experts suspect we are on the verge of essentially a new era. developments are being made on AI to the point where they should become as intelligent as a human between 2030 and 2080. from that point the AI (either developed to that point running a self improving mutation code or it will start doing so) will advance to become vastly intelligent in comparison and there is much speculation as to the future of humanity.
experts are suggesting the possibility of either mass extinction or technological wonders and immortality once a machine becomes intelligent at the projected exponential rate.
much more about it here:
wait but why 1
wait but why 2
Nick Bostrom conference
this could potentially dwarf all human achievement in scientific development
what do you think this new AI will be?
To the so called, ''free thinker'' religions are the superstitious, hocus pocus inventions of those with an overactive imagination combined with an inability to grasp and embrace the findings of science. Having been taught the fundamental truth that nothing from nothing equals nothing, nothing plus nothing equals nothing, ''the faithful'' can see no merit in the scientific belief that, not only did ''something come from nothing, but the entire, apparently endless universe, i.e, the ''Big Bang''. Where were the ''Gods' during the hallocaust? From where did the ''Big Bang'' derive it's energy and the space into which to expand? Both scernarios need significantly more indisputable evidence and clarification if they are to stand up to critical scrutiny. There's no point in chanting, 'Just believe witout question''.
Though I've arrived only yesterday but I've been closely following the leaderboard for long and am quite astonished to see only one guy heading the list what about the rest::: few days ago there was the same thing
It's a boy ... again!
Kateri and Jay Schwandt, a Rockford, Michigan, couple who have 12 sons, welcomed their thirteenth boy to the world on Wednesday.
Kateri, 40, gave birth a few days after her May 9 due date, according to ABC News. The baby weighed about 9 pounds and was 22 inches long.
Deer management cannot be regulated at the federal level. As early as 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that states have “ownership” of their wildlife. As a result, each state has its own intricate rules. State regulations need not be standardized, but efforts at reform must be made state-by-state. This process will be slow as rules are generally promulgated by processes that ensure adequate evaluation by respective wildlife authorities and to allow for public review. Nevertheless, some states are beginning to do the difficult work of changing policies to stabilize or reduce the number of deer. For example, Indiana recently enacted the first modern firearms season targeting female deer in the state’s history. It will be difficult to overcome traditional hunter concepts of proper deer management as it is counter-intuitive to most hunters that fewer game animals are desirable. Decades of effort, patience, and expense were invested to enhance populations to the point where hunting success is now commonplace. To suggest that populations be reduced and therefore increase the effort needed to harvest a deer understandably generates resistance. Success will take a carefully crafted and sustained public relations effort. Like almost all conservation problems, deer management is a societal issue. If the deer population is to be reduced, it must be reduced slowly. Rules that lower the population drastically will almost certainly spur a backlash from hunters who can appeal to their respective legislatures to overturn regulations they regard as harsh. In an effort to lower the population of deer in Wisconsin the DNR liberalized hunting dramatically.
See [http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/] for full story.
what defines sentience?
refering to the recent debate "what do you think of the belief that life begins with the first brainwaves?" i thought this might be a more direct and covering question over abortion and babies and maybe some other things such as being comotosed and braindead.
out of a dictionary it says "being able to percieve or feel things" although i would disagree with this (in the sense we use the word today)
what do you think?
... defined by each individual.What I consider "morally right" may differ from what you consider morally right.Just because you feel "entitled" to something, doesn't mean you are entitled to it.A "right" is only something granted to you by society through the government.People don't like to ask because to ask means the possibility to be denied. So they demand. Making a demand carries more weight to it if you claim that it is "morally right" and that it is your "right" and therefore you are "entitled" to it.But, does a zebra use the same logic with a lion? Does a lion use that same logic with other lions? Why must human insist on using this flawed logic? No one is entitled to anything that is not given to them, including rights. And morality is an illusion.
Does planting more trees make up for deforestation?
Deforestation is the act of clearing trees from an area. The everyday person still has a relatively large dependency on trees for paper, cardboard, and other materials. It has now become a global crisis, and one for which a doubtful resolution was created: plant more trees every time old ones are cut down. Does this method work? Does it make up for what we do every day to benefit us and disadvantage the environment?