Is Futurism the way forward?

[jordanisonfire]

Topic is pretty obvious, I hope, from the title.

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

I personally don't believe it is. That's not to say I don't believe in technological advances, but I don't think we should abandon the past and not consider nature. It all just seems like a load of bullshit to me. Maybe in the future, and if we do, in fact, triumph over nature in every possible aspect, which I doubt we ever will, seeing as humans are part of nature, then maybe it will be the way forward. But I don't see that happening.

[Lizzie]

I don't either. Load of bollocks. As you said, we are nature and no one can abolish mother nature. When we cut down a tree, if there are roots, it will grow again. Oh and we need Co2 to breathe, duh!

[Lykaios]

Lizzie, we breath out carbon dioxide, we breath air. :P

I think this all depends on personal morals really.
I personally love history and I think it's a very stupid person who choses to forget the past. Nature is everything we are. We see it, we breate it, we live on it. If you don't care for your own home and that of the trillions of life forms around you, then what good can come out of something that teaches you not to loo after it? The future is what we make it, and technology isn't always the right way.

[Shaun]

The future has the potential to prove that biological matter is meaningless. It all depends where we go with technology and augmentations.

[appleofmyeye]

Is this not the direction we are goign anyway? Sure, we are aware of our impact on the enviroment but we are not whole heartedly willing to sacrafice our way of life. Even with our efforts to preserve the Earth it is one step forward, two steps back. So maybe this isn't completely ridiculous.

[jordanisonfire]

Yeah, but to disregard the past and to want to take nature out of the picture, that's pretty extreme. As I said before, I'm all for technological advancement, but not so far as to think we should abandon the basic structure of existence in favour of methods that involve placing our trust completely in machines, things we have created, that have every chance of failing and thus leaving us with no advancement at all, without the option to go back to the basic world we live in now. It's kind of a debate of Physics vs. Biology - which is more important? Would any of you destroy nature and disregard the past in order to place humanity's entire survival in machines?

[blue phoenix]

I think it would be stupid to forget the past, because we'd forget all of our mistakes and just do them over and over again. And with the whole nature aspect, I would and will do a lot to help the environment and it's beings. If we kill all the plants what will we do to keep enough oxygen in the air? What will happen to all the animals we don't domesticate for food? What if we just kill all the animals mercilessly? I don't mind technical advances, but I do mind getting rid of nature or whatever you refer to it as.

[appleofmyeye]

Please don't shoot me for this.

Maybe this is where we will go, everything will be destroyed, and the world will end in 2013.

*hides*

Well, don't blame me that I'm superstitious. Every nuclear bomb can go off at this instant and the world will end. You never know.

[Starry]

I think the whole idea behind futurism is that eventually, we would get to a point where we could exist independent of nature. We could have machines to create oxygen, to make food, stuff like that, and I think those innovations would be good, not to be dependent on expendable natural resources for survival. At the same time, that doesn't mean we should totally disregard nature, just because we could.

(500th post! *waves little flag*)

[blue phoenix]

Your right, you never know. And if people don't do some thing it might happen, but probably slower then if all nuclear bombs went off. My dad said some people are thinking that the world will end in 2013 or 2012 because that's when the Mayan calender stops...

Don't take my word for it though.

[Starry]

Your right, you never know. And if people don't do some thing it might happen, but probably slower then if all nuclear bombs went off. My dad said some people are thinking that the world will end in 2013 or 2012 because that's when the Mayan calender stops...

Don't take my word for it though.

Oh yeah, you're right about that, the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, and people are interpreting it as the end of the world. Where they're getting that from, though, I have no idea. It's not like there's a big red square that says WORLD ENDS TODAY or anything. It's just where they happened to have stopped counting, it's not significant to the Mayans at all.

[jordanisonfire]

Hm, perhaps its somehow linked to the London Olympics? XD

[Alex]

The elimination of the enviroment is fine as long as an equally reliable substitute (that would obviously be more efficient in multiple ways) could be produced. Could that happen, maybe, but not soon. At the same time history is important to provide an outline of mistakes to not repeat and should not be forgotten.

[jordanisonfire]

Again, I don't see how there could be an alternative to the environment. How are we going to produce mass amounts of oxygen, food, water and all the other necessities we get from nature with something from machines that we create?

[DefJam101]

It is very possible. Judging by the current condition of space travel, it also seems very likely. The discrepancy arrives when people think this means a shining utopia of love and harmony rather than a progressively anti-human descent into a corporate nuclear war. ;)

[Polly]

If they done that it'd be horrible and stupid.
Why would we take away something thats been here far longer than us, its silly and annoying.
Infact why would we ever consider killing something as beautiful as nature an the enviroment, no tree's, no plants, no flowers. It'd be silly, and plus don't we need tree's for oxegyn

[Rouge]

Oh yeah, you're right about that, the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, and people are interpreting it as the end of the world. Where they're getting that from, though, I have no idea. It's not like there's a big red square that says WORLD ENDS TODAY or anything. It's just where they happened to have stopped counting, it's not significant to the Mayans at all.
I was just talking to Zomb about the Mayan calender last night. Who's to say, now I haven't done any research on this, I don't want my head bitten off for saying it, but who's to say that they didn't die out before completing the calender? I mean, it abruptly stops, not exactly meaning the end of the world, but there could have been this massive Latin American war going on then, and the calender would've been the last thing on their minds.
Though, I could be wrong about that. >.<

If they done that it'd be horrible and stupid.
Why would we take away something thats been here far longer than us, its silly and annoying.
Infact why would we ever consider killing something as beautiful as nature an the enviroment, no tree's, no plants, no flowers. It'd be silly, and plus don't we need tree's for oxegyn
We need all plants to breathe. I don't see why -- like you said -- we would kill something that was here before us. It doesn't make sense to me, and I personally wouldn't do it, unless, like Alex said, there was something more dependable with more uses. Again, like he said, that's not going to happen soon, I don't think.

History's one of my most beloved subjects and I don't want that taken away. I'm all for the advancement of technology, but relying on machines is. . .stupid, unless they're 100% full-proof. Which, is hardly possible.

/end

[Walkingcompilation]

The futurism in that article is about the art movement, not technological advancement...

That being said, aren't we already rediculously reliant on technology? Most of our food is harvested by machinery, and even pastoral farming is becoming almost industrial in the way it's carried out. As long as population levels keep rising, this sort of practice is going to increase. On top of that, everything is done on computers nowadays; it's the only efficient way. We can't exactly abandon this as the whole developed world would go into disarray. We've gotten past the point of no return, I suppose. We have to keep going to keep modern civilisation running, and in order to keep the computers running we need to keep our energy addiction satisfied and that means digging up more oil whether we like it or not. Whether or not you personally are dependant on machines and gadgets, that's your choice, but I guarantee that most of you would be reluctant to live a truly natural life.

For the record, I want nature to stay intact.

[Alex]

History's one of my most beloved subjects and I don't want that taken away. I'm all for the advancement of technology, but relying on machines is. . .stupid, unless they're 100% full-proof. Which, is hardly possible.

/end


A machine running at 99% efficiency is pretty much going to be more efficient than a human no matter who it is. Relying on said machine has 1 in 1000 chance of failing (doesn't have to be a major task) but what is the failure rate going to be for a human performing the same tasks?

[Jack]

Lizzie, we breath out carbon dioxide, we breath air. :P

Well techincally we breath oxygen which we filter out from the air. Carbon Dioxide is also in ther air, infact a higher percentage of air is Carbon Dioxide than oxygen :)

[eriko]

I don't understand one thing: do you really think we would be able to survive without nature? Nature has the capability to evolve but will our technology be able to do the same? I think that for sometime we would be able to sustain but without any uniform code for the technology, we will just die eventually. Ofcourse this will also depend upon the future brains of our world. But lawlessnes and crime will eventually bring our downfall. Technology can never outgrow nature. Nature is perfect without any flaws.

[Shaun]

Nature is far from perfect. It makes mistakes all the time.

And technology could outlive nature and could take nature's role. It's whether we want it to that is the question.

[jordanisonfire]

And technology could outlive nature and could take nature's role. It's whether we want it to that is the question.

Could you tell me how technology could do everything nature can do and/or more and do it better? I'm not denying it, well, not entirely, but I'm curious.

[Shaun]

We're inches away from being able to evolve ourselves. We'll be able to change our genetic structure as we please to suit whatever purpose we need it for. That's just around the corner. And there will no doubt be a point where we may have to ask ourselves whether all the mechanical/computerized implants we put inside ourselves constitute a removal of our humanness.

[jordanisonfire]

So, you're saying that we should allow ourselves to be consumed by technology, hope that natural selection will allow a few of us to survive and, if it does, give transhumanism a thumbs up and turn ourselves into semi-robots?

[Uriel]

We're inches away from being able to evolve ourselves. We'll be able to change our genetic structure as we please to suit whatever purpose we need it for. That's just around the corner. And there will no doubt be a point where we may have to ask ourselves whether all the mechanical/computerized implants we put inside ourselves constitute a removal of our humanness.

That's bull, we as humans, aren't going to evolve more than we already have...which is never. We get smarter, and learn to combat certain illness through imunity, but we won't evolve, and never have. We will be able to change ourselves in the future throung technology or some other means, but it has nothing to do with evolution. Also, I think that as we move on in the future, our need for mother nature will lesson, you know?

[Zaphkiel]

I agree with my little brother. First of all, we've never evovled, just gotten smarter as the years have progressed. Secondly, at the rate we're moving, there just might be no need for mother nature, but that will come in the distant future...if there is one for us.

[Polly]

I disagree.
Humans evolved, a bit like giraffes.
You see giraffes used to have short necks, but then they mutated (evolved) so now they have long necks. Eventually the short necked giraffes died out. We humans mutated (evolved) from gorillas/monkeys whatever... but they haven't died out yet.

[Zaphkiel]

I disagree.

If we evovled from monkeys, then why haven't we evovled once for the thousands of years that have already passed? It doesn't make any sense. The concept of evolution is just an unbalanced, unethical theory.

[Polly]

I disagree.

If we evovled from monkeys, then why haven't we evovled once for the thousands of years that have already passed? It doesn't make any sense. The concept of evolution is just an unbalanced, unethical theory.
I doubt we'll evolve again, we've gotten so awesome we can no longer improve:cool:
Infact, sometimes it seems like nature is trying to change/mutate us but we destroy it.
Look at stuff like the elephant man, other diseases alike. You never know ;)

[Zaphkiel]

I understand what you're trying to say, but if we haven't evolved for thousands of years, then how can we prove we even evolved in the first place? I just think that's something to think about for those of you who believe in evolution.:cool:

[Polly]

Because we can't just have suddenly appeared on earth like
"Oh.. cool :P"
Cells came together etc, they can't have formed us straight away, and if we haven't evolved for 1000 years how can we proove we didn't evolve...
:D

[appleofmyeye]

Of course we've evlolved. I'm talking from prehistoric man, our bodies and minds have changed. We forget though that humans are young. There is no way we will evolve anytime soon, in a hundred million years maybe, but not now.

The problem with futurism is we are looking at things from a human perspectave. Humans aren't going to destroy the Earth. The worst scenario is humans destroying ourselves. Earth will rebuild itself and the cycle goes on. Nature can never cease to exist. It will change but humans do not have enough power to permanatly damage the Earth.

[Starry]

Oh my God, I can't believe I have actually encountered someone who doesn't believe in evolution...weird. Are you from some hyper-conservative land that doesn't believe in women's rights either?

There is a whole system of proof for evolution, most of which I don't remember because I spaced out a lot in eighth grade. The most compelling evidence, though, in my opinion, is that scientists have FOUND EARLIER FORMS OF HUMANS. Australopithicene, I think they're called. They're way shorter than current humans, walk hunched over, have much smaller brains, were vegetarians...it's quite interesting, actually.

[Polly]

Oh my God, I can't believe I have actually encountered someone who doesn't believe in evolution...weird. Are you from some hyper-conservative land that doesn't believe in women's rights either?

There is a whole system of proof for evolution, most of which I don't remember because I spaced out a lot in eighth grade. The most compelling evidence, though, in my opinion, is that scientists have FOUND EARLIER FORMS OF HUMANS. Australopithicene, I think they're called. They're way shorter than current humans, walk hunched over, have much smaller brains, were vegetarians...it's quite interesting, actually.

Wow, that is pretty intresting.
Where did you find that out?

[Shaun]

So, you're saying that we should allow ourselves to be consumed by technology, hope that natural selection will allow a few of us to survive and, if it does, give transhumanism a thumbs up and turn ourselves into semi-robots?

No, I'm not saying that we should allow it. I'm saying that most likely it's going to happen. I'd prefer that we spent more time being intelligent with how we breed rather than using technology to fudge everything up. I have no qualms with using technology to make our lives better, though. If we can make an artificial heart that works better than a regular one to help people who have bad hearts, then I'm cool with that.

That's bull, we as humans, aren't going to evolve more than we already have...which is never. We get smarter, and learn to combat certain illness through imunity, but we won't evolve, and never have. We will be able to change ourselves in the future throung technology or some other means, but it has nothing to do with evolution. Also, I think that as we move on in the future, our need for mother nature will lesson, you know?

This is one of the biggest conceptions about evolution out there: the notion that we aren't evolving or haven't evolved. It's actually not true. We are evolving all the time. Evolution doesn't work by enormous jumps on a scale that you and I can see. We aren't going to become super humans next week. Evolution is a slow, directed process by which our cells change or adapt to external and internal stimuli. Human beings have been evolving since we first popped up on this planet from the seed of another species (to make it all poetic).

Take for example the evolution of natural immunities, the introduction of many diseases that, in certain combinations, actually provide protections against more horrendous things (such as malaria), etc. Humans have been evolving and will continue to evolve. We've never stopped. Whether we will ever evolve into something other than Homo sapiens sapiens is up in the air. It may be impossible precisely because technology will intervene.

And technology will provide the route to evolve ourselves: we'll be able to change our bodies as we see fit, to make humans better and more efficient (or smarter, etc.).

And intelligence is a mark of evolution.

[Uriel]

Oh my God, I can't believe I have actually encountered someone who doesn't believe in evolution...weird. Are you from some hyper-conservative land that doesn't believe in women's rights either?

There is a whole system of proof for evolution, most of which I don't remember because I spaced out a lot in eighth grade. The most compelling evidence, though, in my opinion, is that scientists have FOUND EARLIER FORMS OF HUMANS. Australopithicene, I think they're called. They're way shorter than current humans, walk hunched over, have much smaller brains, were vegetarians...it's quite interesting, actually.

If there is a system of proof, then it's most likely a bunch of BS. No human can say we evolved and have absolute proof to back it up.:D

[Shaun]

If there is a system of proof, then it's most likely a bunch of BS. No human can say we evolved and have absolute proof to back it up.:D

Umm, yes we can. This argument basically is saying that anything that humans say must be BS because you can't prove anything via human thought. If that's the case, then nothing exists, since we can't prove it does. We're not talking on the Internet, because anything you say to prove that we are is automatically BS because you're human.

The reason we know the things we do on this planet is precisely because of human thought. We know that blood circulates through the veins, that the moon causes the tides, etc. Evolution is know different. There is irrefutable proof of evolution. We can trace it in our genes to see past evolutionary jumps and we can see evolution happening today either in our own species or in other species (this happens all the time, you'd be surprised to know; new subspecies and evolutionary jumps are happening all the time in animals we tend to take for granted, you just don't hear about it because it's all largely boring).

To provide you with proof: In order for evolution to be true and for human beings to be related via a common ancestor with the great apes, there would have to be an explanation for why we have different amounts of chromosomes. One such explanation was that one of the chromosomes got fused. The Human Genome Project proved this to be true. We can actually see the fused chromosome and can trace it to its exact position in our genetic line, etc. All of this has been proven through science.

But you'll probably pass off this "proof" as just human BS, since anything humans say or do is just a load of crap. Why bother education yourself? It's all crap. 1+1 isn't 2, because humans came up with that and anything they say is BS. This sort of logic is absurd at best.

[Uriel]

Umm, yes we can. This argument basically is saying that anything that humans say must be BS because you can't prove anything via human thought. If that's the case, then nothing exists, since we can't prove it does. We're not talking on the Internet, because anything you say to prove that we are is automatically BS because you're human.

The reason we know the things we do on this planet is precisely because of human thought. We know that blood circulates through the veins, that the moon causes the tides, etc. Evolution is know different. There is irrefutable proof of evolution. We can trace it in our genes to see past evolutionary jumps and we can see evolution happening today either in our own species or in other species (this happens all the time, you'd be surprised to know; new subspecies and evolutionary jumps are happening all the time in animals we tend to take for granted, you just don't hear about it because it's all largely boring).

To provide you with proof: In order for evolution to be true and for human beings to be related via a common ancestor with the great apes, there would have to be an explanation for why we have different amounts of chromosomes. One such explanation was that one of the chromosomes got fused. The Human Genome Project proved this to be true. We can actually see the fused chromosome and can trace it to its exact position in our genetic line, etc. All of this has been proven through science.

But you'll probably pass off this "proof" as just human BS, since anything humans say or do is just a load of crap. Why bother education yourself? It's all crap. 1+1 isn't 2, because humans came up with that and anything they say is BS. This sort of logic is absurd at best.

Don't insult my intelligence, please. I have my beliefs in human creation, and you have yours. Just because I think you're belief is not logical, doesn't mean you have to get touchy.

[Shaun]

Don't insult my intelligence, please. I have my beliefs in human creation, and you have yours. Just because I think you're belief is not logical, doesn't mean you have to get touchy.

You're only insulted if you honestly think you lack intelligence.

I'm not insulting you. I'm telling you how it is. Evolution isn't a believe. It's a fact. Religion is a belief.

[Uriel]

Evolution is just as much of a belief, if not more, than religion. It's only a theory.

[appleofmyeye]

Nothing is absolute. But if the bible told me if I jumped of a cliff I would survive, I wouldn't because common sense and science tells me I wouldn't live :P.

[Mercy]

Evolution may be a belief but it is also a fact. It has evidence to back itself up.

[Shaun]

Evolution is just as much of a belief, if not more, than religion. It's only a theory.

Along with a lot of things you probably know to be true despite the fact that they are "just theories." Gravity, for example, is a theory. The thing people seem to misinterpret about what it means to be a "theory" is the assumption that a theory is something that isn't true. Actually, quite the opposite. A theory is something that is based on mountains of evidence, has been tested, retested, retested again, adjusted, attacked, stabbed, and retested again to prove its efficacy; for all intensive purposes, a theory is something that we know to be true until something comes along that says otherwise. Considering that there are NO other scientific theories and NO evidence that actually contradicts the basic tenants of evolution, evolution, as a theory, is, at the very least, a scientific certainty.

It's your choice to remain ignorant to what science has provided you in text books, journals, the Internet, and documentaries. Evolution is a fact. Look it up. You'll find that what you understand to be "a theory" is probably wrong and that what the scientific community deems a theory is actually based on irrefutable evidence. There's no need to "believe" in evolution, because the evidence is winking you in the face. It's telling you "I'm here, this is reality, face it."

Religion is founded entirely upon belief, because it doesn't require empirical evidence to support it. Religion survives not by proof of its efficacy, but through the belief of its followers. There would be no Christianity if people went by actual proof of God. There would be no religions whatsoever if we were to base belief on proof. Science isn't about belief; it's about what we know and what we can find out in this universe as we know it. And right now, what we've found out is that we evolved and continue to evolve.

[winniethepooh4102]

Evolution is a theory, but this theory cannot explain everything.
Degradation and decay havent a theory, but we can feel them.
Religion is belief, just one of our beliefs which helps us to exist.
Science also cannot explain everything in us and surrounding us.
I think the best way for us is to work with paradigms which
unite the scientific achievements, our experience our beliefs,
desires and expectations for the future.

[Shaun]

Well no, because evolution is only about one thing. It's not the theory of everything, just a theory of how live changes. And I don't really know what you were trying to say at the end because it was kind of missing words or something along those lines.

[winniethepooh4102]

Because I read one book in the past with such paradigms
of famous persons, therefore I used this termin "paradigm".
It is as a conception for everything, simply and good working.
But I’m not sure now how entitled was this book. I will look
for it, I think it was entitled "The paradigm" and will tell you.
...Sorry there are too many results in Google with this word.
You know, when I looking for this book in Google I found on
such sentence "The paradigm of the bank system don’t
works". There are all these financial theories, but people there
are working with paradigms and are earning money, the most
easy earned money. This is maybe not the best example for
our life, but is a good one.

[kitkat]

You can take the girl out of the forest, but you can never take the forest from the girl. Or the earth, its just not heathy.

[DefJam101]

Why is it that people think Evolution is some kind of 'force'? Like you would find in a science-fiction movie? It is the interaction of several factors of life over a very long span of time, nothing more. There is no metaphysical fairy dust pushing your genes along to evolve, it happens through a lengthy process of elimination.

[kitkat]

Yes, evolution happens over millins of year. For example, we still hold trates from careman. We jump at a loud sound becouse it scares us. Now adays theres nothing to ba afread of, its just a gein that was given to them so they could protect themselfs from sudden attacks. Yet for people like me who are really jumpy, it drives me up a wall XD.

[eriko]

Evolution is a continuous process. It does not take million years to happen actually it takes evolution million years to form different species. Evolution for man has not stopped. Actually according to research in the last 100 yrs humans have evolved faster than ever. Evolution does not mean sprouting new arms or legs. Humans now have shorter brains. Our genome structure has changed incredibly. Globalisation has speeded up evolution.

And somebody said we have evolved fom monkeys. It is a myth. Modern monkeys, apes and humans have evolved side by side, we just have a common ancestor.

Nature is perfect. If you are talking of those flaws when nature breaks her own laws and forms new one. Then this is also a process involved in evolution. And besides humans are responsible for this. It is actually our fault. We are the one with flaws.

Human beings are part of the evolution and not its pinnacle. In biological terms we are no superior to any of the species.

First of all, nature can't cease to exist.But even then lets take it, that, we are able to displace the natural environment with the artificial one. (Displacing nature won't bring us anywhere.) Maybe for the next hundered years there is uniform growth in science. But who can guarantee that it will remain so. It can also happen that different sciences would come up. And in absence of nature, that is common laws and principles to base our technology, these technologies may have totally different principles and laws, and maybe the working principles would be in contradiction with each other. Do you really think we would be able sustain like this?

And then there are other factors as well that make up a society. Most important are the moral values. If we become semi-robots, I suppose there is a possibility that many of us will loose are human traits. And thats when crime and lawlessness will flourish. We all have read history and know what is the impact of crime on a nation's economy.