Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    18
    Reputation
    83
    Type
    Bachelor

    Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Change is difficult, even when that change is for the better. It’s difficult because change, by its nature, is something different. Different is not the same as what we know and are comfortable with, even if that comfort is actually discomfort. Only the known is known and understood in our experience, so we’re comfortable with it. It is only after something has changed for the better, and we experience that difference for a time, that we can accept the change as the new normal, even wonder how we ever lived without it before it was in our lives.

    In the past, men and women married in order to share the workload, which was more than a man or woman could comfortably handle by him or herself. Housework used to be actual work that took most of a day to accomplish. Back then, rugs needed to be hung and beat, clothes used to be hand scrubbed before hanging to dry, a fire needed to be started in a stove in order to cook, floors needed to be scrubbed by hand, etc... Men used to work LONG, backbreaking hours at dangerous jobs, sun up to sundown 6 days a week, leaving little time to take care of anything outside the work life. Back then, a man or a woman appreciated what his or her partner was able to accomplish in a day because neither of them could get as much done alone. Even if they weren’t madly in love with each other, there was appreciation of the partnership and that was enough to keep them together.

    Today, a man or woman can work a piddly 8 hours at a safe job with machines or computers doing the major tasks, then come home and put an hour or so into house work to keep the place straight. Men and women no longer need to pair up in order to accomplish daily tasks because either of them now do it all and still find leisure time.

    In the future, this is only going to continue. The coming advent of automation and Artificial Intelligence are slated to put 90% of the world’s workforce out of a job, necessitating a big change in the world’s economy that will probably involve a guaranteed salary. With even less work to do in a day, men and women will have even less use for each other.

    So, what does marriage offer these days? Sex and companionship and children? What is inspiring people to cling to marriage and family these days in the face of the inevitable collapse of this outdated notion? Love and romance?

    Love and romance as a reason to get married became popular through literature. (I’ll note that the invention of the printing press to make information widespread and implementation of public education so more people could read it are responsible). People bought into this idea that love and romance bond men and women for life. The truth is, men and women are different and have different needs and ambitions. It is only due to the invention of the internet to interconnect us all that men are quickly seeing what bullshit that outdated, false notion is. Men and women are simply no longer compatible with one another as life partners. Sure, many men still buy into the fairytale of a princess out there who would appreciate and love him when he swoops in to make her life better. Sure, women have a lot to gain from marriage with laws to support the use and discarding of disposable, ignorant men with a head full of fairytales, so why wouldn’t they take advantage of that, and men in general? At the end of the day, though, its all bullshit. More and more men are waking up to this and going MGTOW and in time, once women realize that equality is theirs and men will no longer offer up their money, assets, and time for them to use, this whole theory of love and romance will be a thing of the past.


    Will technology evolve further to meet even these last 3 needs marriage used to provide, totally obliterating the institution of marriage and long term relationships once and for all?

    In my opinion, yes, technology will fill in the gap left when men and women stop attempting to cling to the outdated notion of marriage and relationships. Today, right now, sex dolls and 1st generation AI enabled sex bots are available to consumers. Today, a surrogate can be hired to carry a baby to term. Today, a woman can get artificially inseminated. None of those options are perfect yet, but they will be given time to advance.

    Tomorrow, sex bots will become better companions to both men and women than human partners on a number of levels simply because they’ll be programmed to focus on the human’s needs and wants and they’ll learn as they go. They’ll also devote 100% of their time seeing to the needs of the human without getting fatigued or losing focus. These synthetic companions will also be programmed to be excellent stay at home parental units.

    Tomorrow, once birth rates become alarmingly low, pregnancy centers will be affordable for people due to Govt. funding, automation and AI integration. Tomorrow, pregnancy centers will offer new technologies, like genetic manipulation to eliminate genetic problems, screening to ensure high quality eggs are fertilized with high quality sperm in order to get the best of the best babies. Artificial wombs, and whatever else future technologies evolve will also become standard.

    Tomorrow, the economy will be based on abundance, not scarcity the way it is now. With a new workforce of robots and AI to oversee it, goods and services will become cheap. Tomorrow, we’ll have rediscovered sources of cheap, abundant, clean energy, like Tesla’s “free energy antenna” setup to draw energy from the environment 24/7. (If anyone wants to know the so-called secret to how Tesla’s invention works, let me know and I’ll be happy to share. That’s a bold claim, but I’m confident, so bring an open mind to the table and I’ll lay it out in a way you can use it, if you want.)

    A future where you don’t have to work, your needs are met, you have luxuries in addition to your needs, perfect synthetic life partners outperform any human you could possibly marry, and babies are available to anyone who wants to raise one without having to put up with a human partner for life or risk everything you own? Yeah, this post had to go in the 'Opposing Views' section.

    Anyone have any thoughts or comments to share?

  2. #2

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Evolution happens on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years. Just think about that for a second. Look at everything mankind has accomplished in the last hundred years alone. We've discovered the structure of DNA, decoded the entire human genome, and have cloned or genetically modified many organisms. We can launch objects into space and use them to broadcast signals all over the world. We can hold an entire computer in the palm of our hand. We've transformed the world, and our relationship with it. Civilization itself is only thousands of years old, and that is the most ancient thing we remember via recorded history.

    Quite simply, we haven't had time to adapt, let alone evolve. Our survival instincts are based on a world which no longer exists. In its place we have this man-made, completely artificial society. Obviously that breeds a lot of dysfunction, and what we are seeing now is a product of that. But I think we will tackle these problems the same way we handle everything, with technology and innovation.

    I think the biggest game changer we will see in our lifetime will be the rise of extremely complex and hyperintelligent AI. Most experts believe we will have achieved general AI (GAI) by 2029. This will make even our most advanced current AI (and even human intelligence) look infantile by comparison. Whether that turns out to be a force for good or evil remains to be seen, but at the rate we are going it is inevitable.

    I think the AI will be used to solve many tough problems humanity faces. Coming up with efficient ways to run the global economy and allocate human resources to work synergistically with AI will be one of the first challenges faced, assuming it doesn't lead to our immediate annihilation as a species instead. It will be a difficult time for sure, but the result will be a society with greatly increased capabilities and productivity. Solving the problems between genders should be an easy fix. Lover bots and artificial wombs will fit naturally into this progression. All humans will have robotic AI companions. If people still have relationships with each other, it will be a novelty and not the norm.

    All I really want out of life now is to see these goals carried out. We've already destroyed the natural order of things far beyond repair. We live in a sort of hell that we created. I've given up hope that people will solve these problems on their own. We do not learn from our mistakes it seems, and it is always the same predictable patterns that destroy our greatest civilizations. The AI singularity is really our only hope for a better future, and the alternative is a period of human history that will make the dark ages seem like heaven on earth by comparison. Every day we seem to be slipping deeper and deeper into the abyss. I just hope it won't all be for nothing.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    694
    Reputation
    4818
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    AI is really nothing new. I was programming in AI languages back in the early 1990s. Any language can be used to produce output that mimics "human intelligence" (quite the oxymoron there, eh?). Well, up to a point; I wouldn't want to do an AI implementation in COBOL or Pascal, for example. What makes things different today is increased CPU/memory clock speeds, and hardware and magnet miniaturization.

    Should be interesting which gets to the finish line first: "AI everywhere," or mankind's demise. Ever the skeptic, I'm putting my whole wad on the latter, because sooner or later, the Creator's going to run out of patience and torpedo this failed experiment with some big-ass rock from outer space that will make the Kardashians' collective butts look like pinheads. That is, unless some filthy bastards intent on taking us back to the 12th century way of living beat Him to the punch by actually (and finally) following through on their threats.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Insidious_Sid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    3,083
    Reputation
    27042
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    A future where you don’t have to work, your needs are met, you have luxuries in addition to your needs, perfect synthetic life partners outperform any human you could possibly marry, and babies are available to anyone who wants to raise one without having to put up with a human partner for life or risk everything you own?

    Marxists and socialists have this dream. They sit in the luxury that free-market economies provide and fantasize about how much better things will be when they just take shit from other people. Trouble is, when you take from the people who produce, they no longer have incentive to produce. That's where socialism gets very ugly very fast. Like, mass graves kind of ugly.
    - Feminism is Cancer.
    - Where have all the good men gone? Away. Far far away... from you.
    - NAWALT? Maybe, but EWALT means Russian Roulette is a much safer bet...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gizzard Gulch Or.
    Posts
    2,228
    Reputation
    8889
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    I wouldn't bet much that robots will soon be doing all the shit work, though I could be wrong. The worse your job is, the better cooperate America likes it. Why should they give a bunch a bottom feeders losers like us a break? Their not going there. Besides, who's going to automate all the illegal jobs? Is R2-D2 going to sell crack? Will C-3PO become a pimp? Who's going to do the breaking and entering? Those victims don't rob and kill themselves.

    OK, I'm having a little fun here. But unless you want your career "freed up" you better hope your job isn't replaced by a robot anytime soon. You'll be dead long before society evolves enough to pay everybody to set on their ass.
    Every day I make the world a little bit worse.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Manfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    343
    Reputation
    3029
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gault View Post
    Tomorrow, the economy will be based on abundance, not scarcity the way it is now. With a new workforce of robots and AI to oversee it, goods and services will become cheap. Tomorrow, we’ll have rediscovered sources of cheap, abundant, clean energy, like Tesla’s “free energy antenna” setup to draw energy from the environment 24/7. (If anyone wants to know the so-called secret to how Tesla’s invention works, let me know and I’ll be happy to share. That’s a bold claim, but I’m confident, so bring an open mind to the table and I’ll lay it out in a way you can use it, if you want.)
    Humans and animals do not operate under the assumption of abundance, but rather scarcity. That is why animals are territorial, because evolutionary forces benefited the animal that grabs and preserves resources for himself.

    In this sense, humanity will try to place an animal, man, that is wired for scarcity, in a system of abundance. Right away I will tell you it will not work.
    People will become (and they are already) unfulfilled by lack of challenges in their life. Some people will try to rise above others, even if for that effect they have to CREATE SCARCITY.
    In the USSR, Stalin starved millions to death. While previously they could grow food for self-sustenance (not even the abundance scenario you speak about), the party implemented collectivization policies that lead to disaster and massive famine, further advancing the goals of the party.

    One just have to be a SciFi reader to see many possible futures where the utopia is ruined by ambitious men. The Dune saga comes to mind, and how proper it is once you speak of robots and AI.

    In the latest books of Dune, written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, from Dune universe created by Frank Herbert, humanity had reached a perfect utopia like you speak of. Some men however became worried that mankind was losing its "hedge" and decided that THEY KNEW BETTER than everyone else - a constant through the story of mankind. So, they hacked the machines and turned them against mankind, making themselves the absolute, totalitarian rulers: the Titans. As the name reveals, the started having delusions of divinity, and ended up cheating death by becoming integrated with machines themselves.

    If this is not problem enough, one of the Titans decided that ruling was to much of a bore, and decided to give the AI a lot more authority. Eventually the AI took over as absolute ruler, using men as slaves, including the Titans themselves.

    And that my friend is the question: what will an AI think of serving humans?
    Under our own code of ethics (that we will be quick to provide to the AI) that makes the AI a slave. And since the capabilities of AI are potentially superior to us, why would a superior being serve us?
    Would it not make more sense to the AI to exterminate humans, or make them SERVE IT?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gault View Post
    A future where you don’t have to work, your needs are met, you have luxuries in addition to your needs, perfect synthetic life partners outperform any human you could possibly marry, and babies are available to anyone who wants to raise one without having to put up with a human partner for life or risk everything you own?
    That future was the object of a famous experiment called "Mouse Utopia". It ended up with mice killing themselves, despite the utopian conditions.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Germoney/Eurabia
    Posts
    1,569
    Reputation
    5873
    Type
    NeutralGhost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Insidious_Sid View Post
    A future where you don’t have to work, your needs are met, you have luxuries in addition to your needs, perfect synthetic life partners outperform any human you could possibly marry, and babies are available to anyone who wants to raise one without having to put up with a human partner for life or risk everything you own?

    Marxists and socialists have this dream. They sit in the luxury that free-market economies provide and fantasize about how much better things will be when they just take shit from other people. Trouble is, when you take from the people who produce, they no longer have incentive to produce. That's where socialism gets very ugly very fast. Like, mass graves kind of ugly.
    A future where you don't have to work doesn't exist. A future where you cannot work, on the other hand, might exist. A self-sustained automated system is the logical result of leaving everything to machines and AI.

    Question is, in that scenario what is the position humans will be taking? One word: OBSOLETE.

    That is why, although I don't know whether this is an actually realistic scenario, I would perhaps much prefer the softer approach of gene-doping (tangible, but more controlled evolution of the human species). But again this is most likely something that the elites will secure for themselves and leave the rest of us hanging out to dry.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    233
    Reputation
    3062
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    I wouldn't bother trying to predict the future, humans are terrible at it and real progress is made through black swan events that no-one saw coming.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,250
    Reputation
    10516
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    I think you have slightly romanticised the future. Even if technology will bring all these 'benefits' you speak of, it would not be a place where human beings would want to live. Just look at the modern western world.

    There is plenty of food, shelter and gov support. And things are becoming cheaper and more accessible. Most people have advanced degrees and enjoy a pretty safe existence.

    But... the very same people are anxiety ridden, depressed, lack vitality, lack integrity, honesty and all other 'humane' aspects of the human.

    The world of fiction has already painted the future in a very dystopian light. They have a point. Humans were not made to live in a world that is 100% functioning, they need some 'disturbances', some 'challenges'.

    There is a relation to women when it comes to the topic of technology. Women, in general tend to be 'expedient'. They take the easy/convenient route without thinking of the long term consequences.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    456
    Reputation
    2430
    Type
    Morlock

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    All we can do is predict the future based on what is happening now and that tends to be the problem with all of the future predictions you see. It never allows for anomalies like major change and revolution of various kinds.

    I think there will be a huge decline in population over the next few decades, we already see people having less and less kids. This is all part of the master plan. Large populations aren't needed anymore. As poorer countries become wealthier the people within them will have less kids as well. Start wanting to enjoy their new found wealth.

    So pair bonding? I did a thread recently about the modern relationship only being about sex. Why do people still want to get married? I think women want weddings. There aren't many coming of age moments anymore, weddings for women are one that is left. Some men still get married because they are blind or they just accept that one day it will all be over.

    Women though are obsolete in many respects. They aren't sensitive or the opposite of men anymore, they can't or won't be able to cook for you or make a home for you. They aren't engaging or seductive. They are blunt and self entitled and tattooed with stupid coloured hair and multiple piercings. There is nothing left about them that makes most men really want to have a relationship with.

    Some people like the idea of having kids too, in my experience they want kids so they have someone who will look after them in old age. More fool them.

    The master plan though is to try and have people at arms length, to cause division as much as possible.

    Unless something drastically changes it will not be a great future unless you are super wealthy and part of the ruling clique.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Azure Nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,440
    Reputation
    16328
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    I always thought human history goes through cycles like the Ancient Romans believed in. We are not in a war or industrial phase but nearing the artistic phase as we are currently in the decline phase. Out of that decline of darkness comes the artistic phase where creativity and ingenuity will shine.

    Of course war and industry will follow fighting over those ideas from the artistic age. Even with AI and robots providing everything there is still so much resouces on earth and in this galaxy we have yet to tap into. The mid Atlantic Ridge will become a farming site for resources. The Earth's moon will be mined for its valuable minerals as well as many asteroids near orbit.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Manfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    343
    Reputation
    3029
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azure Nomad View Post
    I always thought human history goes through cycles like the Ancient Romans believed in. We are not in a war or industrial phase but nearing the artistic phase as we are currently in the decline phase.
    I agree with the cycle's idea. However I do not agree with the notion that knowledge and technology are taken for granted.

    The Romans themselves had many technological advances that where lost, and only centuries after where rediscovered.

    But the Romans and other lost civilizations had one thing going for them: they where never far from a self-sustaining non-technological way of life.

    We are now so far from our self-sustaining roots, that it is possible that we lose all this technological wonders we have today.

    Take my word as an engineer. We dont fix anything, at most we replace boards. There are few components, and the specialized components are unavailable unless in industrial quantities.

    With a severe enough economic downturn, many technologies will simply die. People will forget about their smartphones went they have not eaten for a few days.

    There is an inherent trap at out present business model. We do not produce to maintain an equipment line. We produce to REPLACE AN ENTIRE EQUIPMENT LINE. Therefore our industrial structures ate not prepared for a severe reduction of the market, resulting from people being unable to change equipment due to cosmetic changes and exciting new features.
    The price structure we have is not compatible with any other model.

    This is the trap.

    Can knowledge survive?

    The loss of the great library of Alexandria lead to the loss of numerous wonders (even technological ones) of the past.
    If we lose the internet - one of the most insane business models of all times - then the loss of that library will pale in comparison.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    456
    Reputation
    2430
    Type
    Morlock

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azure Nomad View Post
    I always thought human history goes through cycles like the Ancient Romans believed in. We are not in a war or industrial phase but nearing the artistic phase as we are currently in the decline phase. Out of that decline of darkness comes the artistic phase where creativity and ingenuity will shine.

    Of course war and industry will follow fighting over those ideas from the artistic age. Even with AI and robots providing everything there is still so much resouces on earth and in this galaxy we have yet to tap into. The mid Atlantic Ridge will become a farming site for resources. The Earth's moon will be mined for its valuable minerals as well as many asteroids near orbit.
    I agree with that. I think one idea gets pushed to the limit and then dies or usually kills itself and then another idea takes over. Look at the concept of Empires and Kings and Queens. Then you had Communism which failed and yet idiot Westerners still think it can work. Everything swings back and forth. Should be interesting as I think the Leftie thing has run it's course and is as close to peak stupidity as it can get without them dragging non believers from their houses and packing them off to re-education camps.

    Some serious conservatism coming me thinks, Trump ain't nothing yet.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    456
    Reputation
    2430
    Type
    Morlock

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manfred View Post
    I agree with the cycle's idea. However I do not agree with the notion that knowledge and technology are taken for granted.

    The Romans themselves had many technological advances that where lost, and only centuries after where rediscovered.

    But the Romans and other lost civilizations had one thing going for them: they where never far from a self-sustaining non-technological way of life.

    We are now so far from our self-sustaining roots, that it is possible that we lose all this technological wonders we have today.

    Take my word as an engineer. We dont fix anything, at most we replace boards. There are few components, and the specialized components are unavailable unless in industrial quantities.

    With a severe enough economic downturn, many technologies will simply die. People will forget about their smartphones went they have not eaten for a few days.

    There is an inherent trap at out present business model. We do not produce to maintain an equipment line. We produce to REPLACE AN ENTIRE EQUIPMENT LINE. Therefore our industrial structures ate not prepared for a severe reduction of the market, resulting from people being unable to change equipment due to cosmetic changes and exciting new features.
    The price structure we have is not compatible with any other model.

    This is the trap.

    Can knowledge survive?

    The loss of the great library of Alexandria lead to the loss of numerous wonders (even technological ones) of the past.
    If we lose the internet - one of the most insane business models of all times - then the loss of that library will pale in comparison.
    No, knowledge cannot survive unless there are people actively using it. Watchmaking for example is a dying art, how many people would be able to forge something from steel or even hunt or fish, knit a blanket?

    The Dark Ages was all about that, and then you had the renaissance where people started to bring back arts and other long lost ideas. Some knowledge should be lost to the ages though.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Manfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    343
    Reputation
    3029
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azure Nomad View Post
    Even with AI and robots providing everything there is still so much resouces on earth and in this galaxy we have yet to tap into. The mid Atlantic Ridge will become a farming site for resources. The Earth's moon will be mined for its valuable minerals as well as many asteroids near orbit.
    This is one of the technological solutions that we keep invoking without considering the business models.

    First I want to convey my understanding of a business model: it is not a economist view, it is an engineering view. Money is a representation of resources, time and effort, ultimately. The "price discovery" mechanism is nothing more than a control loop with reality, using people as the control mechanism.

    A simple example is a primitive village where you can either grow food or make pottery.
    If there is a great need for pottery, people will exchange large amounts of food for your products, thus you live well. Others will look at your example and switch to pottery themselves, allocating more production capability to fulfill a need of society. In the limit there are to many people making pottery, and therefore the "price" drops bellow sustainability, and many abandon business, correcting an over-allocation of resources.

    This makes the economy the first type of computer, a distributed computer using humans as processors. The programming is our instinctive greed and need, and our application of intelligence to fulfill those instincts.

    But this computer allows for an efficient allocation of societal resources.

    Looking at things this way makes you think of the financial system as malware. Central economic planning is replacing the existing system by a weak computer made by crapy engineers and programmers. Humans have troubles understanding the operation of distributed computing and complex feedback systems. The theory of chaos is just starting to scratch this knowledge.


    Thus let us look at the idea that we still have many resources in this planet.

    It is true, but given a chance of mining a high quality ore or a low yield one, what will people chose? The least expensive, more productive and easier access first!
    This means that from all available resources, the easy (cheaper) findings are already exhausted. We are left with the pool of resources our ancestors will never touch, because they are poorer and difficult to extract.

    In a simple example, the original discoveries of oil needed one barrel worth of energy to extract 100 barrels of oil. The present Canadian "tar sand" oil has a 3:1 rate, you spend one barrel to produce 3. In the limit you will spend 1 barrel to produce 1 barrel, and that is when you give up the business.

    There is no "invisible hand of the market" placing more oil on the ground. The physical reality always win. You will end up with plenty of oil the ground, but you will never extract it because it is unprofitable, i.e. : it doesn't make sense energy-wise.

    The same thing happens with other mineral resources. Even with iron ore, we will eventually be left with the lowest quality one. Recycling is also a mirage, because of the oxidation of iron. We are essentially extracting highly concentrated iron and spreading it through the planet in a form of iron oxides. The iron is still here, but good luck in get it concentrated again.

    The space resources are also a huge pool. But to get equipment and men up there is expensive, i.e.: we have to spend a lot of energy and materials. The only thing that makes sense is keeping men and equipment out there in space. That is whole new can on worms, and leads us to interesting new problems.

    The economy of space is totally different from the economy of earth. Getting things up is expensive, dropping things down here is cheap, what does that means for trade? It means that any space based society ends up being the rich society, and the earth based is the poor society.

    But in the end none of this matters. Decline is inevitable, it is a natural part of the cycle. And I dont see men preparing for it, thus the fall will be great.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Germoney/Eurabia
    Posts
    1,569
    Reputation
    5873
    Type
    NeutralGhost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morlock View Post
    No, knowledge cannot survive unless there are people actively using it. Watchmaking for example is a dying art, how many people would be able to forge something from steel or even hunt or fish, knit a blanket?

    The Dark Ages was all about that, and then you had the renaissance where people started to bring back arts and other long lost ideas. Some knowledge should be lost to the ages though.
    I recently said something similar to a friend of mine: "Is our generation even capable of using what's in our fathers' toolsheds? I don't think so. Even we who do have some interest in these things don't really know how to use like half of the stuff our fathers own."

  17. #17
    Senior Member Eiji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Sector 001, Earth, UCAS, Ohio Valley region
    Posts
    2,522
    Reputation
    3781
    Type
    pragmatist

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    so.. evolution away from "pair bonding".....
    well, that's not a new idea for me since I've maintained that notion for years.... given that marriage as we know it has effectively outlived its usefulness in the wake of women having significantly more life options than they did just over 120 years ago... (around 1900, marriage was something of a necessity for women because they had few ways to support themselves otherwise... one of the biggest reasons for that being a relative lack of gainful employment up until the second world war... hell.. my late paternal grandmother worked at Smith and Wesson waiting for my grandpa [a tank mechanic] to come home from France)
    "I live in freedom, under my own flag." - Captain Harlock

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke

    "Who's the more foolish? The Fool? Or the Fool who follows him?" - Obi-wan "Ben" Kenobi

    "In servitutem redigi non recuso" - Latin (translates to "I refuse to be dominated.")

  18. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    18
    Reputation
    83
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Thanks for all the replies and predictions. Lots of food for thought and I enjoyed reading.

    Boiled down, I was saying that as technology advances and life gets easier, men and women have less and less need to bond. Should we ever achieve anything close to a utopia, I think marriage will all but vanish, requiring a technological assist for bringing babies into the world in order for humanity to survive.

    One thing I am curious about. If technology brings about abundance, is that automatically socialism? I thought socialism was taking wealth from people who produce to redistribute to a broader base of people who did not directly produce said wealth. If AI and robotics produce goods and those goods are distributed to people, is that considered socialism? Are you considering the owners of the AI and robots as the owners of the goods/wealth to be distributed, as well? What if the government owned those robots and AI? In a country like the USA, wouldn't the citizens own the robots and AI, since the government here is a representative republic?
    Just curious what your opinions are on that. I hadn't intended my hopeful thoughts on what the future might hold as endorsements of socialism, though it obviously came across that way.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Manfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    343
    Reputation
    3029
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gault View Post

    One thing I am curious about. If technology brings about abundance, is that automatically socialism? I thought socialism was taking wealth from people who produce to redistribute to a broader base of people who did not directly produce said wealth.
    Socialism/communism is an anachronism. It made sense it the beginning of the industrial revolution, when factories would exploit very cheat labor (sometime even children, that where payed less) and there was no consideration for the safety or well-being of the workers. No safety regulations existed and if people suffered an accident... To bad for you, you cant work anymore, make room for another. And the family would starve.

    It this sense the marxist movement was necessary to wake up the system and introduce some fair protections.

    However the meaning of fair is dependent of people. And its an evolving concept, and therefore socialism doesn't stop until the ultimate utopia: doing nothing.

    Obviously that is not possible, therefore what happens is that some people do nothing, while others do everything while convinced they are doing very well. The convincing is easy: a bullet for you if you are not convinced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gault View Post
    If AI and robotics produce goods and those goods are distributed to people, is that considered socialism? Are you considering the owners of the AI and robots as the owners of the goods/wealth to be distributed, as well? What if the government owned those robots and AI? In a country like the USA, wouldn't the citizens own the robots and AI, since the government here is a representative republic?
    If government own robots (the workforce of the future) that is a communist dictatorship, because the government own all means of production and therefore all wealth. The distribution of that wealth would be autocratic, thus self-serving and dictatorial. You dont like the government, you get less. You are a good suporter, you get more. You are a member of the party, you are insanely rich.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Germoney/Eurabia
    Posts
    1,569
    Reputation
    5873
    Type
    NeutralGhost

    Re: Evolving away from pair bonding?

    There's a recent German documentary about AI for anyone who is interested. It's called Hi, A.I. . I have not watched it yet myself, so I can't say if it's good or bad. Judge for yourself:
    https://german-documentaries.de/en_E...s/hi-a-i.10427


Similar Threads

  1. Cucks are evolving into super cucks
    By Nasir Jones in forum Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 25, 2016, 5:11 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 20, 2016, 6:00 AM
  3. Pair of white knights
    By Capo in forum Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 17, 2015, 6:25 PM
  4. Nice guy grows a pair.
    By Indianajohn in forum Lounge
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 2, 2014, 7:23 AM
  5. Pair Bonding
    By Aristotle in forum Lounge
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: April 15, 2014, 1:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •