kouchpotato wrote:
LionElJonson wrote:
Who said anything about killing anyone? Atheists and whatnot might be an oppressed minority in such a regime, but only the most hard-line fundamentalists would want them killed
Which is exactly what this fucker is, a hard-line fundamentalist.
I think your definition of hard-line fundamentalist and my definition of hard-line fundamentalist might be different.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
especially when the leadership of them has a science-oriented goal like expanding into space at the top of the agenda. Most likely, there'd just be a bunch of punishments for assorted criminalized sins,
Yet you find nothing wrong with this? Are you fucking kidding me?
The law is the law; so long as it's not applied retroactively, passing and enforcing laws is part of the job of the government. If the government gets too overly tyrannical, it will be overthrown, whether that's at the ballot box or the ammo box.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
and maybe incentives for things like going to church. Well, okay, the doctors and nurses who perform abortions might be executed if they continue to murder babies,
Oh, go and sodomize yourself with a bible you twat. A seed isn't a tree. An egg is not a chicken. An embryo is not a baby.
LionElJonson wrote:
as might the women who went to them for their services, but other than that, I doubt anyone would be executed as a result of this scenario.
Second point.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here; an egg is a chicken, and a seed is a tree. It's just that there's nothing morally wrong with killing either of those, as long you don't make them suffer. A fetus is as human as the mother it's growing inside, and claiming otherwise is hypocrisy of the worst sort; a fetus doesn't magically become human once it's exited the vagina.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
Besides which, it would be entirely fair to interpret the Bible as giving Christians the duty to perform science; God gave us the stewardship of the world, and since we were a primitive people at the time who did not know of the existance of other planets, let alone other solar systems, it'd be entirely reasonable to assume that God was giving us the stewardship of the physical universe
The Church didn't see it that way for a while, which is why they fucked over Gallileo and such for trying to disprove their bullshit.
Gallileo got into trouble because he was a real-life version of an Internet troll who went around insulting everyone who disagreed with him, and when he wrote a book insulting the Pope, they called him on that. He wasn't persecuted because of his science (which, at that stage, couldn't be proven or disproven because of how shitty their telescopes were at that point), he was persecuted because he was an asshole.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
Additionally, the evidence is that God prefers to avoid breaking the laws of physics He created;
Except everything about the creation myth breaks the laws of physics.
Keep in mind who it was given to; it was probably just a parable of some sort, so they'd have a basic understanding of the important bits.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
the universe is God's greatest and most complex creation, so marvelling at it and exploring it could be thought of as a form of worship of Him. How are we to perform our duties as God's stewards of the physical world, if we lack the science to properly do so, and the technologies to get off the planet and into the greater universe?
Because being the steward of something doesn't mean you fucking ditch it when it gets dirty. If a friend asked you to house sit would you not look after their house? And if it got messy, what is the reasonable thing to do, dip or stay and clean it up?
Nope, but we're not just the steward of Earth; we're the stewards of the entire universe. You don't ignore the rest of the house just because one cup is getting dusty.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
kouchpotato: How to convince him to let me do it? Point to how much money it would make (probably on the order of hundreds of millions if not billions, since you want profit to be on the same order of magnitude as costs as a safety margin).
Except he's clearly not interested in profits. If he was, he wouldn't support environmental measures and getting us off of oil dependency. Those things make a shitton of money.
He's a politician. Even if he personally might not be corrubtable, I'm sure some of his cabinet are.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
Secondly, I'm a Christian, he's a Christian; I'd attempt to approach him at church, or possibly after it. He'd probably be more receptive that way.
If he attended Church where the public could freely talk to him he'd be shot in a heartbeat. Assuming he's smart (smart of a fundie) he'll have his own private church.
Google
says that the US Presidents have a row of pews reserved in
St. John's Episcopal Church. Presumably, they're escorted by Secret Service agents whenever they actually attend.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
Finally, I'd stress that it's literally the only way possible to save mankind in time, since chemical rockets lack the lifting ability required.
Not if he cleans up the planet. Why leave Earth if there isn't an immediate threat to it?
Because the OP explicitly said he believed he had to, so saying he won't is blatantly ignoring the presented scenario. Also, because we do have a duty to the entire rest of the universe.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
Also, I'm not anti-intellectual; I just know that the various fields of science can, to some degree, be seperated. Just because one field suffers a bit of a slowdown doesn't mean other, unrelated fields also suffer slowdowns. IT and Biology are not related; the Singularity will most likely proceed on schedule.
You are anti-intellectual, because you don't give a shit if people suffer for not agreeing with a bunch of stupid made up dogma. And just how the fuck do you expect to make a fake brain if you don't understand the real one? That's what biology is for dickhead.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... tellectualThat says nothing about empathy or caring for other people. Not caring about people suffering is totally unrelated to your intellectual or anti-intellectual beliefs. Besides, I don't want the AI people to make fake brains; I want them to make Friendly AIs. Fake brains would have scattershot goal systems, and God only knows what they might do once they go into recursive self-improvement. The only way to make a Friendly AI that is with logical designs, such as those proposed by Yudkowsky et al.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
Also: imitation is the greatest form of flattery. The Tower of Babel was built due to arrogance; if we build the Friendly AI with humility (and we would need to be humble to have a hope of pulling it off successfully), we probably wouldn't suffer the same fate.
Well, no we wouldn't because the Tower of Babel was a myth for one. For two, of you tried to make a "God" AI your deity would get jealous and fuck you up. That's sorta what he does. He doesn't like people worshipping anyone other than him. He's so insecure he doesn't even like people using his name! Why do you think tons of fundy sites used "G-d"?
Humility is neccessary to successfully build a Friendly AI since it'll be vastly more intelligent than you are, and your design will need to compensate for that. Also, God isn't jealous; the reason he blew up the Tower of Babel was because of the arrogance of trying to force our way into Heaven.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
And yes, he would need me, or someone like me, since he most likely just sees climate change and peak oil as indicators that the end-time is coming. This means he'd need to build them that much more quickly, since something even worse is right around the corner. I'm not being delusional about being a savior; I'm just taking advantage of the fact he's delusional about humanity needing one (something explicitly stated in the OP).
You don't understand. Let me spell it out real clear for you. If we solve Global Warming and Peak Oil there would be less of an incentive than there currently is to colonize other worlds. Who gives a shit about a mars colony when we've got a perfectly fine Earth? You also ignore the fact he's an environmentalist, and those people tend to not be the biggest fans of nuclear energy.
And the OP explicitly says that he's going to be building up a space program because he believes the Earth is doomed, and ignoring that is ignoring the scenario presented by the OP.
Quote:
LionElJonson wrote:
And no, I don't care about him oppressing people; it doesn't affect me, so I don't care. I'm not a very good Christian that way.
You are a fucking piece of shit. Not giving a shit if people get oppressed, have their rights stripped and such isn't just being a bad Christian (I'd argue it's being a good one) but it's being a fucking awful person. Please, go preach in Iran or something.
No, it makes me a normal person. If I was an awful person, Nazi Germany would never have gotten off the ground because people would have stopped it.