What is the next step for humanity?

What is the next step for humanity?
after we have cured all the diseases,
complete peace on Earth, nature is in a stable condition, all countries run smoothly and are basically one, technology is at it's peak it is possible by laws of physics..

There are no problems left, there's no way to go.

what's next?

Maybe it's better you people continue being unaware, stupid, worry about meaningless human created mundane problems like.. debts, and money and stuff like that.
Until we the ones who don't spend time worrying about such figure out an answer for that, you keep yourself occupied with all that.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ptEKnSckWGw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>complete peace on Earth

Obviously, but after that.

Is peace something we really want to achieve, a world without problems, maybe there is nothing left after that but to die, win at life.

>stop worrying about debt

greece detected

How i see us going is we transfer our consciousnesses into artificial brains, therefore eliminating many of the unnecessary processes that we have been completing to keep us alive (eating, drinking, sleeping, maintaining physical health, staving off sickness and disease, etc.) while also putting us in the position to directly increase the capacity, efficiency and potential of our own consciousness on the fly (basically giving us the ability to upgrade ourselves at an exponential rate). We then place these artificial brains into incredibly robust robotic 'bodies' (for lack of a better word because they do not have to resemble human bodies whatsoever), with the ability to:
1. Harvest matter and energy of all forms, and be able convert any form to any other form when needed (this takes care of the fuel source of the robotic 'body')
2. Be able to observe all forms information transferring mediums (full electromagnetic spectrum, vibrational kinetic energy at all frequencies, gravitational changes, and all other mediums we happen to have discovered at that stage).
3. Be able to traverse the universe at as close to the speed of light as possible, maybe be able to bend space-time to achieve this or through the use of artificial wormholes.

At that stage we will literally be gods, and so we will disperse throughout the universe, create life and start the cycle all over again.

the next step is fighting the incoming artificial intelligence uprising so we can make sure that humanity and the whole planet will survive. And we are just a few years from this so prepare yourself. Machines are already much more intelligent than humans, but its entirely possible to reverse the situation. Be ready.

>complete peace on Earth
What makes you think that this would be a good thing?

Obviously it's not something we as humans want, otherwise we would already have complete peace on Earth, because we can achieve it, it's not physically possible.

But co-operating with everyone would be quite beneficial, if we could focus all our resources effectively on developing as a civilization.
Complete peace would be useful for that.

No, because we don't all want the same thing.

You don't want complete peace?

Do other peoples who I am incompatible with still exist in this hypotherical, completely peaceful world?

You have great points there.

Although we are still limited by the laws of physics, becoming Gods and learning how to manipulate those laws would be something we should achieve indeed. Developing computing power that will pass humans is also something useful, perhaps travelling between multiverses would be something to achieve, since this universe seems to be rather boring.

I asked do you want complete peace, do you want complete peace? Personally.

I will answer to your question, after you answer mine.

I don't know what you mean by complete peace

If everyone was dead, there would be "complete peace"
If everyone else was dead, there would effectively be "complete peace"
If every other "group of people" was dead, there would be almost "complete peace"


How would you get "complete peace" in the Israel/Palestine situation? Self-proclaimed Israelites and Palestinians want exclusive rights over the same territory.
How would you get "complete peace" in other mutually exclusive scenarios?

I can tell you what complete peace means,
there is no any kind of physical fighting between any humans in any scenario.
(sport excluded and such excluded)
+ it would help the nature is treat the way, it will be habitable for humans for millennia to come.

That is not the whole answer, since it doesn't include the exceptions, but now you now.
For example persons who want war, how to treat those, defend or so, but you get the idea now.

And now to your questions.

You can just simply ask those people in areas that are filled with conflict, do you want peace? If you do, then behave like a person who wants peace.

It is irrelevant if others don't want peace, gather the ones that want peace, and form a nation with them. Become powerful, and make sure no'one else will have a need to enter into a war, which is easier said than done, but not impossible.

And if you do not understand that, choose the words, sentences, I will clarify.

You do not understand.

>gather the ones that want peace

There are israelites that want peace without palestinians
There are palestinians that want peace without israelites

Any war between two groups can be resolved by removing one of the groups.

Which do you pick?


Tension exists because people are not identical. Fights occur because people have mutually exclusive desires. Wars occur because groups of people have mutually exclusive interests.

You can even have infighting within yourself, when you yourself have conflicting desires.

Short of the deaths of all concerned, there can be no ultimate peace.

Obviously Israelis don't want peace, if they want that peace without Palestinians, and vice versa.

Now it comes down to the question how to deal with people that don't want peace.

Which one were you, do you want peace or not?

And I do understand, you don't understand what complete peace means, that is the reason you ask questions that are not related to that.

If Israelis wanted world peace, they will accept the existence of Palestinians, and deal with it, it is that simple.
Since they don't want world peace, that's why things are as they are.

But now to the nations that already have peace, want world peace, how do they deal with individuals and countries that don't want world peace.

Self defense from foreign countries and murderers and other types of criminals won't be treated badly, but treated the way, they will not be a threat to the other people living inside the country that are peaceful.
And dealing with these issues is simple, if you want world peace. I still do not know on which side you are on.

No, they DO want peace. If you mean "unconditional peace", or peace being "the most important thing", nobody does, that would be absolutely ridiculous. That would be "it's better if everyone's dead than some people at war" logic.

I've told you this multiple times, you will have war so long as you have massively conflicting interests. You cannot have permanent world peace without getting rid of a large part of the world. You need to understand this. You mention self defence - have you ever considered that both countries might be engaging in self defence? What about that a war is started in self defence?

Wrong, if you want world peace, obviously you will help others, so they will not have a need to attack you.
There are always conditions, if you attack me, that means you don't want world peace, we will defend ourselves, but will help you with the problems you have, to the point, it will not become too negative to us.

Again, it comes to the question, how to deal with people who don't want world peace.

but you are not obligated to help others, since it's not part of world peace.

If you run your country poorly, don't expect us to help, but most likely we will give you aid.

Again, since we want peace, you wouldn't attack either way.

You have an incredibly simplistic view of the world where all wars are apparently fought simply because people don't like peace.

It is simple, if you want world peace, you will not physically attack anyone. It is not difficult to comprehend "don't physically harm anyone" (insert extreme exceptions(

Why does it have to be complicated?

I didn't say don't like peace, but they can't understand it, people are.. animals, like any other species, they don't know what's good for them ultimately.

>insert extreme exceptions

If there are exceptions then you can't have permanent world peace you fool

Nothing lasts forever, it's a fact humans will go extinct. Everything is dependent on time it seems.

But yes, you can have world peace, although it is temporary, but that just might last until the very end of the last breath of the last mankind ever in existence.

But first, we need people to understand what it takes to want world peace, and it's starts from within you, and knowing how to behave to achieve it.

This is spiritualistic nonsense. The most basic understanding of philosophy or politics would do away with it.

E1
Your family is starving
Your neighbour's family is starving
There is no magic "work together" solution
If you do not rob your neighbour of the little food they have, your family will die (and vice versa)
Neither of you will part with your food willingly

And it is not our duty in anyway to bring peace to this world. But if we don't pursue world peace, let's not expect others will either, which means we will continue as it is, and it will. All that because people don't know, peace is possible and that we can achieve it.

That is not against world peace, since
you don't kill, hurt them physically your neighbors.

If they are nice, they will give you food, the government should give you food and shelter anyways.

And if you end in a situation like that, I'm more than happy to help you, if others will not.

Did you not read the 'your family will die' part? Are you so selfish that you don't care for your own family?

>the government
Irrelevant to the example

Everybody thinks different. There will always be some sort of conflict.
The only way to achieve peace is to erase our emotions.

As I said, if you want world peace, it is okay to steal food. World peace is related to physical violence, just don't hurt the neighbors.

It doesn't matter the way you think, you either want peace, or you don't.
Most importantly you need to behave like a person to achieve peace.

You haven't read the example at all
Neither of you will part willingly with the food you have, and even if you take it through stealth and not through violence, the other family will die.

The 'peaceful' solutions are as follows:
A) Both families die
B) One family dies

I read the example, and my answer remains the same.
As long as you don't physically harm the other family, it's okay. They should had taken better care of their food.

A situation like that is quite radical though.

I recommend you not to have a family, if you know you will not be capable of keeping the bread on the table, or some other reason not related to you.

>They should had taken better care of their food.
>But they should not use any violence or force to defend their food.

>I recommend you not to have a starving family
>This is quite a radical situation (two starving families)

You know already more or less how a person needs to behave, all the people so world peace could be achieve?

You can answer to those questions yourself now, you don't need me. You know the answers I'm giving you, the rules are what is required to achieve peace.

yes?

I do recommend that, if you live in a country where famine's are common, places such as Somalia.. or really poor countries, ghettos, why would you want your family to live in poverty, when you could choose not to.
But they are animals, they don't know that, they can't understand it.

Why don't you just choose not to be retarded?

In the end I want peace, and to achieve it.
I hope you do too.
And if you do, that means we are allies and we are on the same side. If you don't want world peace, that is your choice, and it is okay, live the way you want. But don't expect help from me.

If wanting peace makes me retarded, what are you?

>If wanting peace makes me retarded, what are you?
Not retarded

your question doesnt make sense. People always think "we have reached our limit" until someone comes along and revolutionizes the field. We will never know that we have learned absolutely all we can learn.

It is okay if you don't want world peace.
Although that just doesn't make a non retard, that makes you stupid, because the risk of you, your children, the people you care die at a war grows.

If you want that, then you are just a stupid animal to me, what you are already, since you don't want peace.

Again, it doesn't matter what people think.
There is peace, or there is no peace, at the moment there is no peace, not necessarily because people don't want it, but they don't know how to achieve, and the answer would be to behave like a person who wants peace.

>the people you care die at a war grows

Have you already forgotten the example?
You picked "my family dies" and then changed your mind and picked "their family dies" but it's ok because you killed them indirectly by stealing their food rather than directly by force

Yea, the risk of that happening grows with people who don't want world peace.

It is a great example btw how things turn out with people that don't take care of each other and so forth.

>the risk of that happening grows with people who don't want world peace.

No, it grows with the population and grows with famine.
Not that it matters, you still deny that your beliefs are unreasonable when faced with that one simple example.

Oh yes, that's why I recommend not to overpopulate your country to the point food becomes scarse and water.

But if you have been behaving that stupid, you bring 5 children into this world that will die of hunger, that is not the world's problem, that is a your problem.

What is your point here?
World peace is possible, achievable, numerous countries are peaceful already. You want it, or you don't, that simple.

You have no actual answer to the problem.
All you can say is "you shouldn't be in the mess".
I never said you were the parent of the family, let alone that the family was had during a famine.
All I said was that there were two starving families - one yours - and that only one could be saved.

If my family was to die of starvation, and the only way would be to steal the food from other family and they would die.

I wouldn't steal, that simple. They have food, I don't, my problem, not theirs, I don't expect them to kill themselves for me.

You don't have to expect them to kill themselves.

Remember I said only one can be saved.
So what happens to your food?

Do they also decide to do the same thing, and then both of you die?
Do you take some "human value test" that establishes which family is "worth more"?
Would you sabotage your family's attempts to defend their own food?

Haha, what is your point here?

I want peace, I wouldn't hurt the other family, that is all you need to know.

But if the both families wanted peace, + that scenario, the best option would be to save the children, and make sure they will live, for obvious reasons.

Easy, i kill my neighbours, then when my family is distracted i kill them too, and i get lots of food.

The point is unless you can invent infinite food, shelter, land, and basically infinite everything, becoming God, you cannot end conflict, even within likeminded people.

Then do it, I'm not surprised, something I expect an animal to do in a situation like that.

Now you are aware, that you are part of the reason why there is no world peace, because you don't want it.

And it's okay.

What are you on about?
There exist some forms of world peace I would be happy with, but most I would not - for instance human extinction.

Could you specify that "on about?"

There are as many forms of world peace as you define the word "world peace", but we are going with the definition mentioned earlier.

Watch the show "'Texhnolyze". It had something interesting to say about this.

I would watch, but it'd be pointless,
world would still remain the same, and me.
Watching something more entertaining instead.

What a dumb way to think.

No, I would be watching other's recommendations all day long otherwise.
If you think that is dumb, it's okay, but it is not.

What if life went on forever when would OC disappear and everything just became and end less streem of meems

It is. Whether you like it or not, it's dumb.
Sorry.

I can prove to you it's not dumb, but you are allowed to believe whatever you want.

Facebook is full of recommendations, about music, sketches, all sorts of videos.
If I watched all the recommendations others were to offer me, I'd have no time for myself, no time to watch things I know I enjoy.

Don't be sorry for being dumb, it's not your fault.

>I can prove to you it's not dumb
You can't.

>but you are allowed to believe whatever you want.
This is a base truth and not anything you have any say over, but I appreciate the reminder.

>Facebook is full of recommendations, about music, sketches, all sorts of videos.
Facebook is full of targeted advertisements based on a psychological profile they've built on you over time.

>If I watched all the recommendations others were to offer me
Facebook is not meaningfully an "other", it's a series of algorithms iteratively run over data. This is little different than the human brain, but there are presently distinct differences.

>I'd have no time for myself
Watching an anything can be for you, or for someone else. The difference is entirely your own framing.

>no time to watch things I know I enjoy.
You don't know you'll enjoy something until after you've watched it. Bear in mind that your predictions can be wrong.

>Don't be sorry for being dumb
Luckily I'm not dumb, so I don't have to figure how to deal with this kind of situation. I'll leave that one for you. You have more experience to draw from anyway.

Come back and post results.

What do you think?

>all countries
Kek

Yes, I am capable of proving that watching all the videos others recommend is by definition, dumb/stupid.

and I can also prove that I am stupid, but writing this text to you, because discussing about this is stupid, because the truth remains still the same, no matter the end result.

We humans live only a limited amount of time, so time is a variable we must take into consideration on what we do with our daily lives. Activities such as eating, sleeping, fucking, some things we just have to do, enjoying life is also part of that, and to me, it's not enjoyable to watch videos, where the probability of me not enjoying them is high.
In this case the video being the one you recommended. It would be stupid to watch it, because I have better things to do.

What you are saying to me now is, not watching your video is dumb, it would be smarter to not do what you enjoy.
Don't expect me to watch your video recommendations, I didn't ask for them.

And facebook was an example of you, you could be a person who is targeting advertisement to me with foolish videos I have no desire to watch.

And obviously you do not know what the word "stupid/dumb" means, I define them, and how you define them is not the way people use them in this reality.

Anonymous, you are on the surface of something you have no, or little knowledge of, you can't see what is under the surface.

You have given me more than enough of material to determine what kind of a person and personality you are, you are eager to tell your own opinions to me, to share them, and I do not care for them, all I care is about the truth.

But you can ignore all that text above, what I said, and tell me what is the point you are trying to make?

Deep ecology

Etymology.

You can call someone stupid, like me, but since you don't know what it means, you just make yourself look stupid instead.

>But you can ignore all that text above, what I said, and tell me what is the point you are trying to make?
We will return to the beginning, and I'll put it in the clearest way possible:
-You make a thread
-I see this thread but do not feel like investing the energy to give my opinion
-The subject matter reminds me of a show called "Texhnolyze", I recommend you watch it as via theory of mind, and my own framework of value, I can tell that it is a worthwhile thing to post
-You respond:
>I would watch, but it'd be pointless,
>world would still remain the same, and me.
>Watching something more entertaining instead.
which implies a greater degree of knowledge and means for foresight than you actually possess. You speak with implied certainty, then make a nonsensical statement about "watching something more entertaining", which by your logic, puts you in a catch 22. Chicken and egg.
-I tell you this is dumb, because it's dumb.
-You falsely assume I care what you desire, think, or feel, and come to believe I am implying that not watching the show is dumb, instead of realizing I'm talking about the way you make predictions and come to conclusions.

It was merely a suggestion user. Without the means to think a thought, a mind will not think it. I gave you the means, what you do with it is all up to you. Aside from saying dumb things and highlighting a dumb attitude, which you will be readily corrected on.

You are not capable of giving me any new useful information, you are no use to me.

I will leave this thread now, sayonara.

Farewell. Just know you're a subpar harvester that just interacted with someone who's done it longer, and far more effectively, than you.

I'll be leaving now as well.

...

WELL THAT IS THAT AND THIS IS THIS. YOU'LL TELL ME WHAT YOU SAW AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU MISSED.

ideally, the next step is legalizing LSD.
but practically, it will be Idiocracy

I COULD BUY MYSELF A REASON, I COULD SELL MYSELF A JOB. I COULD HANG MYSELF ON TREASON.

OH I AM MY OWN DAMN GOD.

Ice age heat wave, can't complain. If the world's at large, why should I remain? Walked away to another plan, gonna find another place, maybe one I can stand.

I move on to another day, to a whole new town with a whole new way. Went to the porch to have a thought, got to the door and then I couldn't stop. You don't know where and you don't know when, but you've still got your words and you've got your friends. Walking on to another day, work a little harder, work another way.

Uh-uh baby I ain't got no plan, I'll float on maybe would you understand. Gonna float on maybe would you understand. Well I'll float on maybe would you understand.

The days get shorter and the nights get cold, I like the autumn but this place is getting old. I pack up my belongings and I head for the coast, it might not be a lot but I feel like I'm making the most. The days get longer and the nights smell green, I guess it's not surprising but it's spring and I should leave.

I like songs about drifters, books about the same. They both make me feel a little less insane. Walked on off to another spot, I still haven't gotten anywhere that I want. Did I want love? Did I need to know? Why does it always feel like I'm caught in an undertow?

The moths beat themselves to death against the lights, adding their breeze to the summer nights. Outside water like air was great, I didn't know what I had that day. Walk a little farther to another plan, you said that you did, but you didn't understand.

I know there's no restarts, that's not what life's about, but my thoughts were so loud I couldn't hear my mouth.

An idiot that takes LSD is only made an idiot that has taken LSD. More base and systemic actions must be taken, like gutting the media and gradually shifting their content as part of a widespread, subtle, re-education campaign. People will undergo natural mind expansion as they proceed along this gradient.

But as a whole, the old adage remains. If an ass goes a traveling, he will not come back a horse.

Do it again somewhere else.

Given how much time this biosphere probably has left in it vs. how much time all you describe would take to accomplish, better start somewhere else first.

What? You can't even speak English.
1) You never gave a definition earlier
2) Extinction of the human race would be world peace

>I can tell you what complete peace means,
>there is no any kind of physical fighting between any humans in any scenario.
>(sport excluded and such excluded)
>+ it would help the nature is treat the way, it will be habitable for humans for millennia to come.
1 ^

2. extinction of the human race would be world peace, let's include humans in the peace though.

None of these things will ever happen. No point in considering a 'next' step.

RACE WARS
because it's the only way to end racism

Too many implications in the OP...
still, the Turkic cuklture will dominate the planet.

They're naturally nomads so next step will be space.

You don't want world peace?

Good joke.

rollin

youtube.com/watch?v=ptEKnSckWGw

>There are no problems left,
>implying the definition of humanity's problems isn't subjective

>RACE WARS
>because it's the only way to end racism
>the only way
Nah, we just need more white guys knocking up black girls.
We'd eventually eliminate the African Y chromosome, which is the cause of most of the race issues, black-on-black crime etc.
We'd also have a lot less single moms, and all the statistical issues that come with that.
The only real obstacle is coal-burners, white women that fuck black guys. And if we could eliminate obesity, that would end that process.

>What is the next step for humanity?
Extinction. And deservedly so.

>Given how much time this biosphere probably has left in it

Stupid hippie meme this old Gen X fart has been hearing since the early 70s.

Leftists have a long-running boner with the idea that we're destroying ourselves and all life around us.

This.

It's not subjective, since I have no problems.
Same could be with everyone else.