World Economic Forum Megathread (The Great Reset)

  • Registration without invitation will be until July 4th, and we are reforming account penalties.

    MalwareBytes has, again, blocked both the .net and .cc domains for the Kiwi Farms. Complain to them, not me.

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
So when are the Metaverse updates that make it not some silly knockoff of Second Life? It feels like one of the most artificially pushed things ever, like proof that money can't buy success. I mean it doesn't even fit with Facebook's business model, since if you want to show off expensive fashion, you can just do that on Facebook and Instagram even if you're stuck in your house because of scamdemic rules.
 

Mega Man II Intro - GB

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
The goal seems to be "you can't buy real things so buy these fake things instead" and probably the plan is to force you into it. Like you have to participate in the MetaVerse or your social credit score goes down. I dunno, doesn't seem like the entirety of humanity is willing to go that far. I still see plenty of resistance to globohomo and there's always something "off" about the people who are giving in.
 

Drain Todger

Unhinged Doomsayer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 1, 2020
So when are the Metaverse updates that make it not some silly knockoff of Second Life? It feels like one of the most artificially pushed things ever, like proof that money can't buy success. I mean it doesn't even fit with Facebook's business model, since if you want to show off expensive fashion, you can just do that on Facebook and Instagram even if you're stuck in your house because of scamdemic rules.
The goal seems to be "you can't buy real things so buy these fake things instead" and probably the plan is to force you into it. Like you have to participate in the MetaVerse or your social credit score goes down. I dunno, doesn't seem like the entirety of humanity is willing to go that far. I still see plenty of resistance to globohomo and there's always something "off" about the people who are giving in.
When human beings acquire material goods, it sets off our limbic system. Our nucleus accumbens gives us a hit of dopamine, telling us "this is good, do more of that", creating a sensation of euphoria and satisfaction.

If we assume that providing everyone with the satisfaction of material goods is bad for the planet, then the logical endpoint of environmentalism must be to simulate luxury, obviously. If we also assume that the utility of people buying luxury items and having them around is simply to feed their brain with feel-good hormones and neurotransmitters and display their wealth to others socially, and the same effect can be replicated with fake "digital" wealth in the Metaverse, then of course corporations would be very interested in that. The profit margins for selling people fake goods are immense, and people have already been conditioned by years of very expensive microtransactions in smartphone games that don't really do anything except make bright glitter bullshit flash on their screens.

This is the future. It's giant corporations making millions, billions, or even trillions of dollars to drug people by feeding a sensation of fake reward to their limbic systems for pennies on the dollar. The social function of work is eliminated. People no longer make things for the benefit of other people. Instead, pleasure is imposed upon them for a fee. Civilization as we know it would effectively be reduced to a giant brothel of consumer-whoredom, even more so than it is already. Hedonism would be the telos of society, at all times. People would work not for self-actualization, not to assert the essential dignity of their being, but solely for the promise of pleasure. One globe-spanning masturbatorium.
 

lostkeys

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 25, 2022
The Texas GOP updated their platform last Saturday and it seems they denounced the WEF of page 39.

“We reject any assertion of authority over our nation or its citizens from foreign individuals or entities, such as the World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, and the United Nations. We reject the concept of a One World Government, or The Great Reset.” Link to PDF
 

_giantmeteor2024_

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 4, 2020
The Texas GOP updated their platform last Saturday and it seems they denounced the WEF of page 39.

“We reject any assertion of authority over our nation or its citizens from foreign individuals or entities, such as the World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, and the United Nations. We reject the concept of a One World Government, or The Great Reset.” Link to PDF
I used to think back in the 90s, "They think the government is trying to push a one world government? Are those right wingers nuts, or what?" Here I am, realizing they were right all along.

If you look at the news in Europe, you realize this is true. The campaigns over there pushed by the left wing politicians and governments are literally copies of what is happening here-- the same talking points are being use, the same social justice campaigns, even the slogans are the same. It all mimics the WEF talking points, the EU, TRANSHUMANISM.
 

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
I used to think back in the 90s, "They think the government is trying to push a one world government? Are those right wingers nuts, or what?" Here I am, realizing they were right all along.

If you look at the news in Europe, you realize this is true. The campaigns over there pushed by the left wing politicians and governments are literally copies of what is happening here-- the same talking points are being use, the same social justice campaigns, even the slogans are the same. It all mimics the WEF talking points, the EU, TRANSHUMANISM.
The problem with the "old" NWO theories (which I used to think were dumb) is there was always the implication that individual nations are abolished and the UN takes over everything. There was also always some pop culture osmosis since that's what gets portrayed in a lot of science fiction with how we have a one-world government in the future, this is considered a good thing, etc. so that's what people thought they would do in real life. This is called "predictive programming", and we know for a fact that it's possible to manipulate culture on a scale approaching that because corporations have literally been forced to admit they do it (i.e. relation between the tobacco industry, Hollywood, sports stars, etc. back in the day which was to reshape perceptions of smoking as cool). It's not a stretch to think more powerful people use science fiction to misdirect on how the one world government will emerge and function (just like how they use SF to misdirect people on transhumanism and make people think it's impossible rather than literally something coming soon).

But it's clear what they're doing. The sovereignity of nations will be eroded by global corporations and NGOs. They will exert their power through unelected bureaucrats who take their orders from these corporations and NGOs. The role of the citizen is to vote for the approved politicians who will select the appropriate bureaucrats to put in power. Politics and democracy will exist for the purpose of distraction and making money off the politispergs rather than serving any public interest--no democratically-elected politician will have any real power to effect change.
 

ZazietheBeast

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
I used to think back in the 90s, "They think the government is trying to push a one world government? Are those right wingers nuts, or what?" Here I am, realizing they were right all along.

If you look at the news in Europe, you realize this is true. The campaigns over there pushed by the left wing politicians and governments are literally copies of what is happening here-- the same talking points are being use, the same social justice campaigns, even the slogans are the same. It all mimics the WEF talking points, the EU, TRANSHUMANISM.
You have lived long enough to see V for Vendetta becoming a documentary.
 

Begemot

"I was carried to ohio in a swarm of bees."
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
If kids got developmental issues from just 1-2 years of "The New Normal", can you imagine how messed up kids could get growing up under permanent house arrest? Living like they're in "The Machine Stops"? Hopefully the "little people" don't let that BS happen.
I was under 8pm & 9pm curfew in Victoria during the pandemic last year, it felt pretty miserable to be honest


https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/extended-melbourne-lockdown-keep-victorians-safe-0



It is population control but also supercapitalism. You get to make a new "cause" (which is good since old causes run out of steam so less money/divisive potential) and get to sell both new goods (troon drugs and surgeries) and increase sales of other goods (makeup, etc.). MTF troons make great consoomers since they have so many diverse medical needs and get to pay into the market for female goods (all that makeup they slather on). And no, it isn't offset by FTM troons since most of them act like gay men so will still consume makeup plus in some cases men's goods marketed at homosexual men.

This is probably also why they're promoting drag queens so hard lately. More drag queens equals more troon drugs and more sales of drag queen paraphernalia (makeup and shitty clothes).

This is why I dread the day they mandate AI cars for everyone. It's bad enough they have remote killswitches installed, smart car bullshit, and electric cars with their limited mobility.
Yeah, the intertwining of cars with a soft social credit score scares me a bit. Shutting down your electric car is easy enough now.
 

Maurice Caine

I owe ya one.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
When human beings acquire material goods, it sets off our limbic system. Our nucleus accumbens gives us a hit of dopamine, telling us "this is good, do more of that", creating a sensation of euphoria and satisfaction.

If we assume that providing everyone with the satisfaction of material goods is bad for the planet, then the logical endpoint of environmentalism must be to simulate luxury, obviously. If we also assume that the utility of people buying luxury items and having them around is simply to feed their brain with feel-good hormones and neurotransmitters and display their wealth to others socially, and the same effect can be replicated with fake "digital" wealth in the Metaverse, then of course corporations would be very interested in that. The profit margins for selling people fake goods are immense, and people have already been conditioned by years of very expensive microtransactions in smartphone games that don't really do anything except make bright glitter bullshit flash on their screens.

This is the future. It's giant corporations making millions, billions, or even trillions of dollars to drug people by feeding a sensation of fake reward to their limbic systems for pennies on the dollar. The social function of work is eliminated. People no longer make things for the benefit of other people. Instead, pleasure is imposed upon them for a fee. Civilization as we know it would effectively be reduced to a giant brothel of consumer-whoredom, even more so than it is already. Hedonism would be the telos of society, at all times. People would work not for self-actualization, not to assert the essential dignity of their being, but solely for the promise of pleasure. One globe-spanning masturbatorium.
That kinda depresses me tbh, I hope GabeN makes his BCI project a reality and gives us the Full Dive VR equivalent of Garry's Mod
 

ToroidalBoat

wat
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Yeah, the intertwining of cars with a soft social credit score scares me a bit.
That's why I prefer older cars that still work over Current Year cars.

The "cancelling of real life" in Current Year via tech over-saturation also reminds me of this:

saw this quote and was reminded of the "Internet Of Things":
They never use any low-technology solutions; can you imagine seeing a bucket or a wrench in Star Trek? When their kids go to the beach, they probably take a portable forcefield generator instead of a bucket and shovel. But in real life, engineers don't always use the most advanced technology. In fact, the most elegant engineering solutions are those that require the least technology, not the most. A good example is a machine gun; it uses a simple, elegant and robust mechanical system to eject each cartridge and load the next, based on gas pressure, springs, rods, and other low-tech principles. The simpler, the better. With modern technology, we could design a machine gun that uses miniaturized robotics instead, but why? The resulting weapon would be far more expensive, and far less reliable. It would require a power source, and software. It would be far more difficult to maintain. But in the world of Star Trek, that's exactly how they would do it. In a world where medical isolation bays use forcefields instead of walls, and where dumbbells have touch-screen controls on them, even the dumbest application of excessive technology is not only approved; it's mandatory.
source: Star Wars vs Star Trek Essays: Engineering and Star Trek (written by an engineer)
 
Last edited:

SCSI

Improperly Terminated
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Late but I wanted to write this one when I wasn't in a rush. Spoilered because it's mostly philosofagging and very autistic (but hey, this is Deep Thoughts).

@Drain Todger (reply bug):
I've debated people about all of this many, many times before, for the past ten years. Each time, the response was the same. Humans will never be replaced. People become indignant when they're told that we will, because of course they do. It's completely revolting for any normal person to think about. Even a good portion of atheists don't like it because it strikes them as anti-humanist. It's nihilistic to say that people will be replaced by AI. It seems to suggest that all our most cherished values are mere biological absurdities that will, in time, be trampled by the march of cold, unfeeling technology.

Guess I'm not normal. (L'imposible!) It's funny (ironic funny, not ha-ha funny) how the concept of eventual replacement of a species is perfectly acceptable to people, but the minute they have to apply the logical conclusion of the concept of evolution, that history hasn't stopped at humanity and that you meatbags we, too, will fall to this process one day, just like any other life form, they freak out and refuse, with furious outrage. Even though humanity'd still be unique (as far as we know) that it achieved being replaced by something it created, its creative swan song. I think the idea's rather touching -- in a way, we'd be flipping the bird to blind, brute evolution. Instead of our replacement being more like a scavenger feeding on the dead, it'd be a child carrying on after the passing of its parents.

What it means to be post-human is to not actually be human at all. We perceive ourselves as minds trapped within the body of a decaying ape. What happens if you get rid of the ape, but preserve the mind? Well, there goes every last trace of your human identity. Our identity basically, fundamentally comes from our bodies. If we value that, we should be striving to preserve it, right now, and not throw it away while chasing after unattainable physical perfection.

Assuming, for the moment, that "human identity" is an inflexible concept, should we value that? The question's mostly rhetorical, I don't think there's a universal answer that can or should be imposed across the board. For what it's worth, I personally prefer a malleable definition. Stasis is death, and, as the Buddhists say, attachment is suffering. Plus it leaves the door open to possibilities that are pretty damn cool.

You don't think this is possible because you still haven't read enough Kaczysnki. Unless you're willing to smash every goddamn thing and return to monke (which is arguably a reasonable course of action when faced with the brutal dehumanization of technology, but would still entail human suffering on an unprecedented scale), this process actually is inevitable.

Hell no, not willing. I also suggest that it wouldn't solve the problem, anyway. Reducing humanity back down to chasing after animals with spears, subsistence farming, and dying in childbirth, especially after we've touched the stars, strikes me as more dehumanizing than pushing through the discomfort and hard questions required by taking the technological road.

We walk a razor's edge. If innovation slows even slightly, the economy will absolutely shit itself and collapse. And innovation is slowing, in some ways. Why? Because humans are reaching our fucking limit. Our ability to discover new knowledge above and beyond what we already have is limited by our ability to correlate data. The bankers on Wall Street don't want the system to shit itself, because then their fortunes would evaporate. From their perspective, pouring money into AI research is a very sensible and astute investment. It doesn't matter to them that humans will be replaced. All that matters is keeping their unprecedented, enormous wealth intact. That's their incentive.

That is the clock I hear ticking, and why I want to slam my foot on the gas pedal to the floor. Humanity must outrun its own incompetence (not used pejoratively) while we still have a shot at passing off work to someone/something that has the capacity to pick up where we leave off.

Within this decade, AI "experts" will be put to work, trawling papers, correlating more data than any human ever could, discovering all the little things we missed. In the decade after, AIs will be writing their own research papers from scratch without human intervention. The things they will describe will be beyond human understanding. The technology thus produced will be outside the scope of human comprehension. Devices with metamaterials in them that are fine-tuned on the molecular level to twist and bend the laws of physics will become commonplace. As these AIs undergo recursive self-improvement, eventually, the things they produce will more closely resemble magic than technology.

A sea of data, vast and deep. :heart-full:

Unaugmented humans would be reduced to their pets, at best.

There's no response I can write here that wouldn't make me sound like a massive, cold-hearted faggot. I'd hope people would figure out a decent way to get those who want an upgrade but can't afford one up and running, at least. People who choose not to, for whatever reason... at the end of the day, they made their choice, and I don't think it'd be right to force them, but by extension they shouldn't be able to force their beliefs on how to live on those who want to go down the transhumanist route. (You get a NAP! And you get a NAP! Everyone gets a NAP!) A mainstream society and the Amish solution, but for augmented/unaugmented people, maybe.

Why do you think Elon Musk is so desperate to stuff electrodes in people's heads? Because. It's the atheist rapture, and he doesn't want to be left behind.

Man's gotta do what man's gotta do.
 

Mega Man II Intro - GB

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
There's something broken with your brain when you think that "humans are just like other species and so we will die out too". Well, the shark has been around for hundreds of millions of years essentially unchanged. And humans can solve problems. Like maybe the problem of our own extinction.

It's just such a hopeless thought. It takes a sick mind to obsess over "yes, we will all die... let me keep writing about it... death is coming for us all... it's inevitable..." the way you people do.

The best thing for the two of you death-lovers would be too seek out your own deaths so your sickness doesn't spread to other people, but you can never do that. You don't love humanity or your fellow humans so you'll happily lead them astray. But you love yourselves so you'll keep writing your doom slop for attention.

God exists. That simple fact negates all that you say. But according to your calculations he can't exist because that would mean you hadn't figured it all out. And you wouldn't be the very smart boy who predicted that everything is bad and will never get better.

It's just a lifetime temper tantrum with you types. Jim Jones but without the sex, drugs, or rock and roll.
 

Ponzo

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 13, 2021
My local supermarket is selling bug energy bars, someone tell Klaus Schwab to fuck off and that im not eating em

I.30551.266285.jpg
bb.jpg
 

_giantmeteor2024_

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 4, 2020
I have instant distrust of anyone who naively believes runaway technology will be an overall improvement for humanity. Remember the atom bomb, and all the other inventions that were created in order to use as weapons of war. Ex military intelligence helped create digitized banking, for example. It was never meant as a "boon for the little people", but as a way to control people, manipulate people, to track the International flow of funds from individuals and groups. It was a weapon of WAR. It was always used to create more profit and power for the rich.

The days in which technology was developed out of a sense of "Christian duty", such as functional vaccines for major childhood illnesses, has long gone. Most of these modern tech bros don't believe in God-- they believe they ARE God.

The troons and pro digitized body advocates will eradicate those of us who are not, and they won't give a shit. It won't benefit humanity, it will only increase death, poverty and misery.

They've already declared war on us norms, calling us "old technology".
 

teriyakiburns

I'm a really big fan of Bill Murray
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
My local supermarket is selling bug energy bars, someone tell Klaus Schwab to fuck off and that im not eating em

View attachment 3417579View attachment 3417578
That looks like the stuff I put out for the birds, except clearly loaded with sugar - which is one of the issues I have with this whole bug obsession and the people who push it: The amount of processing necessary to make the shit palatable makes it more unhealthy than all the pre-packaged meals and shitty snacks they also claim to be against.
 

ToroidalBoat

wat
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
"humans are just like other species and so we will die out too"
Even if "Earthlings" somehow go extinct, it's a big* universe. Sapient life will most likely live on.

*(there could be around 1E25 worlds in just this observable universe)

I have instant distrust of anyone who naively believes runaway technology will be an overall improvement for humanity.
"Uncle Ted" said something similar. Personally I think that if tech is used in moderation, it may not be always bad to develop tech. Especially with the health benefits. I guess an example of that in action could be old-fashioned Western European towns in the '90s?

Kaczynski said:
"Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different.
 
Last edited:

Drain Todger

Unhinged Doomsayer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 1, 2020
@SCSI

The ruling class will never, ever let us have anything good. If people could walk into a surgeon's office, purchase superpowers, go under the knife for hours, and come out of it with 300 IQ, the ability to see in the dark, enough strength to crush bricks in their hands or leap two stories straight up, and the ability to fire laser beams from their butt cheeks, the authorities would have a conniption fit.


Imagine if it was just expanding people's intelligence with a BCI and an exocortex, giving them perfect recall and doubling their intelligence. Imagine if one of those people decided to become a terrorist or criminal mastermind. How would you even stop someone like that? Ted Kaczynski evaded capture for years and years because his IQ was 167 and he knew how to cover his tracks completely. What do you do about someone who's twice as intelligent, but malevolent? You might try arguing that they could simply augment the guys hunting him to be equally intelligent, but that only covers information that is known and can be accessed by both parties. It does not cover unknown unknowns.

Imagine it's the year 2060. Abdul the Rascally Islamic Radical knows that enhancing oneself is haram because it perverts the glory of Allah's perfect design, but he agrees to be the group's sacrifice. He goes and gets his intellect boosted with gene therapy, induced pluripotent stem cells, and the installation of an exocortex on his skull. He's now smarter than Einstein and Tesla put together. He scours molec bio textbooks, devouring information and recalling it with perfect accuracy. Within a year, he's developed methods for building a DNA printer at home from scraps. He constructs a gene transfection dart gun from old medical equipment and hand-crafts a viral genome to load it with. As he's walking down the street in New York, he skulks away into an alley and shoots a passerby with his makeshift weapon. That person develops airborne rabies. Within weeks, millions of people are dead.

Wait. My bad. You don't need enhanced intelligence to do that. In a matter of a decade or two, any idiot will be able to do this.


Evans said the creation of synthetic horsepox “isn't trivially easy.” He said he was not seeking publicity and wished that news organizations would not make a “fuss” about his work.
“Whether you can make the virus, or whether there are these hidden stocks of virus, doesn’t change the fact that in the case of smallpox, we have to be prepared for it,” he said. “I don’t know whether the risk has gone up or not. The fact we’re talking about it is to some extent increasing the risk.”

Tom Frieden, former head of the CDC, said the breakthrough was not surprising but probably makes the debate over destroying the existing smallpox stockpiles less relevant. He said it highlights the need to monitor more closely “dual-use” experiments — research that could be used either for protective purposes or, in theory, to create a deadly pathogen.


The most dangerous technology is nano-enabled biotechnology. While the nexus of these two sciences has already produced extremely effective medicines for certain types of cancer and will likely cure other diseases in time, the same technologies that can cure disease can also be perverted to cause it. With the “Rosetta Stone” for the human genome only a handful of years away, the world is entering an era when it is possible to design a perfectly lethal virus for which no immunity exists. By 2030 this capability could reside in the hands of a master’s degree holder in microbiology.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible for a sufficiently wealthy individual to destroy all the surface navies in the world using current technology. All you would need is a couple million dollars, a narco sub factory, some microcontrollers, GPS chips, and sensors, and some skilled AI coders. For about $10k a pop, you could build autonomous semi-submersible torpedoes each filled with a thousand pounds of ANFO. Build a few hundred of them, link them together with swarm AI and sensor fusion capabilities, and send them at surface vessels. Nobody can stop 'em. ASW assets would let more than half slip by. CIWS guns would struggle just to target them. One single hit at the waterline, and a multi-billion-dollar nuclear-powered carrier is sitting on the bottom of the ocean. That's what one sufficiently angry and resourceful drug kingpin could do, right now, with technology that already exists.


Transhumanism isn't misguided because of the human augmentation aspect of it. There's nothing inherently ignoble or wrong about wanting to enhance the human lifespan, or our mental faculties, or our physical strength and resilience. We arguably already do this with medical implants and performance-enhancing drugs. The problem with transhumanism is that it cannot actually exist as a social phenomenon without wreaking havoc. After the ruling class have spent decades with RAND Corporation types tugging their ears and telling them all the ways that society will collapse due to "disruptive" technology, they're paranoid about "existential threats". Everyone looks like a terrorist to them, now.

Governments are sustaining themselves on a carefully-crafted illusion of power. You cannot control a society of tech-MacGyvers, biohackers, and post-humans. They're ungovernable. A couple decades after the NWO seizes power, no one will be able to buy anything that could be used to build a drone or model aircraft, or do gene sequencing at home, or anything too disruptive. People's implants will be used to track them and analyze their behavior and give them access to their bank accounts, not enhance their capabilities. Anything that provides people with enhanced faculties just makes them that much harder to track, to cage, and to discipline.

The problem with technology is that the excuse for tyranny is built right into it. You can't have more tech without more tyranny, because it would produce absolute chaos. Augmenting oneself is power. It's power that the ruling class will never let the peasants have, because if we did have it, then they would be immediately overthrown and displaced. Why would the Overclass spend years and years brainwashing people in public school to accept their rulership as inevitable and immutable, only to let people take cyber-shrooms and mentally unshackle themselves in an afternoon?


They already don't allow us any agency at all. How much agency do you think they'd allow you if you were augmented? They'd keep you in a dog kennel, my friend.

The Overclass know that their days are numbered if they do nothing. People are waking up to their evil faster and faster. The internet allows people to share information about Elite crimes and government malfeasance on an unprecedented scale. Stuff like Wikileaks scared the shit out of them. Why do you think they whine so much about the Wayback Machine and its ilk? They don't like it when people can retrieve cached pages whenever they like. They want the power to memory-hole and stealth-edit whatever they want. Even without the benefit of archived shit, it's trivially easy to assemble a picture of what they're doing, from the things these WEF people say publicly about themselves.


The WEF mind-set assumes that these things are good and desirable because they solve the problem that ever vexes the technocratic class: the mulish refusal of the lumpenproles to adjust their behavior when requested. We asked you nicely, but what did you do? You ate a hamburger and got on a plane. Really, you’ve no one to blame but yourself. This pillow-soft scientific fascism appeals to the romantically unsuccessful urban journalist in search of a cause, and the next thing you know, the media write stories with headlines like “Smart Underwear Will Use Bluetooth to Report Your Carbon Output.”

These people are very status-quo-minded. They talk about change, about improving society, but they don't actually want anything to change at all. They want to preserve the wealth and power of an unaccountable, ossified Elite at all costs, even if it means diminishing our quality of life.


A sufficiently augmented post-human is basically indistinguishable from a nation. It's the ultimate libertarian fantasy; to become a sovereign being. This is the exact opposite of what the Overclass want for the vast majority of people, and the evidence is in their actions: more tracking, more globalization, more collectivization, fewer individual liberties, fewer property rights, fewer privacy rights, et cetera.

A true post-human can't be tracked, commodified, or have laws imposed upon him from above. Everything he touches is his property. This is a power that the Overclass will reserve solely for themselves, of course.

There's something broken with your brain when you think that "humans are just like other species and so we will die out too". Well, the shark has been around for hundreds of millions of years essentially unchanged. And humans can solve problems. Like maybe the problem of our own extinction.

It's just such a hopeless thought. It takes a sick mind to obsess over "yes, we will all die... let me keep writing about it... death is coming for us all... it's inevitable..." the way you people do.

The best thing for the two of you death-lovers would be too seek out your own deaths so your sickness doesn't spread to other people, but you can never do that. You don't love humanity or your fellow humans so you'll happily lead them astray. But you love yourselves so you'll keep writing your doom slop for attention.

God exists. That simple fact negates all that you say. But according to your calculations he can't exist because that would mean you hadn't figured it all out. And you wouldn't be the very smart boy who predicted that everything is bad and will never get better.

It's just a lifetime temper tantrum with you types. Jim Jones but without the sex, drugs, or rock and roll.
If we assume that evolution is correct, then humans eventually will go extinct for the simple reason that we would be replaced by our evolutionary descendants over a hundred thousand years from now. Our genes are mutating all the time. Our offspring are a little bit different from us, and their offspring, and their offspring, and so on. Humans have changed profoundly in terms of skeletal structure even in the past five thousand years, reflecting our continuing "domestication". If we were somehow able to escape that by genetically engineering ourselves to lock in our current genetics (not inconceivable; actually quite feasible technologically), then our next checkpoint in entropy hell world is somehow avoiding being wiped out by a GRB or cataclysmic asteroid impact.

If we can manage that, then in 600 million years, C3 carbon fixation will end, most plant life on Earth will die, and then, sometime within 600 million to a billion years from now, Earth will revert to having basically no oxygen in its atmosphere. At that point, the maintenance of humanity would necessarily come from building megastructures around long-lived celestial bodies like red dwarf stars and black holes and hoovering up asteroid belts for resources, a process that will last us some trillions of years before the universe grows dark and cold, or rips itself apart, or collapses in on itself.

If you happen to believe that black hole cosmology or the many-worlds hypothesis are true, we might be able to escape the death of this universe by somehow generating a traversable wormhole and sending ourselves (or information representing us, if our physical forms cannot survive the journey) through it and into a young universe. Good luck engineering the device to do this.

The point is, barring absolutely herculean effort on our part (and some undiscovered or otherwise impossible physics), we're all basically dead anyway after the passage of sufficient time and all of our greatest works of art and culture are practically guaranteed to disappear. Yes, even that of the post-humans.
 

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
I have instant distrust of anyone who naively believes runaway technology will be an overall improvement for humanity. Remember the atom bomb, and all the other inventions that were created in order to use as weapons of war. Ex military intelligence helped create digitized banking, for example. It was never meant as a "boon for the little people", but as a way to control people, manipulate people, to track the International flow of funds from individuals and groups. It was a weapon of WAR. It was always used to create more profit and power for the rich.
The two most dramatic technological revolutions in history, agricultural revolution and industrial revolution, brought a massive increase in misery, poverty, and warfare and a massive decrease in the health of the average individual (agriculture is quantity over quality in terms of diet, industrial lifestyle produced air/water pollution, unsanitary cities, and far more dangerous jobs for women/children than existed before). A slightly less influential technological revolution, the technological changes at the end of the Middle Ages, gave us gunpowder weapons and advanced shipbuilding that led to European colonialism, bloody religious war, mass plantation slavery (which was more deadly for slaves than any other form of slavery), and a global increase in the slave trade thanks to Muslim gunpowder empires, people selling guns to African kingdoms so they could enslave other Africans, etc. And the next technological revolution, the one the WEF desires, will probably be just as big as the agricultural revolution at minimum. Think of all the bullshit that will come about from it.

I think the only solution is to bring technological progress to a halt and focus on utilizing the technology we already have. While Nick Bostrom associates himself with globalists like the Bilderberg meetings (probably as an invited "sage" by those weirdos, just like how Epstein invited all sorts of "experts" to his island so they'd give him ideas), a lot of his ideas aren't necessarily wrong when taken in isolation from his philosophy. For instance, he claims we should not research certain technologies (Bostrom cites super-AI) because they pose an existential risk to civilization. And he's totally right--we shouldn't research that. Arguably we shouldn't research much new technology at all.

That's a problem, since it pretty much means you need a one-world government monitoring everyone to make sure no one is doing this research. We can't even do this with shitty-ass nations like North Korea wanting nukes, and that's not even the first case of that since Apartheid South Africa got nukes (from Israel) despite being sanctioned by pretty much the entire world. A late 20th century nuclear program relies on a fuckton of technology, equipment, and expertise, but we can't even stop shithole nations from developing them. That bodes ill for our chances in stopping researchers from making super-AI, bioweapons, etc.

That's why even in a best case scenario, there will be no privacy in the future. But it doesn't have to mean "live in pod, eat bugs". We'd realistically want to halt technological development in the 1980s-00s range of technology, using nuclear power and space solar power to refine endless amounts of ethanol (with small amounts of Fischer-Tropsch oil to make E90 fuel) for our vehicles, with electric vehicles for short-range applications (delivery vans). I don't think small government or truly free markets have any place in the future, since they'd want to advance technology. It would be a stagnant, zero-growth society, possibly even with population controls (which unlike the WEF wouldn't involve manipulating whites to castrate themselves), although it might be possible to colonize space under this system and as long as people didn't go too far from Earth (so they could be monitored, so probably like a few light-seconds from Earth) we wouldn't need population control.

I think you can see how this ideology is similar to "WEFism," but also the distinctions. Not enough people really focus on the "how" of making a "sustainable future" (to use one of the WEF's favorite buzzwords). People know about the WEF, but the solution is always "something something free market and religion will solve the problems" which it really won't. The free market doesn't give a fuck about you plebs and will gladly run us down the road to destruction in the name of profit and they'll corrupt religion too, the same way all these "Christian" state governors like Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas support the trooning out kids in the name of "small government" and also his corporate masters who in the name of DEI would restrict doing business in his state.

But fact of the matter is the future is probably going to be shit when the best options for avoiding WEFism is "return to monke" or the sort of deliberately stagnated society like I described above. Hell, it might even have to have population control so people could maintain their lifestyles, because the other option is conflict over scarce resources (so bad) or humans spreading too far out into space and thus the danger of creating unmonitored locations (call them "New Wuhans" after the Wuhan Institute of Biology, funded by American scientists like Fauci who couldn't do their research in the US). It would be a lot of work and wouldn't be a very nice society to live in compared to the actual 80s-00s, but would be far superior to the society dreamed of by the WEF utopians (read: dystopians).
 

L50LasPak

We have all the time in the world.
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
God exists. That simple fact negates all that you say. But according to your calculations he can't exist because that would mean you hadn't figured it all out. And you wouldn't be the very smart boy who predicted that everything is bad and will never get better.
God's will is the eternal damnation of the human race, a fate we richly deserve which assuredly awaits us all.