Most "SCARY" invention of mankind. What is it?

[Dan From Smithville]

I definitely understand sis. Anyway I am a male, so if I pretend I understand feelings of a woman 100%, I am lying.

I will never ever be able to understand a woman's feelings when looking at a pregnancy test. She is gonna be a mother, and only she would know. Also I cannot understand a woman's feelings when she is testing not knowing this way or the other, wishing this way or the other.

All I know is women need to be worshiped for this simple matter.

It is not a fear that is isolated solely to women. Many men have been frightened about how that test might turn out.

I wonder what prompted you to call me sis? It is not possible for me to be someone's sister.

There was a dual meaning to my choice of subject. The other part of my response was associated with the fact that rabbits were formerly used to test for pregnancy.

 

[firedragon]

I wonder what prompted you to call me sis? It is not possible for me to be someone's sister.

Alright. Ciao.

 

[JustGeorge]

Alright. Ciao.

Despite the bunny avatar, @Dan From Smithville is our brother(he is a he).

Hehe, the internet gets confusing.

 

[firedragon]

It is not a fear that is isolated solely to women. Many men have been frightened about how that test might turn out.

I wonder what prompted you to call me sis? It is not possible for me to be someone's sister.

There was a dual meaning to my choice of subject. The other part of my response was associated with the fact that rabbits were formerly used to test for pregnancy.

If a man fears to take responsibility for his actions, I think he is a child in big shoes.

Sorry for calling you sis. I thought you were someone else. Thats my mistake.

I like rabbits. They are cute. But I responded to your post thinking you were someone else in this thread, so thanks for responding but it was not meant to address you. I apologise for that.

 

[firedragon]

Despite the bunny avatar, @Dan From Smithville is our brother(he is a he).

Hehe, the internet gets confusing.

I thought he was you. Do you see the predicament?

 

[JustGeorge]

I thought he was you. Do you see the predicament?

I can see why you thought that. He is a rabbit....and I am stuck in a rabbit's door.

 

[firedragon]

I can see why you thought that. He is a rabbit....and I am stuck in a rabbit's door.

Well. You are a pooh So in haste I might have been mistaken or second guessed. He got so offended at being called sis. Lol.

 

[JustGeorge]

Well. You are a pooh So in haste I might have been mistaken or second guessed. He got so offended at being called sis. Lol.

 

[firedragon]

Thats awesome. Thanks so much.

 

[Nakosis]

Some atheists claim that religion is the one. Some theists claim non-religion is the one. Some people think the nuclear bomb is the one. Others think the nuclear bomb is necessary, thus it is a response to other things that are scary. Some people think that missiles are the scariest invention of mankind, while others call some missiles "peace keepers". Some people thought in history, the "lightning bringing stick" referring to the gun as the one. Some others may think a rebellion is the one.

What do you think is the scariest thing mankind ever invented? Why do you think that is?

I have to agree with the internet.
Because it provide a massive amount of information of unknown reliability.

 

[firedragon]

I have too agree with the internet.
Because it provide a massive amount of information of unknown reliability.

Bloody hell. Thats also true.

Could I ask you a question based on that? What do you think are some serious or truly scary repercussions of dissemination as you said if "unknown reliability"?

 

[Augustus]

I still think you are being selective as to what is considered progress. Many of us have thrown off the shackles of religions, have advanced enough to not discriminate against others, and generally don't wave the flag for our particular country (or religion) or opt for war other than in defence. We do tend to just see ourselves as part of the human race. We do at least have the option of advancing as a species, given the constraints of our human form and the reality of our existence, and surely this is better than any alternative.

I think the main issue is, and just being part of reality, that we have so many peoples advancing or lagging as to progress simply because of where they exist, and the histories of these regions. The internet and such is changing this though.

Our tragedy lies in being born and hence dying. But we might even escape that in some far distant future. Magic from religions (afterlife and such) does not it seems provide a satisfactory answer for so many but the future might - not that I would say this would be either good or bad, but just a possibility.

Here is a good example I happened to randomly read today regarding problems that may occur about 'just seeing ourselves as part of the human race' and 'advancing as a species' and taking this to its rational conclusions (Marxism was another example of this):

The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk” ❧ Current Affairs


Longtermism should not be confused with “long-term thinking.” It goes way beyond the observation that our society is dangerously myopic, and that we should care about future generations no less than present ones. At the heart of this worldview, as delineated by Bostrom, is the idea that what matters most is for “Earth-originating intelligent life” to fulfill its potential in the cosmos. What exactly is “our potential”? As I have noted elsewhere, it involves subjugating nature, maximizing economic productivity, replacing humanity with a superior “posthuman” species, colonizing the universe, and ultimately creating an unfathomably huge population of conscious beings living what Bostrom describes as “rich and happy lives” inside high-resolution computer simulations.

This is what “our potential” consists of, and it constitutes the ultimate aim toward which humanity as a whole, and each of us as individuals, are morally obligated to strive. An existential risk, then, is any event that would destroy this “vast and glorious” potential, as Toby Ord, a philosopher at the Future of Humanity Institute, writes in his 2020 book The Precipice, which draws heavily from earlier work in outlining the longtermist paradigm. (Note that Noam Chomsky just published a book also titled The Precipice.)

The point is that when one takes the cosmic view, it becomes clear that our civilization could persist for an incredibly long time and there could come to be an unfathomably large number of people in the future. Longtermists thus reason that the far future could contain way more value than exists today, or has existed so far in human history, which stretches back some 300,000 years. So, imagine a situation in which you could either lift 1 billion present people out of extreme poverty or benefit 0.00000000001 percent of the 1023 biological humans who Bostrom calculates could exist if we were to colonize our cosmic neighborhood, the Virgo Supercluster. Which option should you pick? For longtermists, the answer is obvious: you should pick the latter. Why? Well, just crunch the numbers: 0.00000000001 percent of 1023 people is 10 billion people, which is ten times greater than 1 billion people. This means that if you want to do the most good, you should focus on these far-future people rather than on helping those in extreme poverty today. As the FHI longtermists Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill—the latter of whom is said to have cofounded the Effective Altruism movement with Toby Ord—write, “for the purposes of evaluating actions, we can in the first instance often simply ignore all the effects contained in the first 100 (or even 1,000) years, focussing primarily on the further-future effects. Short-run effects act as little more than tie-breakers.”

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The internal combustion engine.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Here is a good example I happened to randomly read today regarding problems that may occur about 'just seeing ourselves as part of the human race' and 'advancing as a species' and taking this to its rational conclusions (Marxism was another example of this):

The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk” ❧ Current Affairs


Longtermism should not be confused with “long-term thinking.” It goes way beyond the observation that our society is dangerously myopic, and that we should care about future generations no less than present ones. At the heart of this worldview, as delineated by Bostrom, is the idea that what matters most is for “Earth-originating intelligent life” to fulfill its potential in the cosmos. What exactly is “our potential”? As I have noted elsewhere, it involves subjugating nature, maximizing economic productivity, replacing humanity with a superior “posthuman” species, colonizing the universe, and ultimately creating an unfathomably huge population of conscious beings living what Bostrom describes as “rich and happy lives” inside high-resolution computer simulations.

This is what “our potential” consists of, and it constitutes the ultimate aim toward which humanity as a whole, and each of us as individuals, are morally obligated to strive. An existential risk, then, is any event that would destroy this “vast and glorious” potential, as Toby Ord, a philosopher at the Future of Humanity Institute, writes in his 2020 book The Precipice, which draws heavily from earlier work in outlining the longtermist paradigm. (Note that Noam Chomsky just published a book also titled The Precipice.)

The point is that when one takes the cosmic view, it becomes clear that our civilization could persist for an incredibly long time and there could come to be an unfathomably large number of people in the future. Longtermists thus reason that the far future could contain way more value than exists today, or has existed so far in human history, which stretches back some 300,000 years. So, imagine a situation in which you could either lift 1 billion present people out of extreme poverty or benefit 0.00000000001 percent of the 1023 biological humans who Bostrom calculates could exist if we were to colonize our cosmic neighborhood, the Virgo Supercluster. Which option should you pick? For longtermists, the answer is obvious: you should pick the latter. Why? Well, just crunch the numbers: 0.00000000001 percent of 1023 people is 10 billion people, which is ten times greater than 1 billion people. This means that if you want to do the most good, you should focus on these far-future people rather than on helping those in extreme poverty today. As the FHI longtermists Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill—the latter of whom is said to have cofounded the Effective Altruism movement with Toby Ord—write, “for the purposes of evaluating actions, we can in the first instance often simply ignore all the effects contained in the first 100 (or even 1,000) years, focussing primarily on the further-future effects. Short-run effects act as little more than tie-breakers.”

Well there are often disadvantages as to taking anything to its logical conclusion. I just see a better future for humans, our planet, and hopefully all other life, when we ditch religions. Simply because they are not providing what they claim, often come with great drawbacks, and many of us can live quite happily without them - as indicated by much evidence. I couldn't care less as to beliefs in God or anything associated, and see nothing wrong with this, but it is the influence of the established religions that seem to me as having a net negative overall effect, and as such should be allowed to pass away peacefully - by not indoctrinating children, for example.

I don't have some idealist vision for humans at all, and just think that without religions we would at least be free from some past beliefs and behaviours as a determinant of what we could become.

And I think we have to become 'one race' simply because it is likely we will face a future catastrophe and without such we will not be able to confront this. Or we could just carry on as normal, with half the planet with their heads buried in the sand - or earth.

 

[Augustus]

I just see a better future for humans, our planet, and hopefully all other life, when we ditch religions.

Didn't work out so great for humans, our planet or all other life under the Commies

The main benefit or religions may be that they reduce the potential for something worse to take hold. Sometimes it's better the devil you know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some atheists claim that religion is the one. Some theists claim non-religion is the one. Some people think the nuclear bomb is the one. Others think the nuclear bomb is necessary, thus it is a response to other things that are scary. Some people think that missiles are the scariest invention of mankind, while others call some missiles "peace keepers". Some people thought in history, the "lightning bringing stick" referring to the gun as the one. Some others may think a rebellion is the one.

What do you think is the scariest thing mankind ever invented? Why do you think that is?

The business model behind social media and the opportunities it opens up for control of the masses by third parties.
Unprecedented in history.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nuclear stuff comes pretty close.

Nuclear technology, however, has saved millions and millions of lives, and will save many millions more in the future, through its applications in medical science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Didn't work out so great for humans, our planet or all other life under the Commies

That's quite misleading.
It's not like the cause of suffering in (and by) Soviet Russia, was the lack of religion.

I'm pretty sure that an extreme authoritarian implementation of dogmatic communism has a thing or two to do with it as well.

Alternatively, you can also look at secular democracies with low religiosity, where life is quite good and safe, like Japan, Denmark, Sweden, etc.

But off course, that doesn't have the same "buzz" as evil soviets.

The main benefit or religions may be that they reduce the potential for something worse to take hold. Sometimes it's better the devil you know.

That doesn't seem to be working out very well in the islamic middle east though.

 

[Augustus]

That's quite misleading.
It's not like the cause of suffering in (and by) Soviet Russia, was the lack of religion.

It's not misleading because it's not what I said.

The point was that there is no reason to assume that whatever replaces traditional religions will be an improvement.

(As an aside it is true that they argued the non-existence of gods rendered religious based morality false, including the sanctity of human life. This isn't the point I was making though)

Alternatively, you can also look at secular democracies with low religiosity, where life is quite good and safe, like Japan, Denmark, Sweden, etc.

Of course you could, but it wouldn't negate the point that the ideologies that replace religions may end up being worse.

That doesn't seem to be working out very well in the islamic middle east though.

They didn't end up Maoist did they? Could have been worse...

 

[firedragon]

I just see a better future for humans, our planet, and hopefully all other life, when we ditch religions.

Is that based on some kind of study, research, prediction based on data or is that your dogmatic religious belief or/and some kind of religious hatred indoctrinated in you by your God's or/and prophets?