The Human Race will be Extinct by 2500

[Unholyground]

You dont understand how radioactivity works, got it. Just for record Chernobyl is multiple time worse then any nuclear bombs we ever fired in effect. No Nuclear war cannot destroy the entire human race, we dont even have that close of a capability. So no, not a few nukes. Wanna know how long Hiroshima was unsafe with radiation, weeks.

It depends how big the nuke is, it could last much loner than "weeks" lol.

[arguingdave]

I think it has value, being able to feel sadness can aid in empathy and in how you treat others, if you know an action will create an emotion in another, and you have felt that emotion yourself, you might think twice about said action. If you have never felt it then I am dubious about the ethical choices that might be made. Not that this guarantees a psychopath, or having felt sadness guarantees empathetic actions that will try to avoid sadness, but I think it does increase the likelihood.

Exactly, bang on.

The ability to feel for others is something that made us able to civilize in the first place. I'm glad there's smart people that understand it.

Humans + Increased Empathy + Increased Baseline Intelligence + More Durable Lifeform (200-300yrs) = Tier 1 Species

^ We need more baseline intelligence because Humans, in general, are fucking stupid. 0.1% of the population understand the most advanced knowledge of humankind and it's funneling even lower. People also don't have enough time to generally care for the world or universe when the maximum lifespan of around 100 years isn't all that much, especially as a species that only keeps its youth until 30 and is pretty much prone to anything thereafter. Remember, we're not so long distant cousins of apes and we're still acting like them.

[Machismo]

Exactly, bang on.

The ability to feel for others is something that made us able to civilize in the first place. I'm glad there's smart people that understand it.

Humans + Increased Empathy + Increased Baseline Intelligence + More Durable Lifeform (200-300yrs) = Tier 1 Species

^ We need more baseline intelligence because Humans, in general, are fucking stupid. 0.1% of the population understand the most advanced knowledge of humankind and it's funneling even lower. People also don't have enough time to generally care for the world or universe when the maximum lifespan of around 100 years isn't all that much, especially as a species that only keeps its youth until 30 and is pretty much prone to anything thereafter. Remember, we're not so long distant cousins of apes and we're still acting like them.

I'm still waiting on all that evidence... instead of random speculation and pulling numbers out of your ass.

[arguingdave]

Still not extinction. Also, why on earth would we need 100 million people to be called humanity? One human is humanity. And you definitely don’t need that many people for a civilization.

Would you really go as far as to call two or three lions an actual pride? Do you consider the savior of species feasible or inevitability of deficiency?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still waiting on all that evidence... instead of random speculation and pulling numbers out of your ass.

Your dumb embodiment has quoted me multiple times asking why I think <100M population means that humanity is defied. See what I've said to Amerissis;

Would you really go as far as to call two or three lions an actual pride? Do you consider the savior of species feasible or inevitability of deficiency?

Seems to be a 50/50 mix on this forums! Some smart chumps some real dumb goons.

[Machismo]

Would you really go as far as to call two or three lions an actual pride? Do you consider the savior of species feasible or inevitability of deficiency?

- - - Updated - - -



Your dumb embodiment has quoted me multiple times asking why I think <100M population means that humanity is defied. See what I've said to Amerissis;





Seems to be a 50/50 mix on this forums! Some smart chumps some real dumb goons.

It's a genuine question, one that you chose to dodge... again.

You keep pushing all these numbers to promote a narrative (on a burner account no less), and you are unable to provide evidence for them.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[arguingdave]

It's a genuine question, one that you chose to dodge... again.

You keep pushing all these numbers to promote a narrative (on a burner account no less), and you are unable to provide evidence for them.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

But I'm making an opinionated statement not an evidence based statement? So your whole point is now out of the window.

- - - Updated - - -

Machismo, I invite you to argue against my actual talking points 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. When you've done dismantling everything I say I will talk to you. Until then you just seem far too unintelligent. You really need that baseline buff, huh?

[Machismo]

But I'm making an opinionated statement not an evidence based statement? So your whole point is now out of the window.

- - - Updated - - -

Machismo, I invite you to argue against my actual talking points 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. When you've done dismantling everything I say I will talk to you. Until then you just seem far too unintelligent. You really need that baseline buff, huh?

I did, I called them all baseless, and pointed to your failed logic in assuming we'd bomb China if NK bombed us.

The end.

I have also questioned your numbers, and it seems they are based on nothing at all.

[arguingdave]

I did, I called them all baseless, and pointed to your failed logic in assuming we'd bomb China if NK bombed us.

The end.

I have also questioned your numbers, and it seems they are based on nothing at all.

You just sound angry for some reason. I too hope I get immortalized within your signature for eternally angering you.

[Machismo]

You just sound angry for some reason. I too hope I get immortalized within your signature for eternally angering you.

Nope, I simply pointed out you were making baseless claims off of a distinct lack of evidence (and I have yet to see that evidence).

At best, this is a conspiracy theory. At worst, it's a burner-account spammer who posts all sorts of random shit.

I guess your only solution, is to colonize another planet, to outrun the inevitable. /s

[arguingdave]

Nope, I simply pointed out you were making baseless claims off of a distinct lack of evidence (and I have yet to see that evidence).

At best, this is a conspiracy theory. At worst, it's a burner-account spammer who posts all sorts of random shit.

I guess your only solution, is to colonize another planet, to outrun the inevitable. /s

Colonization shouldn't happen for about 500 tech years (in the current state that tech is developing, but it will get slower. 500 tech years may ensue 700-1000 realtime years). It's the most stupid idea ever, just because Elon wants a man to walk on Mars does not mean we in the ANY near future will actually walk or live on Mars. Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Machismo]

Colonization shouldn't happen for about 500 tech years (in the current state that tech is developing, but it will get slower. 500 tech years may ensue 700-1000 realtime years).

Evidence, please.

[arguingdave]

Evidence, please.

In fact part of our downfall is indeed, failure to colonize. Tier 1 E.T life would also ideally live on a much better planet; bigger, richer & home to elements not naturally found on Earth, but all that are found on Earth. They would never need to colonize because of their will to not self-destruct.

[Machismo]

In fact part of our downfall is indeed, failure to colonize. Tier 1 E.T life would also ideally live on a much better planet; bigger, richer & home to elements not naturally found on Earth, but all that are found on Earth. They would never need to colonize because of their will to not self-destruct.

Like I said, I want to actually see some evidence. Deflecting isn't the same as providing evidence.

[Yuujin]

In the year 2525... if mankind is still alive...

[PC2]

Colonization shouldn't happen for about 500 tech years (in the current state that tech is developing, but it will get slower. 500 tech years may ensue 700-1000 realtime years). It's the most stupid idea ever, just because Elon wants a man to walk on Mars does not mean we in the ANY near future will actually walk or live on Mars. Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

There's no way to predict the future rate of technological development though. It could go very slow or there could be big breakthroughs this year, next year, and the year after that, and so on. Innovation cannot be known ahead of time.

[arguingdave]

There's no way to predict the future rate of technological development though. It could go very slow or there could be big breakthroughs this year, next year, and the year after that, and so on. Innovation cannot be known ahead of time.

Which is exactly the premise of my statement? Technological Advancements tend to slow down, not speed up. Even when a breakthrough happens, a million quests arise from that breakthrough so it's not really actually a "breakthrough" in terms of how fast we're developing.

[Daedius]

You sure about that?

Conclusive proof;



How do I link twitter?

[PC2]

Which is exactly the premise of my statement? Technological Advancements tend to slow down, not speed up. Even when a breakthrough happens, a million quests arise from that breakthrough so it's not really actually a "breakthrough" in terms of how fast we're developing.

Except you can't even say "technological advancements tend to slow down, not speed up" because there's absolutely no reason to think the future rate of tech advancements will follow the same trend as the past rate of advancements.

[arguingdave]

Except you can't even say "technological advancements tend to slow down" because there's absolutely no reason to think the future rate of tech advancements will follow the same trend as the past rate of advancements.

How do you think we guess literally anything? Another person out of his mind!

[PC2]

How do you think we guess literally anything? Another person out of his mind!

The way that we form guesses/conjectures is via deductive logic and never historical induction.