Rediscovery of Technology

Imaginos1892 wrote:Now imagine Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot living for 3,000 years.

For all of history there have been tyrants, despots and robber barons, but they could only do limited damage. It typically takes them half a lifetime to attain power, they die after a few decades, and their tyrannies disintegrate shortly afterward. What might happen if those sociopaths could spend thousands of years tightening their grip on power?

Kosh was right.

You are not ready for immortality.

Hmmm. Assume the Garden of Eden was real - assume also that old age is basically a nutrient lack disease - now just why would the Lord insist on cutting off access to the tree of Life after sin entered the world


RE: sociopaths - someone commented that the primary symptom of sociopaths gaining control of any society consists of attempts to restrict access to uncontrolled information by average people. Where is this occurring today

While we have our thinking cap on - which is the worst problem: getting access to raw data, or an insistence that any data we get must be interpreted according to accepted theory, and anyone who says different must be shut up

First paragraph has big assumptions, garden of eden real, ageing a lack of a nutrient, existence of a lord who mandated this separation. Playing along I'd imagine the reason would have been that this lord felt immortality would have had negative consequences to society, that even overrode the benefits of immortality.

Second paragraph probably refers to dictatorships like North Korea, and to a lesser extent Russia and China. Luckily the western developed democracies don't have this problem.

Third paragraph depends on the country or society. Western developed democracies shouldn't have any problem accessing raw data, but some may have been conditioned by religions or pressure groups to misinterpret this data. Climate change illustrates this well - lots of raw data but pressure groups do manipulate a small number to ignore most of the data and not accept the obvious.
Other countries probably have both problems (no access to raw data, and told what to think).

I was surfing the internet and found an interesting subject about pyramids and underground chambers using ground radar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBwUqMRwQRw

Daryl wrote:
snip

Second paragraph probably refers to dictatorships like North Korea, and to a lesser extent Russia and China. Luckily the western developed democracies don't have this problem.

snip

2nd & 3rd Paras: Actually, I wasn't thinking of recognized dictatorships, but of suppression in areas where speech is supposed to be free. In the USA, it too often takes quite a bit of digging to find the facts when they disagree with accepted agendas or theories.

DDHvi wrote:

Daryl wrote:
snip

Second paragraph probably refers to dictatorships like North Korea, and to a lesser extent Russia and China. Luckily the western developed democracies don't have this problem.

snip

2nd & 3rd Paras: Actually, I wasn't thinking of recognized dictatorships, but of suppression in areas where speech is supposed to be free. In the USA, it too often takes quite a bit of digging to find the facts when they disagree with accepted agendas or theories.

That's one of the downsides of peer review. The idea is that the scientists who investigate an area know better than anyone else what proposals are worth looking at, which ones are less valuable and which ones are totally wacky. The upside to that is it works most of the time. The majority of proposals selected as worth looking at are worth looking at, the majority of the ones labeled less valuable are less valuable and the majority of the ones labeled wacky are wacky. Unfortunately the downside is that (rare) truly innovative proposals tend to be tossed into the wacky category because scientists are human too and as subject to biases as anyone else however much they think that they aren't. And that is in the hard sciences where data rules.

In the soft sciences which are inherently more dependent on opinion and where opinion of a left leaning academia dominates, it is exponentially worse...