Post yfw you realise that in just a few hundred years, today's tech will seem as quaint as stone tools seem to us

Post yfw you realise that in just a few hundred years, today's tech will seem as quaint as stone tools seem to us

Other urls found in this thread:

casnocha.com/2010/05/slowing-rate-of-change-and-tech-innovation.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

hmm

long time ago
posthumanist here

>transhumanists
shiggy diggy

Dont make me post the graph

I doubt they'll change a crazy amount. We've began to reach a peak of knowledge, it's a matter of finding more efficient ways to use our current tech at this point

do it

i know right

this really made me think .

Actually it won't.

We've not really advanced all that much and we are not going to advance much further. Most science needed for humanity has been discovered and everything is just engineer's work now.

Philipp von Jolly pls

>quaint
Some of those are still among the most practical tools for the tasks they were designed for.

please do not confuse posthumanism and transhumanism, it`s a common layman mistake
I am not for forcing humanity to change, I just know it`s going to
I would rather postpone this process

unless biotech and ai don't flop I don't think we'll be going very far. A lot of people think that progress is a given mainly because it's what they're always told.

casnocha.com/2010/05/slowing-rate-of-change-and-tech-innovation.html

>in just a few hundred years, today's tech will seem as quaint as stone tools seem to us
Proofs?

our synthetic descendants will smile at your ignorance

While I agree that a lot of the low hanging fruit has been picked and thus further development will be more challenging, I feel there is still much history defining tech to be had.

Yeah, I think the bigger fallacy is that because it is "progress", it will be good for us or make the world a "better place". It can be very easily the exact opposite.

AI is going to stall till biotech catches up, but i think gene editing is going to be the next arms race.

Prove your statements.

>Prove your statements.

What does it mean to "prove" a statement that is not a well-formed sentence in an axiomatic system with consistent rules of deduction?

Hmm, depends

Those are picks and an axe, which are tools that still in use today, except we use more durable materials in them now

Couldve made more convincing argument with other stuff that hasnt existed for a long time, like mass sequencers or artificial satellites (shit that didnt exist before the last century)

Capitalism is fucked if there soon is nothing left to innovate. Gets me worried. Especially if we can't leave this planet.

Technology from a few hundred years ago doesn't seem like stone age tools to us, so no. It's futurist hyperbole.

It's rather simple if the statement is made out of words, just analyze the sentence's words and see if they are true or not at all. In math this is obviously easier.

>Technology from a few hundred years ago
S-such as?

Pretty much anything from before the industrial is good as stone wedges to us

You're a faggy cunt mate

I'm still in post-hype about the wheel desu