Mo' money, mo' problems.
At what point will we not need to advance scientifically? Is there an endgame?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Philosophy!
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Never heard of the Markovians?
Germs, mostly. Guns and Steel helped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
For some reason, humans have always sought shelter, and warmth when it gets cold. It goes without saying that we need food and water.
I guess these are our basic needs.
Jan.
I think most of us here can remember a time when we didn’t have mobile phones, or personal computers. As much as I prefer technological advancement, than not. Life wasn’t any less brilliant or exciting. To be honest, I could repeat any of about 10 telephone numbers, instantaneously, whereas my memory is not as sharp today. I’m aware that ageing could be a factor, but I don’t think it is.
But why go past the point where we can live out the rest of our days in comfort, have fulfilling lives where we don’t have to struggle?
Do you think we are at a time and place where we could simultaneously solve poverty, have clean water, on a global level, and still have a good, western style life (I realise I’m beingsidealistic)
What do you think is an acceptable life spa
Based on that logic, we will not be content until we can live forever. Would
So why are we still dissatisfied?
Are we still chasing carrots?
Thanks for not not going down the atheist/theist route. I appreciate it.
Jan.
Last edited:
That probably has more to do with you being younger then. I know a few older people whose only contact with the outside world is via computer. That improves their lives.
Because we can always work to make OTHER people's lives less of a struggle, and work to lessen the damage we do to our environment, and work to expand our knowledge of ourselves and the universe. (Would be nice to cure cancer, for example, or find another civilization we can learn from.)
Not if a "good western lifestyle" involves SUV's, motorboats, regular steak dinners and vacations to Italy.
I don't know. If people could live to 100 with a good quality of life, that would be a good goal.
That's likely.
It's how we are programmed. A child who is born and is always satisfied eventually starves, and doesn't have any more kids.
The reply was to:
White supremacist BS.
[trial, error and the pursuit of craziness]
Surely, you must be able to make up your own mind about that.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Yes. But spiritually begates physically and that ends in "end game" beliefs.
Science is merely the catalyst or process of uncovering the truths of the universe. Or half truths. Science doesn't "advance" as much as it reaches conclusions, and discovers what has always been there the whole time, in my opinion. I haven't read through this thread (so, maybe you've answered this), but why would you want science to stop making discoveries?
I know that you're spiritual/religious, but science isn't our enemy.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Not conclusions; working models.
The models will be improved over time. Or rejected for a better model.
Marathon-man
Registered Member
Maybe when we can evolve at will or change at a molecular level to fit any environment or circumstances. That would eliminate most inventions.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That may put an end to physical inventions but it surely won't put an end to our curious nature.
Marathon-man
Registered Member
It won't, but the question was scientific advancement, not curiosity. If we can change at will to swim underwater or take flight. if we can change our molecular structure to live in a volcano or on a planet with a hostile atmosphere scientific advancement is merely a thought away.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes, scientific advancement, not technological advancement.
In other words, we won't stop learning how the world works.