The quality of vision.

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

The quality of vision.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed May 24, 2017 9:42 pm

There are many kinds of vision, and I do not mean eyesight. I refer to the vision that occurs between your ears. An artist may envisage a canvas before he puts the first brush stroke to work. A writer must form a vision of his story. But in this case, I am talking of the vision we form when we consider the future. Future vision.

It appears there are people who cannot form any realistic vision of the future. They form a fallacy, which is based on 'seeing' only that which relates to the present. We saw that with Dr. Paul Ehrlich's writings, in which he realised the global population was increasing, but was unable to preceive the continued growth in food production. So he predicted widespread famine and megadeaths to go with population growth. This was a fallacy.

WE see the same thing today with journalists finally realising that a revolution in robotics is under way. They can now (after having their heads continually pummelled with this truth) predict a future in which much of human work is carried out by robots and computers. But their view of that future is distorted by the current social requirement that everyone must work. So their view of the future is dystopic, and they see widespread unemployment, poverty, and human misery. Why can they not see that this change will include massive changes in social structure, and financial organisation, so that the "unemployed" will still lead prosperous, and satisfying lives?

What is your vision of the future? Does it include the baggage of present day reality being carried forwards? Do you see the future as dystopic or eutopic? Can you step outside present day prejudgments to make a more realistic view of what is coming?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby gorgeous » Wed May 24, 2017 10:05 pm

it will get worse as predicted by various sources...but positive energy projected can reduce negative events...we will learn to control the weather, manifest objects, use psychic abilities, and death will not be a trauma...it will be understood that death is not the end .....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed May 24, 2017 10:21 pm

Another thread sabotaged by bulldust. Sigh!

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed May 24, 2017 10:27 pm

I saw that coming. :nose:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby gorgeous » Wed May 24, 2017 10:35 pm

wait and see...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 25, 2017 12:15 am

gorgeous wrote:wait and see...
Wait for what Gorgeous? You have been saying that for a long time and nothing ever happens.

What makes us laugh at your stupidity, is that you claim your crack team of "remote viewers" can predict the future, yet you can never offer a firm date. That's how hopeless you are.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 25, 2017 12:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: What is your vision of the future? Does it include the baggage of present day reality being carried forwards?
I think it is worth considering what baggage exists, that will always be with us. I would say "Innate human behaviour" is the biggest baggage. We simply can't get rid of it as it is stuck in our heads.

My brother and I used to argue about this all the time. My position was that, if you and I were transported back to ancient Rome we would quickly recognise the society as normal and identify all the "fixed innate behaviours" of humans popping up in the same way. My brother, Thomas, argued that ancient Roman society would be totally alien to us and its only that modern historians see history through modern parameters that we think Roman society was like our modern society. Nowadays, I think both views make sense.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Do you see the future as dystopic or eutopic? Can you step outside present day prejudgments to make a more realistic view of what is coming?
It is simply too hard to make any sort of prediction. I have read hundreds of science fiction novels and short stories predicting the future and all of them are somewhat plausible or have plausible elements.

Off Topic
Logan's Run, the 70's movie was all high tech and sexual liberation, with people being knocked off at 30. The book is fundamentally different with run down terrace houses in London and social disharmony because people were knocked off at 21 and therefore no one was ever mature enough to end the forced execution system. The book is actually realistic, unlike the movie.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 25, 2017 1:01 am

But in the movie, Jenny Agutter is so incredibly sexy. It has just GOT to be a good movie.

On predictions. As I have said before, I write some science fiction stories as a kind of hobby, so I have an interest in scifi predictions. Of the hundreds of books and stories I have read, very very few actually make any predictions that have a snowballs chance in hell of ever being true. In fact, a hell of a lot are actually against the laws of physics. On the very rare occasion I encounter a scifi story that has some credibility, I particularly enjoy it. (To be fair, I enjoy the incredible ones as well.)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 25, 2017 1:14 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:But in the movie, Jenny Agutter is so incredibly sexy. It has just GOT to be a good movie.)
Jenny Agutter was indeed a total babe. Nicholas Roeg cast her as a schoolgirl for the film "walkabout" and delayed production for 5 years and thus we have a 20 year old babe, taking her schoolgirl clothes off in Walkabout. That's how every Australian male over 50 remembers her.

However, I still watch her today.......playing a nun.....in "Call the midwife."
Jenny agutter.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 25, 2017 1:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On predictions. As I have said before, I write some science fiction stories as a kind of hobby, so I have an interest in scifi predictions. Of the hundreds of books and stories I have read, very very few actually make any predictions that have a snowballs chance in hell of ever being true. In fact, a hell of a lot are actually against the laws of physics. On the very rare occasion I encounter a scifi story that has some credibility, I particularly enjoy it. (To be fair, I enjoy the incredible ones as well.)


I think that good 50's, 60's & 70's science fiction novels and short stories were once like Aesop's Fables. The story was sort of irrelevant and only a means to explore one point.. As the background stories were very fanciful, back then, it was easy for the reader to suspend disbelief. I think that as real life technology advanced, the background SF stories became less fanciful and thus modern science fiction has to be fully realistic to maintain an audience.

(There's a university doctorate "ready to go" somewhere discussing the evolution of the SF novel. )
:D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Gord » Thu May 25, 2017 2:04 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:...It appears there are people who cannot form any realistic vision of the future....

...What is your vision of the future? Does it include the baggage of present day reality being carried forwards? Do you see the future as dystopic or eutopic? Can you step outside present day prejudgments to make a more realistic view of what is coming?

I stand by my prediction of Aug 27, 2011: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=16629
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 25, 2017 2:49 am

Gord

Predicting that something that has happened thousands of times in the past will also happen in the future is not prophecy. It is a certainty! It is like me predicting that there will be a mass shooting in the USA some time in the next month. Want to bet money against me?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Gord » Thu May 25, 2017 2:58 am

I know. See? I was responding to what you said:

Lance Kennedy wrote:It appears there are people who cannot form any realistic vision of the future. They form a fallacy, which is based on 'seeing' only that which relates to the present.

And that's what I did in that other thread. I said to myself, "cannibalism happens, I haven't heard about it lately, 'therefore' it must be about to happen again". I based my so-called "prediction" solely on what related to my present at that time.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3287
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu May 25, 2017 8:11 am

We humans can only think of relative progress or decline, but not in absolute terms.
We are also very bad at anticipating game-changing events.

We also tend to discount the future, i.e. we have already "priced in" that the future will hold more and better stuff at lower costs. We are upset that scientists haven't fixed the climate or cured cancer yet - what do we pay them for?

So it is no wonder that people will be disappointed with the future, because we won't all have flying cars.
People will also be confused by new, disruptive technologies that will affect our lives in ways similar to the Internet.

One trend that seems to hold for now is that it will become even easier to obtain the bare necessities of life and at the same time stay up--to-date on current knowledge and in communication with very smart people. Innovation will continue to accelerate as fund-raising is decentralized and techs like 3D printing, VR and biohacking can be done on smaller and smaller scales.
Big companies will lose power when open-source alternatives become easy to access. Nation states might get strengthened by this and nationalist sentiments. But cutting-edge technology won't care about that.

We probably will have some significant wars in the coming decades, mostly because change in some places is too slow (Middle East, North Korea, Russia) compared to the rest of the world. But these wars will be fought and won by robots and drones, which take out some of the power mercenary forces have gained in the last 50 years and show how irrelevant concepts such as bravery or conviction are on the modern battlefield.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

scientia
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:37 am

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby scientia » Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:04 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:WE see the same thing today with journalists finally realising that a revolution in robotics is under way. They can now (after having their heads continually pummelled with this truth) predict a future in which much of human work is carried out by robots and computers. But their view of that future is distorted by the current social requirement that everyone must work. So their view of the future is dystopic, and they see widespread unemployment, poverty, and human misery. Why can they not see that this change will include massive changes in social structure, and financial organisation, so that the "unemployed" will still lead prosperous, and satisfying lives?

Yes, I've seen the same projections, for example, that 40% of the jobs will be gone in the next 20 years. I've also read pieces about the destruction of employment stability due to the "gig" economy. These are projections based on current observations and understanding of commerce. These are probably not accurate though. Instead, it appears that cognitive theory also allows for new types of commerce. You don't hear about it because it isn't the kind of commerce that would help a large business. In other words, it won't help Google or Microsoft. I don't want to get into the technical details (because this is on the order of a masters thesis) but it involves decision theory along with demand uncertainty. It should have the effect of reducing production instability and increasing employment stability. So, we have a different view of the future.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Of the hundreds of books and stories I have read, very very few actually make any predictions that have a snowballs chance in hell of ever being true.

Ahem. One of my numerous, ongoing lists...

18th Century
  • 1726 Gulliver’s Travels - Jonathan Swift - Mars’ two moons

19th Century
  • 1865 From the Earth to the Moon - Jules Verne - manned moon landing, including launching from a Florida site
  • 1870 Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea - Jules Verne - electric submarines
  • 1888 Looking Backward - Edward Bellamy - the concept of the credit card

20th Century, pre-WWI
  • 1903 “The Land Ironclads” - H.G. Wells - tanks
  • 1909 The Machine Stops - E.M. Forster - video chatting
  • 1910 “Moxon’s Master” - Ambrose Bierce - super-computers
  • 1911 Ralph 124C 41+ - Hugo Gernsback - solar power, television, tape recorders, movies with sound, space travel, radar
  • 1914 The World Set Free - H.G. Wells - nuclear weapons

20th Century, post-WWI, pre-WWII
  • 1931 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley - antidepressants, contraceptives

20th Century, WWII years
  • 1940 “The Roads Must Roll” - Robert A. Heinlein - escalators, slidewalks
  • 1940 “Solution Unsatisfactory” - Robert A. Heinlein - nuclear arms race
  • 1940 “Methuselah” - Robert A. Heinlein - self-driving cars, Space Adaptation Syndrome, directional microphones
  • 1945 “The Space-Station: Its Radio Applications” - Arthur C. Clarke - geosynchronous satellites used for telecommunications relays

20th Century, post-WWII, pre-Vietnam
  • 1949 1984 - George Orwell - surveillance state
  • 1951 Between Planets - Robert A. Heinlein - pocket-sized cellphones
  • 1953 Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury - earbuds

20th Century, Vietnam years
  • 1959 “The Man Who Sold the Moon” - Robert A. Heinlein - sensor switches for lights
  • 1968 2001: A Space Odyssey - Arthur C. Clarke - the iPad
  • 1969 Stand on Zanzibar - John Brunner - school shootings, terrorism, electric cars, “hook-up” culture, techno music, laser printers, the decriminalization of cannabis, and a President named…wait for it…Obomi

20th Century, post-Vietnam
  • 1979 The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams - universal translator
  • 1983 Friday - Robert A. Heinlein - the Internet, the concept of the WikiLoop
  • 1984 Neuromancer - William Gibson - virtual reality, computer hackers
:wgrin:

Of course, this is a drop in the bucket, and there are as many predictions that didn't come true, if not more. But this is pretty startling, especially looking at the years published compared to the technology predicted. (N.B. I have no idea why I divided the 20th Century by its war and non-war eras rather than by decades. If I think of a reason, I'll add it in edit.) Also, I'm not ignoring your OP; I'll think about that one tomorrow. I need sleep. :sleep:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:57 am

Luna Nik

I said very few would have a chance of coming true, not all. Overall, my statement is still true.

On this topic, it is noticeable that the most accurate predictions are of things scientists are already predicting. Writers who do not have the benefit of tapping into scientific expertise have a much poorer track record.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:16 pm

Well, you said "very very few" and there have been quite a lot. Without a full research project, there's no way to establish a statistic. Even then, you'd have to qualify the predictions compared to the scientific knowledge available at the time to get any meaningful result. Today's authors have a larger knowledge base with which to work.

Still, speaking to your OP, isn't it stunning that such a wide variety of authors did have future visions that were accurate? I mean, the pre-Industrial Revolution authors had relatively little accurate science of note on which to base their future visions, yet they made "predictions" that were on target. I guess I was trying to be more optimistic about the concept, which is difficult in the current regressive climate, I know.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:But their view of that future is distorted by the current social requirement that everyone must work. So their view of the future is dystopic, and they see widespread unemployment, poverty, and human misery. Why can they not see that this change will include massive changes in social structure, and financial organisation, so that the "unemployed" will still lead prosperous, and satisfying lives?

What is your vision of the future? Does it include the baggage of present day reality being carried forwards? Do you see the future as dystopic or eutopic? Can you step outside present day prejudgments to make a more realistic view of what is coming?

Lance, you've hit the nail on the head. The traditional idea of the career worked just fine for most people when our economy was manufacturing-based, and human labor was necessary part of that process. Then, services were limited, and the average person did more things for himself. Examples...
• Then...wash your own car in your driveway. Now...there are service companies that will "detail" your car for you.
• Then...grocery shop for ingredients. Now...subscribe to a food delivery service.
• Then...go to the library, browse, and borrow books. Now...go to an online service, browse, and download books.

Industries have changed in a similar manner. When I first started at the postal service, clerks would sit at archaic machines with analog keyboards and key in the zip codes of letters as they passed the viewing area. When I left, there was a central keying area in Nashua, NH. Letters from the facility where I worked were loaded into a remote digital scanner, and the images were sent to the clerks' screens in Nashua. Needless to say, quite a few jobs were eliminated as a result. And that was 17 years ago, so I can only imagine what functions have been centralized in the intervening years, and how many additional jobs have been eliminated as a result.

However, the powers-that-be, being mostly from the oldest generation, seem to be unaware of these foundational changes in our economy. Many still believe that "working hard" and "working your way up" are possible, ignoring the fact that those entry-level jobs no longer exist. Companies don't need an unskilled laborer to stand at a machine pushing buttons; they need a trained worker to program the machine. For that, the youngest generation needs an education...which they can't afford without indenturing themselves to a lifetime of student debt. Many of them are staunchly against capitalism, which they see as the root of the problems they currently face. The entire system is closed to them. But the powers-that-be, with their tunnel vision, just think of them as lazy.

Add to that the predatory class that produces absolutely nothing, siphons wealth from the economy and hoards it, fails to repay the commonwealth, and controls the legislative process, and there's no way to avoid a dystopian future without radically changing the economic and social structures. There are several ways to work toward that.

• Re-establish the sharply progressive income tax, like the US had in the '50s. The top tax bracket was, at one point, 91%. If you think that's confiscatory, read this argument in favor. Unless they're abysmally stupid, once wealthy, the wealthy will remain that way, even if taxed at 91%.

• Repatriate all money currently in offshore tax havens by using (in the US) the RICO Act. This is a win-win. If tax-evaders refuse to pay, all their assets are confiscated. If they agree to pay, their assets are returned, but the money is repatriated and taxed, along with hefty fines and penalties.

• Formulate and put into practice a basic income. This will go far toward equalizing class disparity and ending the concept that entering the rat race is an inevitable part of life. A basic income seems counterintuitive, but it's not. People who have money spend money, and people who spend money pay taxes, and taxes fund the basic income. It's simply moving money around in a different way. (Also, keep in mind that the basic income would replace all other forms of financial welfare.)

However, none of these things will happen as long as the predatory class controls the legislative process. Hence, we're in for a dystopian future until people realize they're not powerless. So, that's my
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:22 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:But in the movie, Jenny Agutter is so incredibly sexy. It has just GOT to be a good movie.)
[color=#000080]Jenny Agutter was indeed a total babe. Nicholas Roeg cast her as a schoolgirl for the film "walkabout" and delayed production for 5 years and thus we have a 20 year old babe, taking her schoolgirl clothes off in Walkabout.

Thanks for a great Google Images. :twisted:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:26 pm

Luna

I tend to agree with your program. You may end up in an argument with the venerable Kwan, though, who seems to believe that the wealthy have a moral right to being wealthy, even when it causes great hardship among those less wealthy.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:24 am

My longest time BF from childhood wuz a Loganz Run fanatic. Spent a big chunk uv hiz life riting a seriez uv sequelz. Maybe if he hadnt also persued a hobby uv imbibing unhelthy substansez he coud hav turned them into sumthing good enuf to read and publish.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8233
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Poodle » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:14 am

LunaNik wrote:[*]1979 The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams - universal translator


[pedantry]I like your lists - but I take exception to this one. No human development was predicted. It was a fish.[/pedantry]

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:27 pm

Not to mention no universal tranzlator yet, if ever.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:14 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Luna

I tend to agree with your program. You may end up in an argument with the venerable Kwan, though, who seems to believe that the wealthy have a moral right to being wealthy, even when it causes great hardship among those less wealthy.

So be it. I would argue until the heat death of the universe that no one who wishes to live in a society has a moral right to be filthy rich when children are starving. And if they wish to live outside of society, their money is worthless. :wgrin:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The quality of vision.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:15 pm

Poodle wrote:
LunaNik wrote:[*]1979 The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams - universal translator


[pedantry]I like your lists - but I take exception to this one. No human development was predicted. It was a fish.[/pedantry]

I take exception to your exception! Kidding. You have a valid point.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest