![](https://pawb.social/pictrs/image/b20ce5df-868a-4160-b0b2-a6744b05e514.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/44bf11eb-4336-40eb-9778-e96fc5223124.png)
My suspicion is that it’s abiogenesis, but it’s only a suspicion that I can’t have any certainty of
My suspicion is that it’s abiogenesis, but it’s only a suspicion that I can’t have any certainty of
I dont think Ive ever even pretended to think they are, for me children, especially babies and toddlers, give me a pretty bad case of the uncanny valley effect and look eerie and cause discomfort, as well as anxiety since Im even less sure than usual what they’re going to do and dont want someone’s kid getting hurt because of something I failed to notice. I dont hold it against them or hate children for it, its not their fault after all, but I do try to avoid being around them where practical.
If they’re calling a brain their original processor, these robots could be a result of successful transhumanism rather than conventional robots, ie, they could be humans that have made themselves into robots, rather than robots built for some specific purpose. In that case, they might create child robots and grow them over time to reproduce, just because they find that mode of reproduction familiar and wish to continue it.
that goes against the whole concept of a cure though. Like, if you kill someone that has the flu, they wont have the flu anymore, but that doesnt mean death cures the flu.
1442? surprised its not 1444
Israel is not Judaism and criticism of it is not criticism of Jewish people as a whole. To hold otherwise is to hold an entire people responsible for the actions of a few (those in the Israeli government), that those people often have no or only limited influence over, which would be an inherently bigoted position to take because it robs those people of their agency. If anything, the Israeli government itself is being antisemitic in a sense by pushing such a narrative in order to use Jewish people as a whole as shield against criticism of their actions.
I think you have an unrealistic estimation of how much most people understand the topic of communism, if you think not labelling different types of communism as the same ideology is living under a rock. More than half the country doesn’t even realize that socialism and communism aren’t complete synonyms, and a good fraction think paradoxically that center right liberalism is somehow communist.
Basically, I think you’re doing this: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/average_familiarity_2x.png
In what sense is this semantics or bad faith? I meant this sincerely.
As I understand it, “real communism” is supposed to be some kind of stateless society. As the GDR was, well, a state, it clearly did not achieve that. Nor would it ever have been likely to, as actually doing what was ideologically promised would have required those with power within that system to relinquish that power, which is incredibly rare as it conflicts with human nature.
Not sure why nobody would expect an italian inquisition of food, they literally have a unit in one of their law enforcement agencies trained to do things like find fake extra-virgin olive oil. Ive seen people jokingly call it “the italian food police” even. If anybody was going to run a food inquisition, itd be the italians
Stargate is the best “star-” franchise imho.
Pumpkins I’m curious about. All I can even think of to do with a pumpkin is pie, though I’m sure there’s probably more traditionally done with them
This reminds me of something I sometimes wonder about lotr: does the ring make you more evil, or does it just make you more like Sauron? If you’re already even more evil than Sauron and you put on the ring, does it slowly turn you ever so slightly more good, to align with Sauron better?
The aliens would have to be stupid to list a planet as solved for tens of millions of years after killing off the dominant life forms, because, well, a new one will just evolve in short order, exactly as has happened on earth, and they ought to know this.
The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs would be insufficient to eliminate a life bearing planet as a potential future source of a threat appearing, unless you hit such planets regularly in that manner every few million years or so. If you were really going to do a policy like this, you’d want to hit the planet hard enough to completely sterilize the place, or at least kill off everything bigger than a microbe.
Not at all, there is nothing physically impossible about someone engaging on projects that take centuries or millennia to complete, it just requires a lot of patience and effort. Finding or even attacking an alien species does not fundamentally require anything disallowed by physics, it just requires a long timescale to do slower than light. My assumption was just that any hostile aliens would simply conduct those hostilities over very long periods of time. Having interstellar travel at all, assuming no ftl, sort of implies a willingness to undergo these kinds of long term efforts anyway, and it doesn’t seem absurd to imagine that anyone with the technology to have those kinds of energies at their disposal might also have very advanced medical technology, such that they might live a very long time, which could lend itself to more long term thinking.
Doesn’t the fediverse userbase trend towards being made up of millennials? I’m on the older end of gen Z myself and grew up with CDs and DVDs, so I imagine most people here are familiar with the technology.
I’m aware the information would be out of date, that was part of my point in another response for one of the reasons I don’t imagine the scenario works, because attacks arrive at a distant point in the future. I’ve never personally heard the dark forest scenario as requiring ftl tech, making that a requirement seems to make the entire premise moot as it requires throwing a pretty fundamental part of physics out to even contemplate.
I mean, you can’t really say that we’re going to drive ourselves to extinction, until we’ve been driven to extinction. Most things people list as likely to do this, climate change, nuclear war, are things that could conceivably do so, but honestly aren’t likely to. Destroy civilization maybe, but that just takes disrupting supply lines hard enough. Extinction means nobody, anywhere on the planet survives, even if it’s some little pocket of people in some corner of the world whose climate is good after warming is considered and which isn’t a target of any nuclear arsenals, because in a number of generations such a little pocket can grow to repopulate the planet again. It’s not an impossible thing for sure, but killing off a species capable of surviving in almost any climate zone found on the planet, with the ability to manipulate the growth of it’s own food supply, and adapt new tools actively in response to problems within a single generation, is a difficult task.