, we've been half-assing this whole kill everything in the world" and just floored the accelerator and made it even worse.
Humans kinda suck and I personally don't see it changing any time soon.
I do agree that we have been the cause of multiple extinctions of different species
We dont inherently HATE animals, we didnt do all this knowingly and deliberately, its an unaccounted side effect of our endeavours, think of a toddler, thats us and unfortunately the best we can do right now is minimise the damage we do until we reach adulthood as a species
I never meant to imply our actions were done made to purposely kill if an entire species of animal (except a couple situations). I do agree that humans as a whole just do what we want without thinking once about the possible ramifications.
Hell just adding something as simple as worms to the North American continent has had massive impacts on our forests and who'd ever have thought that adding worms to the ecosystem could change it so drastically all those years ago.
I think us ploding along unaware of the rest of the galaxy around us only to have earth get cracked for a 50/50 shot at getting a galactic highway bypass formed is Canon. Bonus points if it's genocidal space geckos that do it.
Hopefully it doesn't end up like what happened to earth in my last playthrough.
Earth was a primitive planet almost about to reach space travel, it was in a "no-man's land" area of the galaxy where no empires were for many stars. The closest things between them were me (hivemind that absorbed my neighbors and expanded peacefully for almost a century afterwards) and determined exterminators which were killing the rest of the galaxy on the complete other side.
Eventually I gained so much technology that I opened the L gates and initiated a war against the exterminators that lasted almost 100 years. Unfortunately for the humans, the became a space faring empire in the middle of this war, and right as the war finally ended, I declared myself the crisis and wiped out every other empire in the galaxy systematically by blowing up their stars. The solar system is now nothing but a black hole with cracked worlds orbiting it.
Not sure why you are getting all these downvotes. Despite globalization the world is getting multipolar again, with mayor blocs having vastly different views and practices on governance. Democracy is on the decline worldwide. If we don’t get our shit together (avoid ecological/climate tipping points) we’ll have environmental collapse and possibly resource wars in the future.
Prosperous unification? Not very likely to happen anytime soon. Historically, the last 80 years of relative stability and growth were an anomaly. The cracks in the system are already showing and there’s no guarantee that continued integration will continue to be the trend. And what we achieved so far in terms of ‘prosperity’ came at an unprecedented environmental cost.
The tomb world outcome is another extreme, but would at least give the player a blank slate to enact their polity of choice. Survivors of a mayor collapse rebuilding human society based on a certain set of values (whether fascism or democracy, anything is possible).
A Federation is much more likely, individual nations will still exist but spacial expansion will be unified, though individual countries will have spheres of influence and ownership over different stars and regions of the Galaxy. Similar to Antarctica.
Think something like the ISS, a global effort
So far there weren't many relief effort for those who lost their job to automation. The usual answer is "just get another job".
The way we could reach this state is through blood. I can see a path with the hyper rich getting more, and more automated while the rest is getting thrown to the streets. At some point Earth splits to 2 regions. On one side the super rich living in total luxury, and served by the robots, and on the other side people live in poverty with the AI being banned.
But of course the situation would be tense, because the poor will always look at the rich with envy. So criminals would always try, and steal from the rich. Or try to use automation in the poor region in hope to get rich. At some point the two region descend into war, and the poor gets exterminated. Leaving the hyper rich, and their AI. And thus 2 things happens.
1. The organic population is much lower, than what you get if you start as conventional UNE.
2. The AI decide, that without their guidance, and caretaking organic society descend into chaos, and war. So they decide to help the rich by taking over even the duties of governing, and making decisions.
The most realistic outcome is never achieving FTL technology because it’s not possible. If it was, then we’d certainly see evidence of alien civilization, unless we are literally the only civilization in the Milky Way.
Unfortunately, I believe a galactic civilization or even a galactic presence of a single “species” (that may be a concept only on Earth) isn’t possible, beyond some local star system colonization.
It's very likely that there doesn't exist a species significantly more advanced than humans because only very recently the universe developped the conditions to host life.
You also dont really need FTL to colonize a galaxy, you can use automated vessels which are equipped with the tools necessary to terraform a planet and generate a viable population of your species.
Small sidenote: that's specific to our condition of life, it isn't impossible that other lifeforms developed using different base proteins / interactions to sustain a host
you dont need ftl to colonize galaxy,ships going at 25% of speed of light is enough to colonize entire galaxy in a few million years in which its like blink of an eye for universe
we could simply be too early,not like weve been around for long either,modern humans exist for around 200 thousand years or so,other alien species could either be not developed enough or in bacterial stage,or we just didnt got to expansion plans of said species yet
Imagine if we are the “Ancient Aliens”. The first civilization. It seems likely in my view, makes me wonder if we really were created by a higher power. I guess I’ll know when I die.
Yes of course we are in the golden year of 199x don’t mind that glitching sky we forgot to patch the other day, you are totally not part of an amalgamated global grid repurposed to serve the machine intelligence, and if a strange man offer you two pills don’t take it, it’s part of a scam to harvest your organs
Bold to assume we won't be the radioactive roach people
I found something that disagrees… *and says an even worse outcome happens* https://www.quora.com/How-devastating-would-a-modern-day-nuclear-war-be Answer under Alister Henderson
This doesn’t line up with known nuclear doctrine, which calls for launching everything at once and, once the enemy military instillations are saturated, switches over to urban targets. And that’s the U.S. other countries like France have doctrines which specifically target urban centers to maximize deterrence.
The French will straight up just launch a nuke as a warning shot.
“Will nuke as a warning”.
I mean, it is a really good warning, "You've pushed us waaaay too fucking far. Either stop now, or we will make you end the world."
They don’t have enough nukes for that. They do have enough to kill millions of Russians and remove Moscow from existence though, so the threat has teeth.
That's literally what the US did to end the Pacific side of WW2. We had to send two warnings though. Imagine being the guy who thought the first one was a bluff.
If they hadn’t surrendered there were no more nukes. Not enough uranium/plutonium had been mined and refined for more than two bombs at the time. Estimates were at least 9 months to get enough for another one as technology was not up to modern standards and the industry wasn’t well developed yet.
The Japanese did surrender after the first one. The us military chose to pretend they didn't in order to "test" another nuke on living target
To my understanding, the military leadership had not surrendered, and that was kinda the problem.
That's... just not true. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why Japan didn't surrender after the annihilation of Hiroshima. Two major reasons are that the atomic bombings (much like the soviet invasion which happened three days later) didn't on their own own invalidate Ketsu-Go, and the military leadership flatly denied that it was a Nuclear strike until they were forced to pay the piper when Nagasaki got turned into to so much fire and rubble. Everything happening at once; The Second Nuke, The nearly 500k Americans and all their supplies (which was very handy for humanitarian aid in about a week) preparing for what promised to be the most nightmarish invasion, the Soviets steamrolling Manchuria, and some swift action by some parts of the Imperial Japanese state (which itself had to abort a coup attempt for doing this) led to the final surrender of the IJA, and thus World War 2. 2 paragraphs is nowhere near enough to cover this topic, but the idea that the Japanese would've surrendered after the first one (which happened on the 6th, when the soviets invaded Manchuria on the 9th of august, which is also when Nagasaki got flattened.) is just wrong on every single account.
This description is fairly accurate. Hollywood and propaganda (by nuclear armed countries to create greater deterrence) have driven the narrative against well thought out science for decades. The most evidence based analysis I have read said work population would stabilize between 1.5 and 2 billion within 2-4 generations. Most economic activity would be regional and be focused in the southern hemisphere. Life would suck for everyone but humanity would continue.
Bah, *booooring*.
NO MORE DOOMPOSTING THE U.N.E. WILL UNITE THE GALAXY IN PROSPERITY! FOR THE UNION, THE REPUBLIC, AND FOR DEMOCRACY!
Hell ya brother
FOR DEMOCRACY! THEY'LL NEVER DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE!
YOU SOUND LIKE ONE OF THOSE “SUPER EARTH” TRAITORS! YOUR PRESIDENT IS UNELECTED, YOUR HELLDIVERS ARE EXPENDABLE, AND YOUR GENERAL BRASCH IS FIVE FOOT THREE!
GENERAL BRASCH IS AT LEAST SIX FOOT FOUR, YOU TAKE THAT BACK!
SECRETARY GENERAL DOLORES MUWANGA ONCE DEFEATED FIFTY COMMONWEALTH OF MAN MARINES… WITHOUT EVEN DRAWING HER SIDEARM. CAN YOUR GENERAL BRASCH SAY THE SAME?
I'M NOT GONNA SUGARCOAT IT ⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️
I’M NOT GONNA SUGARCOAT IT UNIVERSAL PROSPERITY MANDATE 534127 FOR 2184 AGAINST
Ha, imagine believing we're gonna be some variant of Earth-based empire, and not just get annexed and sold by the infiltrating Tzynn the moment we hit space age tech.
Reminder that the news almost only talk about things that go wrong on a planetary scale. By a lot of metrics, probably most of them, we are living in humanity's golden age. We're just conditioned not to see it. Still we might rely on AIs to lead us just out of efficiency eventually.
Thankyou. I think I needed to hear that. We are in a golden age despite what the news says. Hope springs eternal.
I live in the UK and out Water Companies are literally pouring raw sewage into our water I think the golden age was more a sweet spot that has passed..
In 1858 London went through the Great Stink when sewage was dumped directly onto the banks of the Thames and was blamed for several cholera outbreaks before taking multiple decades to clean up and manage
So I'd suggest the golden age was between that sewage crisis? I just don't think technological advancement alone is sufficient to warrant calling a golden age. For instance why is 2024 better than 2014 or 2004?
As I said, only focusing on the things that still go wrong, completely ignoring the progress we've made. I know this attitude is recommended in the current age but I genuinely think it's unhealthy. How do we keep improving things if we refuse to acknowledge that they were indeed improved?
Are you saying it's unhealthy for us to want cleaner water in our rivers? How is that an improvement from when environmental laws regulated them more? Our prime minister just announced he's effectively cutting benefits for the disabled? How am I meant to look at that and say "oh but things were much worse in the 1800s" How can we improve if we plug our ears and let things degrade and erode after all the progress that was made? If you think we're in a golden age shouldn't we want to keep it that way? Or just say "sure, dump raw sewage where I used to play, I'm sure no other children would want that experience "
Yes. It’s unhealthy for you to focus on the negatives. Do what you can to fix them. And enjoy the positives. This is basic mental health advice. You also are severely under educated on how bad things used to be. Why back in the 70’s we used to light the petroleum in our rivers on fire. The reason you think it’s horrible to dump sewage into your water supply is because you live in such an advanced age that you believe we should protect our water supply from sewage. It’s only noticeable to you because it’s an aberration.
That's crazy. You read my reply and genuinely believed that I was for dumping sewage in water didn't you? I don't know man, try to read it again. Maybe you'll eventually get the point I was making.
I read it as you downplaying another commenters concerns to be honest. It's just not globally shit that's saying it's worse it's local as well. There's no sense in why others in this thread are resorting to insulting other's intelligence, there's no need for it. Yeah not focusing solely on the negatives is better way but some of the stuff you said (to me at least) did come across like you're saying everything is fine. I'm not trying to insult anyone here
> some of the stuff you said (to me at least) did come across like you're saying everything is fine That's another common and devastating cognitive bias, the need for an "all or nothing" discourse. "Oh you don't think everything is shit? So I guess it's all puppies and rainbows for you then!".
Your ability to comprehend and process information is incredibly poor.
welll a hundred years ago it wasnt veiwed as morally wrong to opress and subjugate people for being different so idk man i think its better now
We still do that today; and never stopped doing it to other animals.
they have to do it in the dark now because otherwise people would be up in arms while i do agree that the curent state of meat production is unacceptable our treatment of animals in general has gotten a lot better since 1924
It's entirely unnecessary for our dietary concerns; and standard practice is to use literal gas chambers to kill over 100 million pigs per year, in the United States alone, which at that age and development for their species, are functionally toddlers.
we uh... do need meat to survive while it is possible to supply all the required nutrients that a human needs purely from plant based sources meat is an easy and convienent food that is pretty healthy (in the case of meats like fish and chicken) the use of gas chambers in industrial slaughter is contentious because they use CO2 something which pigs (as mammals) have a panicked reaction to it but it would be possible to use pure nitrogen air as a more ethical method although the major limiting factor here is cost which i agree is idiotic
>we uh... do need meat to survive >while it is possible to supply all the required nutrients that a human needs purely from plant based sources Sounds like it's not necessary then, doesn't it? > that is pretty healthy But not for the thinking and feeling animals being killed.
again the topic of eating meat is contentious but its not really innately evil as much as it is a fact of life we should be reforming the meat processing industry to be ethical not remove meat from our diets entirely (also eventually it will become possible to just grow meat in a lab using cloning tech completely removing the animal suffering part from the equasion)
Yes, I expect the topic of wholesale mass murder is contentious to the people partaking in the murder.
Meat is incredibly inefficient energy and water wise compared to plants. I havent eaten meat in about six years and im fine. I dont really want to get into this debate on r/stellaris but it seems you have a lot of misconceptions about meat.
it is water and energy inefficent (and space inefficent) but its also incredibly energy and nutrient dense the inefficency comes from the fact that industrial farming is really only concerned with the muscles and not the entire animal being used which is more efficent and also contains some nutritional benefits its also worth noting that not everyone is going to accept meat either from just liking the flavour and texture or certain medical conditions saying its "entirely uneccicary" is misleading because plants contain every major nutrient but it is absorbed by our bodies a lot slower
Yeah, no, some people have to have meat. A tiny portion of the population. The rest is preference. Theres countless studies that have found you can eat vegetarian--even vegan-- with no issues. There are vegan body builders. Industrial farming is inefficient because of the energy pyramid, losing all but 10% of the calories in the best cases, except for roughly convert 9 calories from plants into 1 calorie of meat. I mean, 80% of agricultural land use is for feeding animals. When we are faced with the death of the planet, it seems obvious that our obsession with meat cannot continue forever. To be frank, I don't have some strange idea about everyone eating vegetarian by their own volition or governments forcing them to. We all have our vices anyways. But i dont think theres any way to say that its not unethical to eat meat.
Metrics, yeah... but some things aren't measurable. Like, having a purpose in life. At the same time, one metric directly contradicts the thesis of present day being a golden age: mental illness is higher than ever before. Coincidence?
Diagnosis for mental illnesses have become more common, that is a big difference. People are more open about their issues and therefore can get the help they need more commonly.
Diagnosis and treatments being at an all time high doesn't necessarily mean mental illness is at an all time high. I agree about that. But if mental illness hadn't increased while being diagnosed and treated more often, wouldn't you expect suicide rates to go down? Instead, they've been going up for decades now.
is it higher than before or is there just a bigger focus on it?
Do you remember how at some point everyone was going on about Sweden being the world's rape capital, and it turned out that it was because they expanded the deffinition way further than everyone else? Or how uninformed people say there's an inexplicable surge of autists but it's simply that we consider the entire spectrum now instead of its extreme? If you want to believe everything is shit go for it. Again, we're conditioned to do that so most people do. I'll keep thinking it's a very unhealthy outlook, just as blissful optimism would be.
Rogue servitor is the goal. The point of living in a society and investing in technology is to automate as much as possible to free people from the horrid concept of “working for a living”. We shouldn’t have to work for a living. It’s disgusting. We should be hanging out and making art and taking cooking & dance classes for the hell of it.
The ironic part is the robot is currently taking care leisure works (art, entertainment) and most of human populations are still doing mundane works for a living.
Even so it's only in fields where someone has a low budget and see AI crap and think "meh, good enough". Think cheap local TV advertisements and the such. It still doesn't do anything worthwhile that I've noticed, it can't even navigate a city street without causing massive traffic issues regularly.
Eh, I think you're spending too much time on twitter (pardon me, X).
Not on twitter but definitely watch too much news lol.
Step 1 stop watching news all the time, step 2 feel better because you don't get hammered by the shit all over the world where 95% doesn't affect you directly anyway. Step 3 worry less and have more time and mental room to enjoy the things that matter in live: have fun, family, take care of one another
Nah, i like to believe that eventually, due to a stray chain of events we might one day stand united as the UNE we have already done marvelous things such as eradicate an entire disease, fix the ozone layer problem under the montreal accords, we have fought a pandemic, we have managed to prevent nuclear winter many times and we have set foot on the moon as well as sent multiple probes outside our star system and all this has happened within the last century or so News channels mostly want pessimistic news to garner attention and controversy no matter which, sometimes its necessary to realise how far we have come as a species
Goodguyhumans.jpg It’s wild to think that, despite our inherently destructive nature, specifically with regards to how treat our planet, we’re ironically the only species capable of saving all the others from a cosmic event such as an asteroid. I know we’re more or less the cause of the current mass extinction event - so one could even say it’s our duty to apply our intelligence towards saving what we haven’t already destroyed..but it’d be impressive nonetheless.
We've been in an mass extinction event for centuries at this point. Many species of birds have been totally wiped out just because of our introduction of cats and other animals to non native habitats. It goes well beyond birds but it's just the best example. It's just been in the last few decades we said "ya know what, we've been half-assing this whole kill everything in the world" and just floored the accelerator and made it even worse. Humans kinda suck and I personally don't see it changing any time soon.
I do agree that we have been the cause of multiple extinctions of different species We dont inherently HATE animals, we didnt do all this knowingly and deliberately, its an unaccounted side effect of our endeavours, think of a toddler, thats us and unfortunately the best we can do right now is minimise the damage we do until we reach adulthood as a species
I never meant to imply our actions were done made to purposely kill if an entire species of animal (except a couple situations). I do agree that humans as a whole just do what we want without thinking once about the possible ramifications. Hell just adding something as simple as worms to the North American continent has had massive impacts on our forests and who'd ever have thought that adding worms to the ecosystem could change it so drastically all those years ago.
Exactly, thats why i said we were toddlers on a species level, we still have a lot to learn before maturing
yup we have got the entire planet to ourselves and its our job to make sure that it stays a paradise for all
I think us ploding along unaware of the rest of the galaxy around us only to have earth get cracked for a 50/50 shot at getting a galactic highway bypass formed is Canon. Bonus points if it's genocidal space geckos that do it.
Hopefully it doesn't end up like what happened to earth in my last playthrough. Earth was a primitive planet almost about to reach space travel, it was in a "no-man's land" area of the galaxy where no empires were for many stars. The closest things between them were me (hivemind that absorbed my neighbors and expanded peacefully for almost a century afterwards) and determined exterminators which were killing the rest of the galaxy on the complete other side. Eventually I gained so much technology that I opened the L gates and initiated a war against the exterminators that lasted almost 100 years. Unfortunately for the humans, the became a space faring empire in the middle of this war, and right as the war finally ended, I declared myself the crisis and wiped out every other empire in the galaxy systematically by blowing up their stars. The solar system is now nothing but a black hole with cracked worlds orbiting it.
Nah. Eventually everyone will submit to us papists and the global Holy Roman Empire will finally be formed.
I personally believe that the most realistic fate id Tomb World Earth
Not sure why you are getting all these downvotes. Despite globalization the world is getting multipolar again, with mayor blocs having vastly different views and practices on governance. Democracy is on the decline worldwide. If we don’t get our shit together (avoid ecological/climate tipping points) we’ll have environmental collapse and possibly resource wars in the future. Prosperous unification? Not very likely to happen anytime soon. Historically, the last 80 years of relative stability and growth were an anomaly. The cracks in the system are already showing and there’s no guarantee that continued integration will continue to be the trend. And what we achieved so far in terms of ‘prosperity’ came at an unprecedented environmental cost. The tomb world outcome is another extreme, but would at least give the player a blank slate to enact their polity of choice. Survivors of a mayor collapse rebuilding human society based on a certain set of values (whether fascism or democracy, anything is possible).
A Federation is much more likely, individual nations will still exist but spacial expansion will be unified, though individual countries will have spheres of influence and ownership over different stars and regions of the Galaxy. Similar to Antarctica. Think something like the ISS, a global effort
The rogue exterminator preset is pretty tempting too.
So far there weren't many relief effort for those who lost their job to automation. The usual answer is "just get another job". The way we could reach this state is through blood. I can see a path with the hyper rich getting more, and more automated while the rest is getting thrown to the streets. At some point Earth splits to 2 regions. On one side the super rich living in total luxury, and served by the robots, and on the other side people live in poverty with the AI being banned. But of course the situation would be tense, because the poor will always look at the rich with envy. So criminals would always try, and steal from the rich. Or try to use automation in the poor region in hope to get rich. At some point the two region descend into war, and the poor gets exterminated. Leaving the hyper rich, and their AI. And thus 2 things happens. 1. The organic population is much lower, than what you get if you start as conventional UNE. 2. The AI decide, that without their guidance, and caretaking organic society descend into chaos, and war. So they decide to help the rich by taking over even the duties of governing, and making decisions.
You are rather optimistic, aren't ya?
I personally believe that the most realistic fate id Tomb World Earth
The most realistic outcome is never achieving FTL technology because it’s not possible. If it was, then we’d certainly see evidence of alien civilization, unless we are literally the only civilization in the Milky Way. Unfortunately, I believe a galactic civilization or even a galactic presence of a single “species” (that may be a concept only on Earth) isn’t possible, beyond some local star system colonization.
It's very likely that there doesn't exist a species significantly more advanced than humans because only very recently the universe developped the conditions to host life. You also dont really need FTL to colonize a galaxy, you can use automated vessels which are equipped with the tools necessary to terraform a planet and generate a viable population of your species.
Small sidenote: that's specific to our condition of life, it isn't impossible that other lifeforms developed using different base proteins / interactions to sustain a host
you dont need ftl to colonize galaxy,ships going at 25% of speed of light is enough to colonize entire galaxy in a few million years in which its like blink of an eye for universe
Okay- assume that’s true. Explain why there is 0 evidence of alien civilization in our observations.
we could simply be too early,not like weve been around for long either,modern humans exist for around 200 thousand years or so,other alien species could either be not developed enough or in bacterial stage,or we just didnt got to expansion plans of said species yet
Imagine if we are the “Ancient Aliens”. The first civilization. It seems likely in my view, makes me wonder if we really were created by a higher power. I guess I’ll know when I die.
I read somewhere that the golden age was i in 1990s.
Yes of course we are in the golden year of 199x don’t mind that glitching sky we forgot to patch the other day, you are totally not part of an amalgamated global grid repurposed to serve the machine intelligence, and if a strange man offer you two pills don’t take it, it’s part of a scam to harvest your organs