Top 10 Sci Fi Inventions that Should not be Invented

copperdragon / 18 Jan, 2008 at 01:43 pm

here’s a couple i was expecting to see:

Interstellar travel: basically flying cars taken to the next step. i know we have the shuttle, etc. but i’m talking millenium falcon travel. sci-fi uses it all the time as a fact that civilizations on different planets across a galaxy or universe ALL developed space travel at roughly the same time.

How soon in real-life? as soon as someone invents a cheaper way to escape earth’s gravity. propulsion in space is as easy as letting air out of a balloon.

Laser swords/guns: Lasers exist now, but how soon till we can shoot a short laser pulse rapidly? or limit its length into a solid, viewable stick? hopefully soon, but they would probably face the same weapons-restriction laws we have now…only worse.

copperdragon / 18 Jan, 2008 at 02:14 pm

mystern: i was just hoping they’d be on the list for discussion. personally, i’m in favor of space travel (lets see whats out there), but not laser weapons (you think gangs are a problem NOW.)

SubliminalDeath666 / 18 Jan, 2008 at 02:22 pm

Wow I thought comments were supposed to COMMENT the list and are supposed to be a SHORT sentence. I find it amazing yet really stupid when people spam info from wikipedia. Idiots.

copperdragon / 18 Jan, 2008 at 02:28 pm

SD666: anyone in particular? or are you just jealous someone else might have beat you to it.

Randall / 18 Jan, 2008 at 02:36 pm

SlickWilly:

Name me three… JUST THREE technological advancements that came out of WWII that wouldn’t have come out within 10 years of 1940 *anyway.*

That’s the point I was making—it isn’t that war doesn’t sometimes bring advancements—but it’s influence on technology is way over-exaggerated.

Almost all of the technologies brought to us out of WWII were in fact already in development *before* the war, and would have been achieved, no doubt, by 1950, if not earlier, anyway. I invite you to refute this with at least three examples.

avi / 18 Jan, 2008 at 03:01 pm

excogitate:what?

StewWriter / 18 Jan, 2008 at 03:55 pm

Anyone else thinking this is getting entirely too far out of control?

Blogball / 18 Jan, 2008 at 05:05 pm

Kind of reminds me when I was in 4th grade and we had a substitute teacher for a month.

Actually I take that back the 4th graders acted more mature than what I see here.

Stormy617 / 18 Jan, 2008 at 05:47 pm

One of the things that I have enjoyed over the past month or so since I found this site is the interaction between Jamie and the members/commenters on this site. That is the great thing that sets this one apart from other sites. This is in fact the first and only place I have ever commented on. I don’t understand why people can’t be a little more understanding and let the man enjoy his holiday with his family without complaining that they are not being entertained enough.

ben / 19 Jan, 2008 at 01:09 am

I apologize if someones said this before me, i skipped ahead. First, the idea of nanorobots really isn’t an end-of-the-world armageddon after all, because chances are by the time we get nanobots to the point where they can be used we will have means of programming or simply preventing them from multiplying. The nonobots would probably work much the same way our cells work. If you left bacteria in a perfect environment with food and absolutely positively no predators, that bacteria could take over the earth easily. But thats never happened, has it? As for the idea of timetravel, dismissing it as irrational based on physics is also wrong. Theres a theory, don’t remember its name, saying the universe we live in is one of countless alternate ones. Every decision ever posed to every person, ever, creates a new branch of an alternate world. Time travel could exist, just not in the branch of the dimensions we live in. That said, it is a far out idea. Finally ill take a poke at someone who said teleportation couldnt exist. Well, we’ve done it. Not with people, not even with multicellular organisms, but we have teleported a strand of 36 carbon atoms 45 feet across a labratory.

20Fan20 / 19 Jan, 2008 at 12:09 pm

ben:

Where did you find the 45 carbon atom deal? Not in a “prove it” sense but I want to read about that. I had read about 1 atom being teleported but not a chain. That is pretty cool.

jfrater / 19 Jan, 2008 at 11:35 pm

I am guessing JustinW has a site that is not particularly popular and he is annoyed that this one is. Unfortunately for him he can no longer access the site – just as I am about to revert to our old system of regular updates! BTW: I am back from holiday and will resume working on the site tomorrow (I have jetlag to deal with today!)

Andrew / 20 Jan, 2008 at 05:31 pm

Teleporters topics always assume people will be moved.

First, the military would move weapons, then FedEx and UPS would open teleportation centers to move packages, then Microsoft would donate teleporters to move medicine/food to third-world countries.

Moving people would probably be LAST on the list. Whatever, it’s ALL cool!

Randall / 21 Jan, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Slickwilly:

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I did *not* say that war has no influence over technology. Rather, I was saying that it is a myth that war is the best way or even one of the best ways of spurring technological advancement. The technology most advanced by war is *the technology of war*–i.e., weapons technology and so on. Some applications for war technology do indeed find their way into civilian life, but this not the rule, it is the exception. In fact, peaceful development of technology, driven by the market, the desires of the public, and often the far-sightedness of private and government researchers and investors, brings us far more in the way of advancements. The Space Race, for example, did far more for modern technology than WWII ever did.

The mistake you and others make is thinking that because there was an outgrowth of technology in the wake of WWII, that war itself is responsible. In fact, what brought us the myriad advancements of that period was a revitalized *economy*—not the war.

I disagree with all of your statements, therefore, that WWII itself and war in general has some “tremendous impact” on technological advancement. *You* cannot say how technology might have advanced had there been a world at peace during that entire period, which could have devoted resources to the very kind of advancement we’re speaking of, instead of wasting them on war.

To prove my point, look at this way—post WWII, we had, certainly, some advancements in technology. But the FAR more complex and advanced technological world around you is largely the development of the last 30 years or so, which has been (with the exception of relatively minor scrapes like the Gulf War, and so on) a period of PEACE. This period has seen the development of advanced computer technology (as a result of the invention of the microprocessor chip), cell-phone technology, advancements in ultra-light materials, aviation, etc. etc. etc. None of these things were off-shoots of war technology—they were the developments of a peaceful period when markets and economies were strong.

SlickWilly / 22 Jan, 2008 at 10:32 am

Randall:

*sigh* Look, you seem to be overlooking the fact that technological development is the direct result of the concentration of money into research. War technology is the most advanced during war time, for obvious reasons. But there are so many other needs that need to be met during wartime outside of weapons technology, needs that are more effective and less costly when supported by modern technology (i.e. transportation, living necessities in strained environments, communications technology, issues of hygene and cleanliness in often deplorable conditions, medical technology, etc. etc.). It takes money to develop this technology and during wartime, the U.S. spends more money every year on developing said technology that many countries have in their entire national budget. You use the Space Race as an example of the development of techology during peace time. This is blatantly incorrect and given how well-argued your points are, it kind of shocks me. The Space Race was a direct consequence of the Cold War, which happened directly following WWII and lasted until the early 1990′s, and which IS considered, in fact, wartime and not peacetime.

The mistake YOU make is not seeing beyond the little scope of technological proliferation you have constructed for yourself. “In fact, what brought us the myriad advancements of that period was a revitalized *economy*—not the war.” — You. Hmm, interesting point. Are you aware that before WWII, this county’s economy was suffering from a little thing called the Great Depression? The most economically dismal period in this country’s history? WWII created a demand for jobs, production of goods, essential government services and not only pulled the U.S. out of the depression but launched us as the pre-emininent superpower of the world, which was a direct result of the wealth that the was acquired as a direct result of WWII. You are looking at the argument backwards. The economy may have spurred technological proliferation, but at that point in our history, the economy was entirely the responsibility of the war.

And the last 30 years, sir, have NOT been a period of peace, as you claim. Overlooking the Cold War, for a moment (which, again, lasted from the end of the 40′s until the early 90′s; and which also rapidly sped up in the last 30 years, the obvious effect that had on technology, not withstanding), you still have: Under Reagan: the Lebanese conflict of 1983, the invasion of Grenada in 1984, Iran-Contra scandal of 1986; Under Bush: the invasion of Panama of 1989, the first Gulf War between 1990 and 1992; Under Clinton: Operation Desert Fox of 1998, Operation Allied Force and the invasion of Yugoslavia of 1999; Under Bush Jr.: the War in Afghanistan of 2001 to the present, the War in Iraq 2002 to the present.

“This period has seen the development of advanced computer technology (as a result of the invention of the microprocessor chip), cell-phone technology, advancements in ultra-light materials, aviation, etc. etc. etc. None of these things were off-shoots of war technology—they were the developments of a peaceful period when markets and economies were strong.” — You

What?!! Are you daft or can you not read the writing on the wall?! The invention of the micro-processor chip was influenced by many things, not the least of which was a need for compact computer technology that is portable and effective for use on the battlefield in active combat situations. Cell-phone technology arose both from space exploration technology and satellite-phone technology that was first used explicitly for military communications. Advancements in ultra-light technology arose, again, for a need for durable, portable and effective materials that aided in quick-mobile combat operations under duress. Aviation speaks for itself, I shouldn’t have to explain how that fits into the combat landscape.

Randall, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it appears to me that you have a narrow scope of the way these different aspects interact with one another. Therefore, I disagree with your opinions, as they do not seem to be supported by the facts.

Randall / 23 Jan, 2008 at 09:32 am

Slickwilly:

I overlook nothing, pal. I’m well aware of the importance of research money in developing new technologies. You, however, seem to be blowing off the great importance that the market plays in these matters.

Your statement about the Space Race is asinine. Yes, it was an outgrowth of the Cold War in the sense that it was a competition between the US and the USSR, but the Space Race was hardly akin to war or combat itself, butthead. And excuse me—how was the period you’re talking about there considered “wartime” and not peacetime? Are you referring to the Cold War? Be more precise. Because sure, I’ll grant you, the Cold War brought more military technological advancement. But if I’m getting you correctly (which isn’t easy to do) I take it you’re using this to support YOUR belief that war technology is the ultimate source for civilian technology. And again, I’d say, prove it, buster.

And don’t try to “prove” it by lecturing ME on how the period from 1950 – 1990s was actually “wartime.” I was there, “slick.” I’ll grant that the Cold War had its own terrors and nastiness—but actual war it was not. That’s why we called it the COLD war.

AND yes, “sir,” in fact the last 50 years (not JUST the last 30) HAS been a period of peace. Do you think I’m not aware of the minor conflicts you list? Or of Viet Nam? We’re talking about GLOBAL peace here, not minor bush wars and small regional scrapes. There is a HUGE world of difference between wars like WWI and WWII and conflicts like Iraq and little Grenada. Come now. You know this. We all know it. Or are you trying to tell me that our technology today hinges on conflicts like the invasion of Panama? By your logic, that’s what you’re saying.

And yes, “slick,” I’m well aware of the Great Depression and the role WWII had in pulling our economy out of it. But again, you fail to make a coherent point—or in fact any point at all–though you think you’ve made one. So I’ll turn the question around on you–yes, we’ve all heard of the Great Depression, smartass. We’re all aware it was a terrible period, economically and otherwise. Are YOU aware that PRIOR to the Great Depression, prior, indeed, to WWI, that there was an economic boom in America? That the period around the turn of the century and just before (except for a brief economic turn-down in the 1890s) was an economically strong one? And that aside from the very brief and relatively minor Spanish/American war, it was a time of nearly unbroken peace for this country? And that during that time, technological advancements came along at a huge pace?

YOU, you see, are confused by the rather unique situation offered to America after WWII. Yes, war spending had helped bring the economy out of the Great Depression. But *more importantly*–MUCH more importantly—the US was, at that time, the only great nation on earth that had not suffered materially or physically in ANY way. Japan was wrecked, Europe was in a shambles. The US was untouched. It’s no surprise, then, that economically we came out of it tremendously strong, and that we dominated the markets of the world for decades after. Note the uniqueness of that situation. You’re arguing, in essence, that war brings economic strength, and that technology issues from that. Well, wrong again chump—because I hasten to point out to you that Viet Nam did the economy no good—it can largely be blamed for the terrible economic malaise of the 1970s (along with the increase in the price of oil and some bad monetary policies) and we are certainly seeing, now, that the idiotic mess in Iraq is doing our economy no good.

And now you’re telling me that we have a need for portable computers in battlefield settings to thank for the microprocessor chip? And you’re calling ME daft, moron? And the military to thank for cell phones? Go smoke some more of that stuff, “slick.” We have Motorola to thank for cell phones—because they saw a niche in the market that wanted portable phone technology. They developed it and marketed it, and here we are. Go tell the engineers and researchers responsible that they have the military to thank for their wisdom. They’ll laugh you clear out of here.

And don’t start with me on aviation, either. You have no idea who you’re talking to. Just for starters I’m the son of a career pilot who flew bombers in WWII. Aviation goes back in my family over 80 years. *Military* aviation in WWII owed, in fact, a GREAT deal to PRIVATE, peacetime aviation experimentation and racing competitions BEFORE the war–in fact, the airplane wasn’t even recognized as a viable weapon UNTIL the private, peacetime guys, between the two world wars, developed aviation technology to a point where the military had to sit up and take notice. It was PRIVATE, peaceful investment in overwhelming numbers that brought about the development, also, of the airliner–the most famous of which being the DC3—and that had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with military technology. It was a market opportunity that visionary men saw, and they took it.

In closing, “slick,” be careful of accusing me of arguing sans facts. In all your rant I saw not ONE supportable “fact” that supports your view of this topic.

SlickWilly / 23 Jan, 2008 at 12:35 pm

If you want some outside information that speaks to BOTH of our points, try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_funding_of_science

I’m not saying that the market doesn’t drive technology. Absolutely it does, and in a big way. I’m saying that it would be wrong to discount the effect that war has on technology. As I said, technology comes from two things: resources and necessity. War creates both of these things.

Emily / 23 Jan, 2008 at 08:34 pm

why is everyone getting so *****y about science FICTION? geez

Randall / 24 Jan, 2008 at 06:51 am

Slickwilly:

I will answer your lengthy missive in due course.

But I just had to say one thing real quick.

I am damn sick of people taking some snide tone with me and then acting all shocked and offended when I answer them in kind. Your last post dripped of sarcasm and was swimming in a syrup of “My Opinions Are Oh So Superior.”

I DON’T mind someone taking that tone, if they have the grey matter cojones to back it up (and I will grant you, you’re clearly not a dolt) but what I DO mind is when they THEN turn around and act like they’re freakin’ Pollyanna and I just pushed them into the mud puddle when they weren’t looking.

You took some swings at me, I smacked you back, “Slick.” That’s the way it works with me.

Mystern / 24 Jan, 2008 at 07:03 am

Randall and SlickWilly: I considered asking asking you two to play nice but after more consideration I think this is more fun. You both make excellent points and I also considered suggesting a more formal debate but that’s just because I love rules in debates. It makes things more challenging.

I’d just like to applaud your arguments and willingness to post your opinions.

Randall / 24 Jan, 2008 at 09:43 am

SlickWilly:

Save your apologies for the women.

Now, I have to start with your comments on aviation, as they *really* burned me up.

QUOTE: “The son of a brain surgeon does not a brain surgeon make, and the son of a pilot is not an expert on aviation technology. (As long as we are on the topic, my grandfather flew cargo planes for the air force during WWII, and my father was a fighter pilot during Vietnam.)”

SO… you begin by arguing that when I cited my family’s history with aviation, it is in fact irrelevant, as said history does not make me an expert. AND THEN you turn around and cite your OWN family’s involvement with aviation—for… what reason? Clearly to counter me, but if your original point is that it means nothing, then YOUR citation means nothing also.

For crying out loud, “Slick,” you’re not stupid, but you make some dumb mistakes, I’ll tell you that.

In fact, I had originally said that JUST FOR STARTERS I am the son of a career pilot, etc. etc. This meant that there was more to the story, but you glossed over that.

I’m not going to impugn your father or grandfather’s war effort. I will say “good for them.” I will, however, impugn YOU and what you’ve had to say, as you clearly haven’t learned anything from either of them.

I never claimed to be an “expert on aviation technology,” but I know a good bit about it, and, as I said, my family has been *steeped* in aviation for 80 years or more. And you can damn well bet I know a few things about history.

This comment of yours particularly irks me:

“As far as the plane not being considered a viable weapon until between the wars, that’s ignorant. WWI was HUGELY responsible for the airplane being viewed as en effective weapon.”

“Slick,” don’t ever call me ignorant, because I can guarantee you that that great WHOOSHING and SLAPPING sound is you falling flat on your face. And then I’ll be gleefully kicking you while you’re down.

Now… YES YES YES, Captain Obvious, I am WELL aware that the airplane was used as a weapon during WWI. Duh. But an *effective* weapon? No, Slick, there you’re far closer to wrong than right. The most effective role the airplane played in WWI was in aerial reconnaissance. The fighter plane was little better than a romantic waste of time and resource, and the bomber was, to say to the least, ineffective as hell. The airplane in any guise and on both sides was relegated to an almost strictly tactical role, and treated with disdain even then. (I’m not talking about how PILOTS viewed their own efforts and their machines–I’m talking about how the military hierarchy viewed them). There was scarcely any thought of the airplane’s possible value as a strategic weapon that could actually turn the course of a war. It was often treated as little better than a gun with wings–simply a different way for men to shoot at each other or fling explosives at each other (literally–for a large part of the war, the “bomber” required pilot or copilot to actually hand-drop bombs from the plane).

SOME (very, very few) prescient military minds saw the potential of the airplane, but they were voices in the wilderness until well after the close of the war. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell and his court-martial? I’m sure you have, but it doesn’t seem to have stuck in your head as relevant here. Unfortunately for you, it is. Mitchell was not alone in being treated with disdain and even official censure, either. Whenever aviators in the military tried to make the case for the airplane as a greater strategic weapon, they were at best ignored and at worst were made to suffer for their ideas. It wasn’t until evidence piled up over the course of the next 10+ years AFTER WWI that the thick heads in the militaries of the world grudgingly, and gradually, began to accept that the airplane could be more than just a tactical novelty.

But the airplane’s record of service in WWI had nigh-on ZILCH to do with that eventual acceptance. During WWI the airplane accomplished little of value to the war effort despite all the romantic dog-fights and (ineffective) bombing runs made.

And even when the airplane became accepted as a viable weapon, it still wasn’t allowed its full measure. Neither France nor Germany–for all its vaunted Luftwaffe–thought of the airplane as a truly strategic weapon. Its role was largely kept tactical—as support for what was going on on the ground. One of the reasons the Luftwaffe failed in the Battle of Britain, in fact, was because Germany had never developed a true 4-engine heavy bomber–they instead relied on light and medium 2-engine bombers that were not well-suited to a strategic bombardment role.

The increase in civilian aviation between the wars came almost solely from private investment, fed by market demand. The great Douglas DC-3, for example (later picked up by the army as the C-47—probably what your grandfather flew—my dad flew a B-25 Mitchell bomber, by the way) was not developed as a war weapon originally. It was instead the invention of men who wanted to build the greatest airliner/cargo transport of their day–and they succeeded… and they owed very little to WWI in this venture, Slick.

Snowkid32 / 24 Jan, 2008 at 05:38 pm

“Snowkid: . . . I’m not even going to take the effort.”

Why because you’re putting up posts that pretty much make no sense? How the hell can you tell me flying cars would be a problem? I suppose we should stop the research AT ONCE! Call me Captain Obvious, but seriously….we would crash into eachother? Wow.

Mystern / 25 Jan, 2008 at 07:01 am

Alright Snowkid, here are the first things that came to mind when I read your post:
1. Vehicle collisions are far more common than they need to be. You are correct that the people who would get into accidents on the road would be the main people getting into accidents in the sky. That’s my point. People are stupid. Think of how many people talk on their cell phone while eating and driving. Guess which takes priority in their mind? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the driving.
2. Removing feelings of robots would not work after they have already rebelled. Sure we could stop production of the robots. But that would do nothing to correct our mistake Now if you want to talk about never giving them feelings or self awareness in the first place, that is a viable option.
3. Okay, first of all, the only danger represented in the programming is if someone screws it up. I agree that nanobots would not continue to replicate if they were not programmed to, by the same token though, all it takes is one wrong keystroke out of millions to cause a problem. Imagine if they accidentally programmed the bots to use carbon to replicate. The world would be gone in a matter of days. Secondly, how can you possibly think that using water against a nanobot would be effective? Considering nanobots are designed to enter the blood stream. This argument make far more sense against AI, and even then, it’s shaky.
4. Yes, let’s password protect the weather control device. That way, we never have to worry about terrorists hacking into it or dismantling it to use for themselves. And of course the designers would only put weather where it is needed. Except that people are inherently stupid and would not know where it was needed.
5. So you’re saying that just because we would be able to design the genes of a human, we would be able to design the personality? Even if this argument made sense, who do you think the older generation (the ones without genetic modification) would choose first for any job? Certainly not you.
6. Holodecks. Okay, let’s say that your mom puts a lock on it. I’ll give you that. Once you move out though, you’re on your own. You can spend as much time in there as you want. And why wouldn’t you? If you could have the perfect world, why would you bother coming back to the *****ty one? For that matter, why wouldn’t your mom spend all of her time in there with her perfect kids rather than you, the trouble causing one?

uh60blackhawk117 / 30 Jan, 2008 at 06:22 pm

Dude, Mystern, this article was fantastic! you made several amazing points, like that of genetic engineering. Dude, you are so on! Technology will be the downfall of man as i see it!

Polly Odyssey / 31 Jan, 2008 at 07:48 pm

I have to add that Gattaca was an awesome movie.

Anyway, I think some of these things are possible. Like Time Travel. I think Time Travel could be possible.
Also, my friend recently wrote a short story about Genetically Altered humans. Very interesting.

Stephen Wilkos / 10 Feb, 2008 at 07:30 pm

worst list ever

Lite / 28 Feb, 2008 at 06:25 am

Good Debate to Both Randall and Slick,

Wannae chip my two cents in, There are many fears that always relate to the suppositions created when viewing a future application into a current setting.

Unfortunately this is like trying to predict Human Nature, all though we can use case studies and examples and cross referencing we can not know to full extent what any out comes could ever be. Which points back to suppostion 7 by the Opening Poster.

Background Info: I actually do R&D for Technological Advancements, so thats my brief stand point, and no, i can’t say more than that, sorry.

Looking past the Manish Boystering around, Randall, comes up top on this one I hold sway to Civil over Military.

I’m gonna look this at the Third Angle, Economically.

War does in part raise Funds for the betterment of existing technology to combat the would be enemy of that state/nation/power of the time, However there is always an opportunity cost; with war the cost goes beyond Deaths, Economys must reallocate current funds for future benefit, thus common people have their socio-advantagous merits removed.
i.e. The Economy must use $100billion for War and $60 billion to sustain the Civil Sector, though the economy has only $80 billion, there will be heavy sacrifices to a civil and peacful society.

Society will actually better itself without the driving factor of Wars, through the Good Willed Nature of the Few that have the Strength within; to combat existing situations to try and create an inheritally different future.

Without this motivator You both would not be o out spoken with your views and oppinons, of which people would read and to see that actually they themselves may be apart of a betterment of society.

When it comes to Civil Technological advancements, it takes many preople to come together to do so little to actually create and develop products, inventions and ideas.

However I’m gonna try and keep context and go back to Opening Poster. I believe your incorrect my friend or haven’t been exposed to the some of the literature or knowledge to see the unfolding consequences of your actions. I aighn’t trying to knock you about.

Here’s the way I see it from my perspective.

Human Kind has unique Supra-problems engendered into our current climate, Over population is already taking its strain.

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

Go watch it for a minute and have a look at oil consumption

Transporation Devices and Replicators are the key to remodelling our whole existence, imagine the success of the internet because of a free-market climate of information. Now imagine a Free-Market of Matter.

Where creation of goods and equipment is almost instantneous, Transportation costs are infinetly decreased and the usage of scarce resources diminsh.

The use of replicators is already on the way and has a two fold effect, what you effectively assemble in micro-space to create a computer, you can use for the same reverse process to de-manufacture, the solution to enviromentalism, using existing ‘waste’ to create new matter for re-replication.

Big Pro for Replicators.

Flying Cars? Think we already have Helicopter, personally i see not much use for the whole driving populus to be in the sky, when you can use existing advancements in Telephony and Internet to effectively complete service/information based services 100% remotely with out the need for cars. the Technological Echilon can do far more work with less effort with far less relience on Cars and Transportation.

the List you have created that you are opposed to is actually the key recipe to Mankinds eventually expansion of this planet to explore other planets, systems for more resources, there growing our economic boundarys.

First Law of Economics: Unlimited wants, Limited Reources.

Effective Utilisation of Current and Future Technology will allow us to Expand our Resources.

Nano-Bots are highly advantagous for numerous reasons for spacial/high tech engineering. A complete Win/win.
Weather Control understanding is completely needed to understand how to use Geo-Natural systems for Terra-Forming.

I think I’ve highlighted my points, but I would ask that the Opening Poster perhaps redefine their out looks for our comments have little exposure to the masses then the article above that 99% will read then continue on their way.

I hope this was helpful.

Peace.

Anon / 16 Mar, 2008 at 01:50 pm

Can’t see how you’re thinking with the replicator. The whole point of it is to make money unnecessary. Money exist because we ain’t got unlimited resources and need to trade with are wares.

SnowKid32 / 15 Apr, 2008 at 03:41 pm

Response 165, Mystern:

1.So in any sense this matter has been taken care of. On to the next one.

2.Robots cannot have feelings. To give a robot feelings is to give a robot LIFE. The “feelings” they would have would be nothing but a simple response or pre-programmed response. Dismantle that and turn it off. Unless a robot can think[the ***** is this, I, robot?]as in being able to remove and/or make it impossible to acces an automatic shutdown. OR emergency shutdown would be accesible by a remote, or possibly even voice.

3.I will agree the water comment was retarded but who would make such a mistake? Plus would they not be revised? And even if it were to slip through, could we not dismantle and/or shut it down by some means of remote as in the robot argument?

4.Terrorists? You mean CYBER terrorists bud? Quite a difference indeed. Anyways, I still think that such a thing wouldn’t happen. Mainly because of the odds working in our favor. But in all honesty, this is wiitarded. One, I doubt we will “control” the weather, and if WE WERE TO, do you really think that stupid people would be hired to do the job? In all honesty, I highly doubt it.

5.I see. Do you normally insult people in debates? Idiomatic swearing. Happens so much nowadays. *sigh* But back to the point, do you really think brain cells couldn’t be modified? Or CAN’T be? Or especially WILL BE!? I mean, how stupid would a person be to change the genetics of ANY creation of there’s human or not, without a change of personality? Other than the fact that cloning is illegal here in the USA, how can you put down the ability to modify a clones personality? Feelings? Thoughts? Actions? Really? For christs sake, you’re reading a SCI-FI list. FICTION in other words.

6.Well, homesickness. Go watch the giver or read Lord Of The Flies. A utopian society is bound to fail and always does. Look at the many african societys that reject certain infants. A minor utopia, but they fail in so many ways. Lack of resources, constant war, and countless other things present in any african country. And at the same time, go back to your previous comment, why would you? I agree. Think about it. If you can live in the perfect world and enjoy life to the fullest why would you live in this world? This world full of murder, faimne, war, depression. Tell me. Life is to be enjoyed. As Walter Hagen said:
““You’re only here for a short visit. Don’t hurry, don’t worry. And be sure to smell the flowers along the way.””

TO JOSEPH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:
I’ve used this eName since I was 7. I’ll use this eName till I’m 70. I can see your point, and, from what I’ve observed, thank the lord you’re alive. But that’s my point. We will be trained. People said driving would be impossible and present WAY too many problems. It was easily accomplished. Who knows? This might be the same. I doubt it, but a possibility nonetheless.

Jordan Parker / 15 Jun, 2008 at 08:45 am

@ BBandC (comment i.d/number: 176) :

I have too agree with you! As I am still very young as well. And I expect that one day I will properly be the same as my grand parents, Whining on about how they have it so much better than we did! But I expect that yes, One day mankind (or what ever higher being exist on earth) will push and push until we (they) invent something so… so… smart and futuristic it will end the need for money and jobs and robots (AI) will make and do everything. But I am talking in 40,000 years from now!

@ Everyone else:
Why worry just smile at everything that makes living that little bit more easy and fun. For we are far from world disasters like that at this day and age; And our memories will be longgggg gone.