our way of life can not survive technological advancement for this reason:

[latent aaaack]

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of technological advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will destroy humanity or close.

FACT: Given enough time and given continued technological advancement the probability approaches 100% that unforeseen consequences of technological advancement will kill the species.

The one solution to this would be the end of our way of life, meaning near complete abolition of individual privacy, access to information, and greatly increased authoritarianism in general.

So which is it -

1) will technology soon, luckily for us, simply stop advancing because there happens to be little left to invent,

2) will technology destroy our species,

3) or as unforeseen consequences of technological advances mount will nations turn authoritarian in order to safeguard society?

[Dragon]

Nothing like a false trichotomy first thing in the morning.

[A.A.Alfie]

Or
4. Whether the Snot monsters from galaxy x969pi eventually become so enamoured with our advancements they will invade, morph us into Simpsons clones and turn the earth into a cartoon sitcom.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of technological advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will destroy humanity or close.

FACT: Given enough time and given continued technological advancement the probability approaches 100% that unforeseen consequences of technological advancement will kill the species.

[snip]

That's ignoring the fact that each technological advance also improves the survival prospects of humanity.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of technological advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will destroy humanity or close.

No it didn't. Even though you've phrased it so vaguely as to be almost meaningless ("destroy humanity or close"? Counting near misses is classic confirmation bias), no such thing has been 'proved'.

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

FACT: Given enough time and given continued technological advancement the probability approaches 100% that unforeseen consequences of technological advancement will kill the species.

I think you've mis-spelled "SPECULATION:"

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

The one solution to this would be the end of our way of life, meaning near complete abolition of individual privacy, access to information, and greatly increased authoritarianism in general.

Why?

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

So which is it -

1) will technology soon, luckily for us, simply stop advancing because there happens to be little left to invent,

2) will technology destroy our species,

3) or as unforeseen consequences of technological advances mount will nations turn authoritarian in order to safeguard society?

I vote:

4) Bacon sandwiches.

Dave

[CriticalSock]

1) will technology soon, luckily for us, simply stop advancing because there happens to be little left to invent,

2) will technology destroy our species,

3) or as unforeseen consequences of technological advances mount will nations turn authoritarian in order to safeguard society?

4) will technology continue developing new ways to improve and extend our lives, leading us into an imminent techonological utopia?

5) Will mother nature finally come up with a virus which kills all life on the planet larger than a king charles spaniel

6) Will we develop the technology to track all of the thousands of near earth asteroids which are large enough to kill all of humanity and destroy those whose paths eventually intersect that of the earth?

This is fun!

[daSkeptic]

*releases the angry badger into the room*

[A.A.Alfie]

Originally Posted by daSkeptic

*releases the angry badger into the room*

Now you're being silly.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of technological advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will destroy humanity or close.

FACT: Given enough time and given continued technological advancement the probability approaches 100% that unforeseen consequences of technological advancement will kill the species.

The one solution to this would be the end of our way of life, meaning near complete abolition of individual privacy, access to information, and greatly increased authoritarianism in general.

So which is it -

1) will technology soon, luckily for us, simply stop advancing because there happens to be little left to invent,

2) will technology destroy our species,

3) or as unforeseen consequences of technological advances mount will nations turn authoritarian in order to safeguard society?

And your data is?

You know the data that leads to this conclusion?

[sracasm]
The invention of small pox and measles wiped out the populations of native americans?
[/sarcasm]
What the fred?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by daSkeptic

*releases the angry badger into the room*

More badgers!

[ToddH]

FACT: Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by ToddH

FACT: Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

Evidence?

[Cayvmann]

So, we need less freedom under an authoritarian government. That's good, because we all know that the governments would not use technology to control us, or accidentally eradicate us. Nope no government would drop nuclear weapons or experiment with virii. Nope.

I think the only true solution is to go ahead and use that technology to kill off anyone who would use it, then we'd be safe. And dead

[latent aaaack]

Originally Posted by Twiler

That's ignoring the fact that each technological advance also improves the survival prospects of humanity.

No, it can't be both those things.

In this case "improves survival prospects" and "steadily increases probability destroying humanity" are mutually exclusive.

If for every x amount of time some unforeseen unpredictable effect of technological advancement causes humanity great harm and does so in a way that is out of humanity's full control, then given enough time that will kill humanity or do something close.

You're right that most technological advances do help us, even the ones that also hurt us. But given unpredictably destructive technological advances and enough time, one advancement will eventually not just hurt us and help us, but will at first do whatever it's designed to do, help us, but then through unforeseen long term consequences, kill the species.

Again events like this have happened several time in just the 20th century. Not species-killing events but events that were out of humanity's full control and which were extremely directly threatening - the product of an initially helpful advance that had unforeseen consequences.

My question to the board is 'how long do you think this can go on?'

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

Again events like this have happened several time in just the 20th century. Not species-killing events but events that were out of humanity's full control and which were extremely directly threatening - the product of an initially helpful advance that had unforeseen consequences.

My question to the board is 'how long do you think this can go on?'

What events are you talking about?

The only technological advance that I can think of with the possiblity of destroying humanity has been the development (and production) of nuclear weapons.
One data point does not a broad conclusion make.

Ie. I see no evidence that we will inevitably continue to make technological advancements which are capable of destroying humanity.

For instance, if we move in to space, colonizing asteroids, comets, other planets or moons, at some point it becomes pretty difficult for any conceivable technological advancement to destroy all of humanity.

[latent aaaack]

In this case I mean 'or close' as in doing wiping out a large percentage of the population and/or complex civilization. I don't mean 'close' as in the threat passing over completely.

You can't think of any 20th century technological advances that harmed the species in ways that were completely unexpected, produced threats which, even when fully realized by leaders, humanity failed to completely protect itself against? I'm incredulous and suspect you're avoiding my argument.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No it didn't. Even though you've phrased it so vaguely as to be almost meaningless ("destroy humanity or close"? Counting near misses is classic confirmation bias), no such thing has been 'proved'.



I think you've mis-spelled "SPECULATION:"



Why?



I vote:

4) Bacon sandwiches.

Dave

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

No, it can't be both those things.

In this case "improves survival prospects" and "steadily increases probability destroying humanity" are mutually exclusive.

If for every x amount of time some unforeseen unpredictable effect of technological advancement causes humanity great harm and does so in a way that is out of humanity's full control, then given enough time that will kill humanity or do something close.

You're right that most technological advances do help us, even the ones that also hurt us. But given unpredictably destructive technological advances and enough time, one advancement will eventually not just hurt us and help us, but will at first do whatever it's designed to do, help us, but then through unforeseen long term consequences, kill the species.

Again events like this have happened several time in just the 20th century. Not species-killing events but events that were out of humanity's full control and which were extremely directly threatening - the product of an initially helpful advance that had unforeseen consequences.

My question to the board is 'how long do you think this can go on?'

Isn't there also the probability that any technological advance will make humanity unkillable? By the same argument, that too will eventually reach 100%.

[latent aaaack]

Even if it were only nuclear weapons that would have proved the principle. When you advance technology, in this age it always comes with the possibility of causing mega disruptions to society in negative ways. And in the 20th century these consequences were unpredictable at the time of their inception. That means we're in the realm of probability.

Unless, of course draconian measures are taken to halt industry and scientists from doing practically any innovating too quickly.

One more from the 20th century is fossil fuel use. Separately, there was CFCs and the damaged ozone. The timely discovery of CFCs was down to only one man, James Lovelock. My point again is that this was a tiny little technological advance that had a devastating effect. Sometimes like CFCs these can be caught in time. Sometimes like with greenhouse gases we can't 'catch it in time.'

Just like the asteroid threat, the technological threat is a matter of probability and we are playing Russian Roulette by waiting until after each innovation has been let loose on a grand scale to see if it will kill us.

Another one: biological weapons and more importantly the increasing availability of sophisticated biowarfare ability to rogue individuals and groups. This is a threat that could actually come close to wiping out the species if done right.

Another one: 9/11 was the use of technology in a way that was actually predicted. It was a predicted possible method of a technological advance doing great harm (it had been done before and all the clues were there to intelligence) and humanity still could not control it. Our government became immediately more authoritarian as a result of this. Not only that but it's unclear if our society has yet made it impossible to do this again. A terrorist could wait years and years for the opportunity to legally be in control of a plane again and taking off in a major metro area.

I could go on and on.

Either technology will stop advancing at the 20th century rate or things will come to a head. Can you really not think of any more from just last century? I'm not talking about species-destroying technologies remember. All it takes is one of those and by then it's too late, just like the mega-sized asteroid threat. What proves the threat is all the little ones and how they hit unexpectedly, uncontrollably, and at different sizes.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

What events are you talking about?

The only technological advance that I can think of with the possiblity of destroying humanity has been the development (and production) of nuclear weapons.
One data point does not a broad conclusion make.

Ie. I see no evidence that we will inevitably continue to make technological advancements which are capable of destroying humanity.

For instance, if we move in to space, colonizing asteroids, comets, other planets or moons, at some point it becomes pretty difficult for any conceivable technological advancement to destroy all of humanity.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If I do manage to "climb off the tiger" unharmed, will one of those damn badgers try and bite me?

[latent aaaack]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Isn't there also the probability that any technological advance will make humanity unkillable? By the same argument, that too will eventually reach 100%.

If invincibility technology and destructive side-effects of technology had been advancing at the same rate up until now you'd have a point. But while there are many ways that technology is jeopardizing human survival there's barely little or no movement in an invincibility direction. But more realistic is the potential advance of genetic engineering which could make people all geniuses with great distant foresight and complete saints who would voluntarily not pursue technology that they realize has negative side effects until there's a way around the side effects. But this would have to be forced on people and is again, the end of our way of life.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

You can't think of any 20th century technological advances that harmed the species in ways that were completely unexpected, produced threats which, even when fully realized by leaders, humanity failed to completely protect itself against?

I thought I might have come up with one, but no, 4chan wasn't launched until 2003.

So drawing a blank here.

Quote:

I'm incredulous and suspect you're avoiding my argument.

What argument?

[latent aaaack]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Nothing like a false trichotomy first thing in the morning.

False monochotomy, you force me to choose between one wrong answer. This fallacy is meant to apply to situations where someone offers one choice, which he is arguing in favor of, and another choice which he picks for the sole reason of how bad it looks. This makes his favored choice look better. I didn't exactly do this, you're being intellectually lazy and reciting things by rote.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of technological advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will destroy humanity or close.

No.

Quote:

FACT: Given enough time and given continued technological advancement the probability approaches 100% that unforeseen consequences of technological advancement will kill the species.

No.

Quote:

The one solution to this would be the end of our way of life, meaning near complete abolition of individual privacy, access to information, and greatly increased authoritarianism in general.

No.

Quote:

So which is it -

1) will technology soon, luckily for us, simply stop advancing because there happens to be little left to invent,

2) will technology destroy our species,

3) or as unforeseen consequences of technological advances mount will nations turn authoritarian in order to safeguard society?

None of them.

See, latent aaaack, you're ignoring the fact that there are plenty of DEFENSIVE technologies being turned out at the same rate as OFFENSIVE ones. Bioweapons - vaccines. Nuclear weapons - missile shields. Better guns - better body armor. Bigger explosions - better emergency medical care.

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

No, it can't be both those things.

In this case "improves survival prospects" and "steadily increases probability destroying humanity" are mutually exclusive.

No.

Quote:

If for every x amount of time some unforeseen unpredictable effect of technological advancement causes humanity great harm and does so in a way that is out of humanity's full control, then given enough time that will kill humanity or do something close.

No.

Quote:

You're right that most technological advances do help us, even the ones that also hurt us. But given unpredictably destructive technological advances and enough time, one advancement will eventually not just hurt us and help us, but will at first do whatever it's designed to do, help us, but then through unforeseen long term consequences, kill the species.

No.

Quote:

Again events like this have happened several time in just the 20th century. Not species-killing events but events that were out of humanity's full control and which were extremely directly threatening - the product of an initially helpful advance that had unforeseen consequences.

Such as?

Quote:

My question to the board is 'how long do you think this can go on?'

Indefinitely.

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

You can't think of any 20th century technological advances that harmed the species in ways that were completely unexpected, produced threats which, even when fully realized by leaders, humanity failed to completely protect itself against? I'm incredulous and suspect you're avoiding my argument.

Present an example for consideration. Otherwise, you have not put forth an argument, and we can't avoid an argument that isn't there.

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

Even if it were only nuclear weapons that would have proved the principle. When you advance technology, in this age it always comes with the possibility of causing mega disruptions to society in negative ways. And in the 20th century these consequences were unpredictable at the time of their inception. That means we're in the realm of probability.

You completely ignore the system of checks and balances in place. The football, for example.

Quote:

Unless, of course draconian measures are taken to halt industry and scientists from doing practically any innovating too quickly.

<snip>

Just like the asteroid threat, the technological threat is a matter of probability and we are playing Russian Roulette by waiting until after each innovation has been let loose on a grand scale to see if it will kill us.

No. Believe it or not, people DO test technological advances before marketing them.

Quote:

Another one: biological weapons and more importantly the increasing availability of sophisticated biowarfare ability to rogue individuals and groups. This is a threat that could actually come close to wiping out the species if done right.

Undoubtedly. But it would be very, very difficult to do right. Especially because medicine is advancing so rapidly.

Quote:

Another one: 9/11 was the use of technology in a way that was actually predicted. It was a predicted possible method of a technological advance doing great harm (it had been done before and all the clues were there to intelligence) and humanity still could not control it. Our government became immediately more authoritarian as a result of this. Not only that but it's unclear if our society has yet made it impossible to do this again. A terrorist could wait years and years for the opportunity to legally be in control of a plane again and taking off in a major metro area.

I could go on and on.

You could. It still wouldn't make you right.

Quote:

Either technology will stop advancing at the 20th century rate or things will come to a head.

Mmm, false dichotomy... scrumptious.

Quote:

Can you really not think of any more from just last century? I'm not talking about species-destroying technologies remember. All it takes is one of those and by then it's too late, just like the mega-sized asteroid threat. What proves the threat is all the little ones and how they hit unexpectedly, uncontrollably, and at different sizes.

No.

[latent aaaack]

Look you comedians - this is an idea that some of the best minds in the world are putting forward. I think you can focus a little harder on what you're typing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Final_Hour

Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, PRS (born 23 June 1942 in York[1]) is an English cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He became President of the Royal Society on 1 December 2005.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

A quick look at wiki gives that there were about 1.65 billion people on the world in 1900, versus about 6 billion in 1999.

How is this several near-extinction events? I'll admit that horrible things happened in that time, some of which were made more massive due to better war machines, but those are mere statistical anomalies compared to the increase in population caused by better healthcare and agriculture.

The 9/11 example is pure fallacy. Planes have been crashing long before that. Just because some fanatical idiots aimed for a city doesn't mean that they are now a danger to the existence of humanity. More people probably died that day due to malnutrition and thirst, let alone accidents in the house.

But say you're completely right. What is your solution?

Freeze the world as it is?
Impossible, as without technological innovation we'll use up the resources needed to sustain our current world within a century.

Go back to the 'everyone grows their own food' ideal?
nice idea, we'd need to get rid of what? 8/10 of the current world population? More? Do you volunteer to be one of those to die so the rest can live fully green?

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

Look you comedians - this is an idea that some of the best minds in the world are putting forward. I think you can focus a little harder on what you're typing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Final_Hour

Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, PRS (born 23 June 1942 in York[1]) is an English cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He became President of the Royal Society on 1 December 2005.

Did you even bother to look up any reviews of that book? Scientists everywhere are saying it's bunk. Several links in the Wiki itself lead to negative reviews.

[Perpetual Student]

Our species and/or its descendants may very well survive until the earth (as we know it) is destroyed by a cataclysmic event (asteroid, nova, etc.), but it appears the life we know is bound to change in significant ways. Global warming, water shortages, extinction of species, sun cycles, tectonic and volcanic activity, scientific and technological advances will eventually lead to a vastly different world. Can our own technology lead to our extinction? That would require the extinction of every viable society in every part of the earth -- I guess that's possible, but before accepting that possibility I would like see a specific model for that occurrence.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

In this case I mean 'or close' as in doing wiping out a large percentage of the population and/or complex civilization. I don't mean 'close' as in the threat passing over completely.

You can't think of any 20th century technological advances that harmed the species in ways that were completely unexpected, produced threats which, even when fully realized by leaders, humanity failed to completely protect itself against? I'm incredulous and suspect you're avoiding my argument.

I am sceptical, since you can't name what these advances actually are.

Since you have not presented the basis of your argument, there is no argument, just handwavy sort of logic.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

Even if it were only nuclear weapons that would have proved the principle.

Semms to me lots of people dies in WWII, WWI without nuclear weapons, same for war going back. It is the starvation and disruption to food supplies that kills people.

Quote:

When you advance technology, in this age it always comes with the possibility of causing mega disruptions to society in negative ways. And in the 20th century these consequences were unpredictable at the time of their inception. That means we're in the realm of probability.

And when the proto celts arrived in europe they burned down the forests, creating grass lands.

Quote:

Unless, of course draconian measures are taken to halt industry and scientists from doing practically any innovating too quickly.

Nice arm waving there.

Quote:

One more from the 20th century is fossil fuel use. Separately, there was CFCs and the damaged ozone.

And, that will possibly raise the temperatures, which could be bad.

But what will you replace them with.

Your draconian measures will have one cosequence, we have to use what we have or not have heat at all.

Quote:

The timely discovery of CFCs was down to only one man, James Lovelock. My point again is that this was a tiny little technological advance that had a devastating effect. Sometimes like CFCs these can be caught in time. Sometimes like with greenhouse gases we can't 'catch it in time.'

And so I am to heat my house with...?

Quote:

Just like the asteroid threat, the technological threat is a matter of probability and we are playing Russian Roulette by waiting until after each innovation has been let loose on a grand scale to see if it will kill us.

And small pox in the americas killed more than any weapon.

Quote:

Another one: biological weapons and more importantly the increasing availability of sophisticated biowarfare ability to rogue individuals and groups. This is a threat that could actually come close to wiping out the species if done right.

Small pox kills 30%+ of the people who contract it, and we don't have small pox any more because....

Polio used to kill how many?

Quote:

Another one: 9/11 was the use of technology in a way that was actually predicted. It was a predicted possible method of a technological advance doing great harm (it had been done before and all the clues were there to intelligence) and humanity still could not control it.

And Tim McVeigh could have used a donket cart.

Quote:

Our government became immediately more authoritarian as a result of this. Not only that but it's unclear if our society has yet made it impossible to do this again. A terrorist could wait years and years for the opportunity to legally be in control of a plane again and taking off in a major metro area.

I could go on and on.

keep up the arm waving, the breeze is getting stronger.

Quote:

Either technology will stop advancing at the 20th century rate or things will come to a head. Can you really not think of any more from just last century? I'm not talking about species-destroying technologies remember. All it takes is one of those and by then it's too late, just like the mega-sized asteroid threat. What proves the threat is all the little ones and how they hit unexpectedly, uncontrollably, and at different sizes.

And your argument is still a loose mish mosh of overgeneralizations.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

If invincibility technology and destructive side-effects of technology had been advancing at the same rate up until now you'd have a point. But while there are many ways that technology is jeopardizing human survival there's barely little or no movement in an invincibility direction. But more realistic is the potential advance of genetic engineering which could make people all geniuses with great distant foresight and complete saints who would voluntarily not pursue technology that they realize has negative side effects until there's a way around the side effects. But this would have to be forced on people and is again, the end of our way of life.

And I would be dead four times if not for blood transfusion and antibiotics.

[INRM]

Twiler,

Quote:

That's ignoring the fact that each technological advance also improves the survival prospects of humanity.

While possible, there is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by INRM

Twiler,



While possible, there is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns

That could also apply to the chance of humanity being eradicated by technology.

[Wowbagger]

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of educational advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will enhance humanity.

FACT: Given enough time and given continued educational advancement the probability approaches 100% that the consequences of educational advancement will have every member of the species living forever, or at least indefinitely.

Now, I really don't believe that second "Fact" that I wrote there. But, I offer it as a demonstration that making such extrapolations does not imply that such a course is inevitable.

Quote:

So which is it -

1) will technology soon, luckily for us, simply stop advancing because there happens to be little left to invent,

2) will technology destroy our species,

3) or as unforeseen consequences of technological advances mount will nations turn authoritarian in order to safeguard society?

Although I don't think education will help us live forever, I do think that its spread will eat away at the raw threat of technology. So, you seem to be missing a few options there. Some have already been mentioned. But, I will offer my own favorite:

4) There will always be a balance between the edge of destruction and continued survival of the species. For every technology we develop, that could destroy us, we also develop counter-measures to make sure that does not happen.

These counter measures could, themselves, be technological, or policy-based. But, none of them need to lead to "authoritarian order". There is a general trend of humans also developing counter-measures against such "orders", as well.

[Eos of the Eons]

The only constant is change. People used to be scared to get in a vehicle going more than 10 km/h. Not sure what it would do to their bodies going at such unnatural speeds!

*tries to shake a bader off that started gnawing at her pants*

[INRM]

Twiler,

Actually regarding A.I., I wouldn't be surprised if the chances of mankind being wiped out or in one way or another neutralized by our own technological creations would increase the more we develop A.I.


Eos of the Eons,

Quote:

People used to be scared to get in a vehicle going more than 10 km/h. Not sure what it would do to their bodies going at such unnatural speeds!

While you are correct in that some fears are irrational, and have no basis in fact. There are some fears which are rational. There was a program, which I think was on National Geographic or Discovery which talked about the 10 most likely way the world would end, and A.I. wiping mankind out was actually in the top-ten and there were respected scientists who weighed in on this.


INRM

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by INRM

Actually regarding A.I., I wouldn't be surprised if the chances of mankind being wiped out or in one way or another neutralized by our own technological creations would increase the more we develop A.I.

Of course you wouldn't. There hasn't been an AI-related scare story yet that you haven't considered to be a documentary.

Quote:

While you are correct in that some fears are irrational, and have no basis in fact. There are some fears which are rational.

And unfortunately you have no capacity to distinguish the two. As though your posting history weren't proof enough, you provide proof in the very next sentence:

Quote:

There was a program, which I think was on National Geographic or Discovery which talked about the 10 most likely way the world would end, and A.I. wiping mankind out was actually in the top-ten and there were respected scientists who weighed in on this.

... because, of course, there's no possible way that the Discovery Channel would tart up the science -- or completely ignore the science altogether -- in order to get a popular show?

That's why the Discovery Channel has never made programs like "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" or "Da Vinci's Lost Code." Because they couldn't possibly be into high-selling woo.

... that unfortunately you buy into every bit as badly as the most gullible mark that ever walked into a spiritualist's living room.




INRM[/quote]

[shadron]

Originally Posted by INRM

Twiler,



While possible, there is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns

Sure is, but you seem to think that diminishing returns only happen to the other fellow.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by shadron

Sure is, but you seem to think that diminishing returns only happen to the other fellow.

Diminishing returns? I can sell you a cream for that.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by latent aaaack

FACT: The 20th century proved that every century of technological advancement carries with it a probability greater than zero that such advancement will destroy humanity or close.

I think a lot of your concerns have been dealt with here. I'd just like to say that [wiki]Ted Kaczinski[/quote] seemed to think the same way you are. If you get any ideas about doing your own part to save the planet, please let us know first so we can sell short, or buy some bomb detection stock or do *something* rational.

And I'm not trying to be humorous here. Well, not trying too hard.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Diminishing returns? I can sell you a cream for that.

See, what did I just say? Good example.