The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
Page:
Lindgren wrote:
> But would that not rob people of their identity, their uniqueness in
> a way?
If it is put into practice from birth though then they wont miss what they never had. Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one. Being bound by logic would be terrible.
> But would that not rob people of their identity, their uniqueness in
> a way?
If it is put into practice from birth though then they wont miss what they never had. Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one. Being bound by logic would be terrible.
Yes, that's why I'm saying individuality it's good and bad. On one hand, it's what makes humans who they are; on the other, it's the reason why conflicts occur. Sure, you can have a group of ten or even millions having similar opinions, but by being linked so that we cannot "settle" the conflict by arguing or even breaking out into a fight, and instead make decisions as efficiently as possible.
Think of something that requires a decision to be made, or when you have conflicting views on something in your own head - you usually solve it quickly by logically picking what you think is the best solution. It's the same here, but instead of just the one person, there will be billions of ideas, some unique, but instead of arguing as we do now with human to human, we can solve it rationally as a collective.
Like one great big brain.
Think of something that requires a decision to be made, or when you have conflicting views on something in your own head - you usually solve it quickly by logically picking what you think is the best solution. It's the same here, but instead of just the one person, there will be billions of ideas, some unique, but instead of arguing as we do now with human to human, we can solve it rationally as a collective.
Like one great big brain.
And yet whoever creates a system like that would so easily be able twist it, and therefore put everybody into a big mess. They'd have to have such rational abilities as that of which they would create.
That is not really evolution though. Evolution is not meant to tear away the basic characteristics of the species. One mind among many would do just that for humans.
I see what you are saying though Icarus.
I see what you are saying though Icarus.
Cubist wrote:
Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray
> thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer
> is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the
> planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no
> answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for
> all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and
> creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one.
> Being bound by logic would be terrible.
No no, you still making it out as if we should be like the Borg, which is too robot-y. We can all still branch out into different areas of research, but instead of the debating "physically" (i.e. talking to each other), we can do so as if we were thinking like one. Hence my idea of sub nets; the further you go down, the more specific the area of research of speciality there is; this will then form a small percentage of the complete function, and will give views based on that group's opinion from their point of view; other point of views from other areas will then meet each other as they move up the hub, and a decision can be made collectively.
To be honest, it's quite similar to what we are doing now - but while we see animal activists protesting against scientists quite visibly, it will just be a thought process as a collective.
Unfortunately it is fundamentally flawed as one stray
> thought, say a problem gets sent all around the world until an answer
> is found then that would tie up the brain power of everyone on the
> planet until the answer is found! And what if it is a problem with no
> answer? A riddle or something then that would halt our evolution for
> all eternity because we would have lost our individuality and
> creativity to devise a solution or see that it doesn't have one.
> Being bound by logic would be terrible.
No no, you still making it out as if we should be like the Borg, which is too robot-y. We can all still branch out into different areas of research, but instead of the debating "physically" (i.e. talking to each other), we can do so as if we were thinking like one. Hence my idea of sub nets; the further you go down, the more specific the area of research of speciality there is; this will then form a small percentage of the complete function, and will give views based on that group's opinion from their point of view; other point of views from other areas will then meet each other as they move up the hub, and a decision can be made collectively.
To be honest, it's quite similar to what we are doing now - but while we see animal activists protesting against scientists quite visibly, it will just be a thought process as a collective.
I see the faults of this, it's just a different way of how we could operate.
We'll get world peace the moment we get a bl**dy great alien spacecraft in orbit - or similar.
Way to go, Belldandy!!!
Icarus wrote:
> Pretty soon I'd think. Some company in the news recently (cannae
> remember though) has created a helicopter that could fly on its own,
> avoiding obstacles while en route to its destination.
Yup.
It's an interesting subject to look into - Because if you think about it - nearly everything can be done without the need for human presence;
- AI controlled ambulances - receive call - activate - pick up paramedics and drive to the destination.
- AI controlled ships/planes/jet fighters/weapons
- AI controlled Air Traffic Operators
- AI controlled house cleaning systems
- AI controlled transport
It's gonna happen sometime...
> Pretty soon I'd think. Some company in the news recently (cannae
> remember though) has created a helicopter that could fly on its own,
> avoiding obstacles while en route to its destination.
Yup.
It's an interesting subject to look into - Because if you think about it - nearly everything can be done without the need for human presence;
- AI controlled ambulances - receive call - activate - pick up paramedics and drive to the destination.
- AI controlled ships/planes/jet fighters/weapons
- AI controlled Air Traffic Operators
- AI controlled house cleaning systems
- AI controlled transport
It's gonna happen sometime...
I saw the news article about the helicopter, what it actually did was modify it's flight plan every time it made a mistake, hence if it whacked into something it made sure it didn't do it again. Don't know about you lot but I don't want to be in any plane/helicopter that flies like that...
"Attention passengers, we're just going to hit this mountain, but the next flight won't, have a nice flight"
Seriously though, the actual idea is nothing new, the US already has certain planes flying solely on GPS relayed co-ordinates and integrated with land mapping and stuff.
"Attention passengers, we're just going to hit this mountain, but the next flight won't, have a nice flight"
Seriously though, the actual idea is nothing new, the US already has certain planes flying solely on GPS relayed co-ordinates and integrated with land mapping and stuff.
Page: