I didn’t think it was funny really. I did find the comment about contacting the FBI funny though — I like sushi

The original joke is old by now. I laughed the first time I saw it eight years ago. That was it.

You are correct in that the true humor is in her reaction.

I don’t think things are any different now to any other time (speaking quite generally of course!). Outrage must necessarily go hand-in-hand with what is deemed “funny” or “tasteless”. Comedy I believe, works at its premium when both the “jovial” and the “tasteless” combine creating what I can only describe in brief as an inner-jolt brings the most horrendous ideas into safe realm where we can see ourself, through others, a most peculiar and ridiculous nature that both humiliates and informs; meaning the shock of the unexpected narrative presents confusion and we laugh because of the conflict and this seems to present something akin to a sense of priming ourselves for “exploration”? — I like sushi

I have thought this as well. Comedy can be used to almost trick the stubborn into seeing a different way, even if it is for a while. My concern is people who refuse to see anything any other way. I think that is what makes them offended, the fact that they could be wrong. It's an interesting "fight or flight" response, where you either stay and experience the joke or run away.

I think that things are the same as usual as you say. The only reason I bring up "boomers" is because they are the right age to be in power in most places right now. Before them, I'm sure their ancestors got just as upset when edgy young people criticized them. Really, the only reason I bring up the generation at all is that there seems to be a strange part obsession part abhorrence for them in certain circles, and I don't see why. Poking fun at things they do is fine, but some are actually offended by their existence, it seems.

As for Comedy and Tragedy it is easy enough to tell the difference. Comedy he framed as being, roughly speaking, “bad things happening to bad people” and Tragedy as being “bad things happening to undeserving/‘good’ people”. — I like sushi

Now I suppose the question is, "What makes people bad, and what makes people undeserving?"

Of course, the answer is different to different people, but truly I don't think there is any way to decide if people are more bad than good. First you would have to know everything they have done, and second, you would have to attach a "good" or "bad" value to those actions. This is a dangerous and nigh impossible business, not only because if you miss one action your result will be off, but because "good" and "bad" are decided by us, not any natural law. Results will always be inconclusive because people running the same numbers will get different results.

I feel maybe that this thread is focused more on what is or isn’t “offensive” rather than the underlying nature of “Comedy”. — I like sushi

I think it is maybe about both. They both do certainly intersect at some point. I think that understanding of one could help understanding of the other. Of course, I have a bad track record of making OP's that touch on multiple things and spiral off into speculation and off-topic discussions. It's probably just that.

Of course I mention this due to dipping in and out of different ideas and perspectives on Aristotle’s “Poetics,” literary critique, psychological and neurological research, and Nietzsche’s work related to this area. What has grabbed by attention lately is the argument around what Aristotle meant by “Kartharsis”. — I like sushi

Catharsis is, e.g., the purification and purgation of emotions—particularly pity and fear—through art or any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal and restoration.

Is this what you mean? I have seen it spelled many different ways.

Purging pity and fear? That is an interesting concept. Useful for someone who has or is experiencing either of those and wishes not to for sure. Perhaps this is why people listen to sad music when they are sad, or start to enjoy horror movies once they have watched enough of them. Maybe it is not purging, but downplaying your emotions because you have now seen others experience something similar and now your feelings mean less?

The sponge joke was moderately funny. I thought the Julius Caesar joke was not funny. Not offensive, just not funny.

I prefer things like The Soup Nazi from Seinfeld. Or, The Dingo Ate Yo Baby. — Bitter Crank

The Soup Nazi was ok, I enjoyed the little clip in there where the woman got kicked out for no reason. The Dingo Ate Yo Baby was funny to me just because of how mean Elaine was to the weirdo.

As for the Caesar joke, I think that proves the point I was trying to make. You don't have to think it is funny, but some people did. You, however, weren't offended, where A close friend of Caesar probably would have been. My question is why does time have anything to do with what we can laugh at, and how do people decide how much time needs to pass before a Joke can be made? Also, what of the hypocrisy of people who think that the Caesar joke was funny but also have a grandpa who suffered in war and gets absolutely furious when anyone makes fun of that? I just don't see how the catalyst that leads to years of bloody war can be funny while years of bloody war can never be.

By the way, sorry for the mediocre at best comedy. I see a lot of garbage but a lot of good stuff too, and it's hard to remember anything worthwhile that isn't niche or too horrible to post even on an account I intend to stay anonymous on.

You have a positive, upbeat view of the future. Hang on to that. — Bitter Crank

I'll try my hardest I guess. Most of the people I know accuse me of hating the world though. Maybe that ties into the sane/crazy dichotomy.

Anyway, that's probably what you meant by thinking crazy -- following your dreams. — Bitter Crank

I suppose so. They young pushing the limits of what is acceptable and the old pushing back. A delicate balance that decides whether a society lives or dies. Will we stagnate and never change, leading to our death, like Sparta? Or will we try to change everything at once and collapse as the Soviet Union did? Or maybe we can find a third way.

And, just for your information, not all old people are thinking sanely. Some of us are stark raving mad. Crazy young people and insane old people are an unhealthy combo. — Bitter Crank

I suppose we can't rely on everyone to do as they are needed to do. Or maybe they are needed in some other way.

For that reason, such jokes are usually shared only among very close friends who know their audience and know one another's true opinions. It's entirely different to tell an insensitive joke in private where you respect the sensitivities of those who might be offended as opposed to insisting that you have the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want. — Hanover

But I don’t think this is quite true anymore. People who do this kind of stuff have huge followings on social media.

And why can’t we make those jokes, even to those affected? Why is they feeling bad more important than us feeling good? Why does how anyone feel matter at all?

Also, on the note of the counterculture against Vietnam, it was constantly blasted by the media, and the general attitude of negativity toward military conflict started only at the end of the conflict and grew much larger after. During the war, it was mostly hippies. Needless to say, no anti-war movies were being shown in theatres back then. To the contrary, documentaries about the innocents, police officers, and druggies killed or imprisoned by the war on drugs are abundant and that is still going on.

To me, as far as comedy goes, it doesn't matter if you are right or even if you are funny. If you attempted a joke then it is a joke. If you don't think a joke is funny, that's fine, but getting so angry that you believe Navy Seals are going to actually kill you is ridiculous.

I was looking for a specific joke, not a generalization so that I could see if I would laugh or not. I'm not particularly sensitive, so if I didn't think it was funny, maybe it wasn't. I don't know really because you've not shared the joke. — Hanover

This is a good one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS1kuX4Hu9E

An AIDS joke isn't really funny to those who've watched their friends buried, a 9/11 joke isn't really funny for those New Yorkers who once worked in the Twin Towers, and the Vietnam War isn't funny to those who can't hold onto any relationships. — Hanover

That's all well and good, and even to be expected. But what of the hypocrisy of saying that these things can't be joked about? What if you were in Julius Caesar's entourage and someone sent you this Reddit post?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Memes_Of_The_Dank/comments/94y6dw/julius_caesar_after_the_16th_stab_colorized_44_bc/

If you are Caesar or his entourage and wish to forget this, sure, I suppose you can. But what of all the people who thought that was funny? Are they not entitled to laugh? I suppose Brutus would have found it funny if he understood the context of the image used, at least until he killed himself to avoid capture. But we knew neither of them, so we can laugh at both of their deaths without consequence. Is it wrong that we can laugh at them? Why does an amount of time judge whether we can think something is funny or not?

At the end of the day, (radical) Republicans hate when you make jokes poking fun at their policies, and (radical) Democrats hate when you make jokes poking fun at their policies. Is it not democratic for us to not only be allowed but encouraged to make fun of both sides? Is a failure or downside not to be mocked? If we do not mock what we dislike, how will we ever be able to replace what we dislike with what we like? And on the other side of the insults, how will we be able to protect what we like when it is under attack by people who dislike it?

After all, if you are right, you are obligated to prove it or be questioned. At least right now, that is the only thing I would die for.

For the record, I was born in 1966, which makes me one of the first citizens of Gen X. As one of its eldest statesmen, I can say that it is was and remains the finest generation. It was the last generation that considered tattoos only acceptable for those who once served in the military, lived in trailer parks, or served time in prison. When I was born, as the record reveals, the world was in black and white. Today we have cell phones and pornography availability previously unimaginable. The transition has been flawless for my generation of survivors. We are also the funniest and best looking generation, each and every one of more clever than the rest. My accession to moderator on this forum is precisely the type of success my generation has come to expect. — Hanover

I am glad that your transition into the modern world has been so flawless, and I wish you luck with the changes we all collectively have to deal with. I hope you continue to bless us with your good looks, comedy, and forum moderation.

I think at the end of the day, we have to accept that we are not good or bad. We will nourish and raise children who love us to their heart's content, but we will also authorize sending force to foreign lands that don't want or need our influence. If it is bad to laugh at what I laugh at, I suppose I am bad. But am I not good for giving my dog a good life? For making my friends laugh every day? For making my mother proud? I clearly cannot be just one or the other, and I'm sure no one else is either. Bad and good always exist within the same system, and if a few people need to get hurt to get to the moon, you're damn right most people would do it, and some people have.

There is no alternative to eventual death. You are a young man and you are thinking about what great accomplishments you can achieve. That is the way you should be now. Soon enough life grinds down our idealism, our aspirations, our hopes and dreams. Don't despair -- that is how we get from rough to smooth and polished. With any luck, you will become a brilliant gem before you exit. — Bitter Crank

Whether you are right or wrong, this world will get better. Again comes the caution I love almost as much as the stories. We must rely on the young to think crazy and the old to think sane, no? Both sides are as essential as they are poised against each other. I think it is beautiful. But is it maybe crazy to think sane and sane to think crazy? Perhaps we are all always both.

Of course evolution did not strive to create our agile bodies or brilliant minds, it is simply the mechanism for betterment. The betterment is what we are.

As for the internet, and the direction it took. We couldn’t have known. But what if we had every variable involved and a mind strong and powerful enough to run the numbers? I think we could have known then. Of course that’s a lot of work, but we have done hard things before. Another thing I admire so about my ancestors is their ability to accomplish so much with comparatively so little. I hope I can do the same.

And perhaps we are all as gemstones, forged in the fires of the earth, grinded against materials of various hardness to attain a glistening sheen that permeates through time. And those other materials are other people, grinding and sanding each other into shapes that compliment each other. All I wish is for all of the pieces to fit together one day.

I really don't know what you're talking about with this observation. — Hanover

Well, the tweet I linked to is a good example, but if you want more, just turn on CNN or Fox. It isn’t hard for me to think of Bill O’reily doing something similar to what Emma Kennedy did.

I agree that milenials encourage the more sanitized version of culture that you discuss, but my question is why do boomer politicians support it so much? I love older comedy and sitcoms because they don’t hold much back, but they do hold a good amount back still, don’t they? If you made a movie making fun of America’s move into Vietnam during the Vietnam war (or the 40
Years after for that matter) you would be blasted by everyone everywhere. Essentially, my belief is that instead of censoring more, we are changing what we are censoring. Open gay relationships weren’t allowed on tv in the 50’s but the portrayal of native Americans as savage was commonplace. Now the tables have turned.

As for the jokes I thought were funny that older people thought were horrible, I suppose you could do a quick google search for memes about the Vietnam war and the disaster that was, about horrible illnesses like AIDs or tuberculosis, or events like 9/11 or the any terrorist attacks in Europe. That last one is my favorite personally right now, those Europeans really have dug themselves into a hole and laughing at that dumpster fire has brought me a lot of joy. Of course, I don’t think those poor people living in Orwellian failed socialst surveillance states are laughing too much. Especially the British, with those acid attacks.

First, regardless of Kennedy's political affiliations, the fact that she is a public figure in today's extremely polarized social climate means that she is going to be exposed to some scary, violent and threatening comments. If it were you regularly receiving legitimately threatening messages from some unbalanced-sounding individuals, how would you react? I assume with caution, Even if you knew that most of them were not to be taken seriously, could you afford not to be on your guard? — Joshs

The more of something you have, the less meaning those things have. If I received as many death threats as she is claiming to receive, they would collectively mean nothing to me. No matter how many death threats I receive, the actually capacity for anyone to follow through on them is null anyway. Of course, a disconnected individual wouldn’t know that either.

You say that people use copypastas are used for hostility, and I can’t say that isn’t true. However, I do highly doubt that anyone would use this particular one for hostility. The tone isn’t serious enough to portray any hostile intention.

Even if she was responding to the “spirit” of the emails, why didn’t she choose a more serious email to show? This is the last nail in the coffin for this theory. If she really was not taking the message literally, then she wouldn’t have shown this one.

As for myself, I can offer some info publicly here and if you have any other questions you can send me a private message. I live in a relatively rural area. I’ve seen a lot of corrupt politicians and radical lunatics in my time (which isn’t the longest, but a few decades at least) and I have lost faith in a human beings ability to resist greed. I truly believe that if a person is given enough power for long enough, they will inevitably become corrupt. Even if someone is given little power (similar to the amount of power a single vote contains) they can still act all knowing and arrogant. Essentially, the only thing that can slow this down is the type of person the affected is. Some are more vulnerable to corruption and some less, but everyone will succumb given enough time and/or power.

The closest title I can assign myself is that of a technocrat. People can not be trusted with power because they will thirst for more and use what they have for greed. If a machine could be created that automated the process of beurocracy and government, one that was not sentient but made decisions based on the variables it was given, then that could not be corrupted as long as whatever source code or hardware it had could be protected. This is much, much easier said than done of course. It would take not only a group of people with great skill, but also great resistance to the forces of greed. Much funding would be needed as well.

In my experience, there is no organization or political party in America that supports freedom of speech. If you asked anyone off the street “what do you think is inappropriate to discuss?”, then you would probably get answers other than “nothing.” Freedom of speech implies that you should be able to say whatever you want no matter the context. I believe this to an extent, because I am a supporter of giving people the ability to say what needs to be said. But what of social taboos? What of jokes about horrible tradgedies mere days after they happen? Do you think those are acceptable?

As for the divide you seem to make between baby boomer politicians and millennial politicians, I think that this difference is only in their approach to control and less about how they actually feel. Politicians are only obligated to tell people what they want to hear. There is no mechanism in place anywhere in the world that forces politicians to be honest and live up to expectations. Liberal millennials think they are the only correct ones and their politicians promise to enforce such an Orwellian policy. Baby boomer liberals believe that they are the only correct ones, but that since they are right, the system will naturally lean towards them. If you replaced liberal with conservative, you would have how the other side feels. Essentially, politicians are privileged in that they don’t have to actually care about protecting people they are payed to protect.

Unfettered desires are a voracious malignancy which can kill us off before we come close to satisfaction. — Bitter Crank

And yet even those who refuse to try for their desires die, and so do those who actually reach their desires. It seems the only alternative to death is reaching for greatness, even if you may die in the process. So tell me, if I wish to avoid death, is there any other alternative to searching for endless life? Other than giving up and dying of my own accord, of course.

If evolution (biologically and sociologically speaking) doesn’t correct, then what does it do? It doesn’t strive toward a specific goal, but it does strive for perfection in a specific enviornment. If an organism has an adaptation that hurts its chances of surviving, it is removed from the gene pool. If an adaptation helps, it is propegated within the gene pool. The same can be said for ideas.

Knowing what we want and how to get it really is the problem, but it is a problem we have been in the business of solving for a long time. I hope I can contribute to the progress we’ve made over my lifetime.

Now it seems that our reach exceeds our grasp, but how long will that remain true? There’s no hard limit on how much we can learn or build other than our own ambition. I think it is possible that this could happen, but probably not within my lifetime. If I wish to live forever, I do accept the looming possibility of dying far before that is possible. But should I stop trying? What of all the people after me? I think I would be happy if my work contributes to the work of the person who finally does something.

I agree in part with the idea that warm memories of days gone by are often romanticized, but I don't agree that they can be dismissed as entirely false. Some good things are lost and not all progress is good. To say otherwise suggests a perfect world where evolution constantly corrects, and that simply is not so. — Hanover

Perhaps evolution constantly corrects, but the standards we hold ourselves to constantly change? After all, our social evolution is driven by us, but our aspirations also set by us. If we can know what we truly want, and know what we need to get what we want, I think that would be an ideal world reminiscent of what people think back on. If we want the world that we truly desire, we have to adapt fast enough to keep up with our desires.

Of course, that’s an incredibly vague outline for a perfect world. Probably a flawed one too. Just my two cents.

Whenever people start talking about "the good old days" I have to ask, would this have been taken as a funny joke if it was a letter mailed to some 51-year-old woman in the 19th or 20th century? I would figure, probably not. Why do you think differently? — Judaka

It probably would not have been funny, but equally horrible things would have been, no? It perhaps wouldn't have been funny back then because the authorities could have easily traced it and then punished the joker. Notice that the person used a throwaway email. I think that anonymity has changed the nature of comedy, and if people could have sent letters anonymously in the 19th and 20th centuries, this would have probably been common.

As an old man, I am very offended by jokes that are not funny. I want to hear politically incorrect jokes that have a decided improper edge to them. — Bitter Crank

I agree to some extent, but I also love more vanilla jokes as well. To me, context can only make things funnier. Maybe I'm just a bit messed up, but the sooner after the tragedy the better the comedy for me.

So, being an older person, had you heard of this before? Did you think it was funny?

Don't wait till you are rich enough to retire. All us fascinating geriatric storehouses of knowledge, hilarious sarcasm, wisdom, and so forth will be dead. Better start doing it now. — Bitter Crank

That is what I'm afraid of. I would start now but money and sustenance are a problem not to mention work and college. Maybe a bit on the side would be nice, but it would be strange if it took ten or twenty years. Or maybe that would be a selling point. Who knows what people like.

The only reason I would ever get offended is if the joke is not really funny (I have the Jerry Seinfeld sensibilities). The more potentially offensive a joke is, the funnier it needs to be in order to be justified. This copypasta is a good example. It is BARELY funny. So if 1 out of 100 people might take it seriously, it not even close to worth it. Notice what most people find funny is the idea that "this 51 year old lady is so dumb and out of touch that she actually thinks NAVY seals are on their way to kill her". So are we laughing at her for being stupid or fearing for her life? Either way, I think even the worst sitcom is funnier.

Uh oh, I might sound like an old person. Haha. — ZhouBoTong

You are right in terms of it's level of humor. It gets less funny the more it is used I'm afraid, and most jokes seem to be like that. If this was a message board in the early 2000's maybe it would be a bigger hit. If this woman doesn't think the joke is funny, that is fine, but would you agree that it is obviously a joke? I also agree that the comedy here seems to be layered. The copypasta is to some lesser degree funny, but the true punchline is that this person actually believes it.

You sound like a normal person. Age wasn't really what I wanted to call into question here, more a demographic that particularly exists within a certain age range.

It's also obvious from this woman's claims that she's not a reasonable person to be taking her as representative of either old people or 51-year-old women. One of her posts in the thread reads "I said online radicalisation of angry white men had to stop". Based on that and the fact that she's taking a copypasta so seriously, I think it's fair to say she fits the extreme leftist stereotype and for them, getting offended over nothing is basically a political position. — Judaka

I don't think that she is a representative of older people or 51-year-old women, but I do think she is a representative of the culture I'm discussing. Typically when people make fun of this culture, they post an image like this

https://www.memecreator.org/meme/ok-boomer/

So I think it is mainly linked to baby boomers, of course only a small subset, but that small subset seems to make up a majority of important figures. You mentioned that taking this kind of thing seriously is a strategy the left uses, but I would say the right uses it as well. Personally, I am questioning whether this is a strategy or a result of being sheltered from a world that thinks tragedy can also be comedy.

I'm not sure whether sending copypasta death threats to political speakers should really be taken as a joke or not but the overreaction is more typical of leftists than old people and I think that's what's going on here. — Judaka

If it is a joke or not depends on intention. Whether it is funny or not is for us to decide.

All for the chicks and the money. — Hanover

A reason I love this forum so much is the sense of humor of the moderators

I think it has to do with direction for me. For most of my admittedly short life, I've been told to do things and learn things, but not why I should do or learn those things. Math is a great example. Most kids blow off math as something that only super geniuses and computers need to know, but math does really have a lot of practical applications, and once you get used to it, it can be fun. The same can be said for many other subjects.

I think it is perhaps the ideology of public schooling in America that thrust me upon this strange world. They taught me the way the world works without telling me the whole story. I have knowledge, but I don't know how to apply that knowledge. Or at least I used to lack that, I hope I have little understanding at best now.

Even so, I don't think that an interest in Philosophy makes me different or better than my contemporaries. Even in the best case scenario, I accidentally stumbled onto this. Me stumbling upon videos and books that provoked an already curious mind at the right time could have easily not happened. As the blacksmith helps others by making quality tools, and the butcher helps others by giving them access to food that they would otherwise not be able to have, I wish to combine Philosophy with whatever other gifts I seem to have to improve the world. However, where blacksmiths are paid in currency, I wish to be repaid in simply knowing my work affects something. Going through the struggles of understanding the world while having little to no domestic support has left me wishing only for a purpose. Perhaps an interest in Philosophy fed this ideology, and this ideology fed an interest in Philosophy.

Or maybe I'm lying to myself and I'm a greedy asshole in disguise like so many others. I guess at least I can question that, contrary to most others.

I was saying I did have the first definition. Not sure exactly why I was grouped in, but I’m sure it’s just a misunderstanding.

Do you believe everyone has faith or am I just being ridiculous? — OpinionsMatter

The truth is we don't really have any insider knowledge about how the universe works. We just kind of have to reverse engineer knowledge from our surroundings. You do have to put faith in what you hope will work, but you also shouldn't put faith in things you know won't. I don't put faith in God coming down and curing my sinus infection and flu right now because that is unprecedented in both my life and all reliable documentation. I do have faith in the antibiotics I'm taking because I've taken them before and so have many others.

Everyone has to put faith in something, but it is in the best interest of everyone to put our faith into things that we have worked to prove and have a good chance of actually helping us.

Edit: but to understand the symbol you need to have background knowledge. So it can only travel around in a specific environment and die outside of it. — Brett

Similar to how animals can live only in environments that can support them. I think it is very interesting how a mechanic such as natural selection seems to exist in multiple ways in different fields.

Initially a meme does seem to be just an idea, but then it’s also regarded as carrying besides ideas, behaviour, style, symbols and practices. But then is a symbol just a metaphor for an idea? Which it may very well be, and that’s it’s advantage and power. — Brett

These behaviors and styles and practices, are they not carried out due to a catalyst which would be an idea? That implies that if you manipulate the memetics of a person then you can change how they act. There truly is a lot of power as you say, and I believe that these symbols (such as words, pictures, videos) are how memes transfer from one host to another. However, sometimes the meaning gets lost somewhere. If you were ever to directly transfer an idea from one person to another without symbols, perhaps we could all understand each other 100%.

I think history can illustrate my point better. Take calculus for example. Both Leibniz and Newton developed the idea independent of each other. There was a huge controversy on the invention of calculus precisely because people had the notion of memes back then. People thought calculus had a origin and then caused an infection. It turns out that this wasn't the case. Both Newton and Liebniz had little idea what the other was doing. What do you think of memes now? — TheMadFool

Doesn't this imply that the idea of calculus was useful in two different environments, and then convergently "evolved"? The same thing happens in animals and plants all the time.

You say that to accept a meme you must have partial knowledge and I think that is true. However, I think that the partial knowledge you have to have is merely just the symbols used to communicate. If you or I were completely isolated from math our entire lives, the symbol "2" would mean nothing to us, but we likely would have seen two sticks on the ground and understood the concept of "2", but called it something else. However, if we wish to explain the idea of "2" to a child who hasn't made the connection yet, they would first have to understand our language. I suppose you could explain the language and the concept at the same time by simply holding up one stick and calling it "1", and then holding up two sticks and calling it "2".

So I think that useful ideas will come about regardless as long as they are useful in the respective environment. Calculus seems to be important in most places to me so I think that the idea holds up with the information that I have. Of course, you can do calculus with any kind of symbols as long as those symbols mean the same thing.

Traditionally memetics is seen as a sociological equivalent to genetics. Ideas pass from one person to another and the ones that benefit those people thrive and are shared more. A meme is really just an idea, or at least that's my understanding of it. So I guess the question really is what are ideas.

I guess you could say that consciousness is a network of memes as you describe above. Perhaps our personalities are built through a blueprint of memes in parallel to how our bodies are built through a blueprint of genes?

You showed me that before. I’ve refuted those points, at least from my point of view. I do think this is a good stopping point though. I hope we get the chance to discuss something new soon

Do you believe that children should have legal access to military grade weapons such as machine guns, rocket launchers, surface to air missiles etc? How about adult civilians? — Jake

I don’t think they should but in parts of the world they certainly do. And people come out alive.

human ability to manage power is limited. — Jake

Yes, but how limited? And limited for how long? In the cases you discuss that children are used as soldiers some of them must have some control because some live. Same for adults in the same situation.

It would certainly be ideal for humanity to collectively decide to get rid of it’s nuclear arsenal but it isn’t 100% necessary for the survival of humanity.

It's not just weapons, but any power of sufficient scale to crash civilization. And yes, it matters. The more powers of such scale which are in play, the greater the chance that one of them will slip from our control. — Jake

You've yet to explain what those other powers might be. Really the only conceivable thing I can think of that could end the world is a nuclear war. Any other tech that could destroy a planet or make it unfit for life is still a bit off and would involve space travel which solves the problem of extinction.

The President can order a massive strike without consulting with anybody. A single person who has lost their mind a single time, game over. — Jake

The president can, but is he the one turning the key? Even if he is, is he crazy enough to do it? I think a lot of politicians are hack frauds but I don't think even a single candidate from my lifetime at least has been insane enough in the "watch the world burn" way to do it in the end.

Luck. Forgive the pun, but it's a game of Russian roulette. The argument of the group consensus (which you are articulating well) is that the bullet chamber has always been empty before, so it will always be empty in the future too. But that's not how Russian roulette works, and not how reality works either. — Jake

What I propose is that every chamber is empty. No one will ever make the conscious decision to end the human race, especially when the decision is to be made by high ranking government officials with access to high tech fallout shelters. When you can't win, you run. That is ingrained pretty far into our slimy reptilian brains and I would genuinely be surprised if even a single nuke is ever launched again because of that. You can't win a nuclear war and therefore one will never be fought.

Sorry, but you appear to know nothing about the training that launch officers get. I heard a story on NPR just a few days ago about a launch officer who merely asked "who double checks the president?" and he was drummed out of the service and is now driving a truck for living. The whole MAD system demands on each side having high confidence the other side will launch. Anybody who shows a hit of doubt is shown the door. — Jake

And what of the Russians I discussed earlier? They no doubt had similar if not harsher training considering the time period and the general attitude of the Soviet Union. Why didn't they end the world? I think it's because they need mentally healthy individuals to do it, and a mentally healthy individual would never do it.

And yet the airways are filled to overflowing with endless worry about a billion smaller things. — Jake

I could argue that these threats are more dangerous on an individual level and that is why, but I don't know what you are talking about specifically.

What I'm asking readers to focus on is that the knowledge explosion feeds back upon itself, and thus is accelerating. So what we'll see going forward are ever greater powers coming online at an ever faster pace. If we were to plot that line on a graph against the plodding incremental (at best) development of human wisdom and maturity we see the two lines diverging at an accelerating rate. — Jake

I think it is true that our weapons will only get stronger, but at the point we're at now, does that even matter? We've had a nuclear arsenal large enough to wipe ourselves out for at least 50 years. That means that every WMD we make after that is redundant. Whether you kill someone with a rocket launcher or a pistol is irrelevant if you kill them anyway. So I think that really the danger that such weapons pose has been capped for a long time now. Which means that our thoughts on the subject have had a little time to catch up.

That's true, but you might want to read up on how many times these systems have come within an inch of failure. As just one example, during the Carter Administration somebody mistakenly inserted a training tape in to the NORAD early warning system which caused the generals to call the National Security Advisor to tell him that a Russian first strike was underway. One could write a book full of other examples. — Jake

You are correct in saying that both sides of the cold war had their close calls, but at the end of the day, what always stopped them from going that extra step? Knowledge of what they would have done. The most brilliant thing about mutually assured destruction is that at the end of the day, a person or persons has to turn the key. I recall an incident where a Russian submarine captain during the Cuban missile crisis refused to launch his arsenal despite thinking that Americans were dropping bombs into the water and his vessel was under fire. There was another incident in Russia in the 80's in which a colonel was alerted to an incoming missile strike. Instead of taking it seriously, he reported it as a malfunction. If he had reported it as real, we wouldn't be talking.

Ultimately, no one wants to be the one who pulls the trigger of a gun aimed at the world. The president could call these people himself, there could even be a vote to launch these weapons that passes, but it is almost impossible to find someone who will launch them. Everyone has a big head until that is put to the test.

However, the system obviously does work most of the time. What you're not getting is that this is not good enough, and powers of such vast scale require a record of perfection. A single failure of a single such power a single time is sufficient to crash the system, making all the many beneficial accomplishments of the knowledge explosion largely irrelevant. That is, the very long era when we could make mistakes, learn from them, and try again.... is over. It's not the 19th century anymore. — Jake

You are right, perfection is necessary, but we also have a very good track record and it has been a decent amount of time. The major nuclear powers seem to be relatively cozy with each other compared to the cold war as well, so the chances that people will take a false alarm seriously are getting lower. I know that if a strange siren went off where I lived, people would just go about their business until something came on the radio. I remember recently there was a glitch in the warning system in Hawaii saying that ballistic missiles were inbound. It took 40 minutes to correct this. Despite causing a little chaos, no retaliatory strike was made. I'm sure the White House was in panic mode for a good 20 minutes.

The technology races ahead at breakneck speed while our philosophy creeps along at it's usual glacial pace, falling ever farther behind. The fact that most people including national leaders running for President are bored by nuclear weapons should prove beyond any doubt that we simply aren't ready for the scale of powers the knowledge explosion will generate. — Jake

I don't know if bored is the right word. Apathetic may be. I think that they have just become part of the consciousness of the masses. That and the knowledge that if it happens we will be dead soon anyway breeds a sort of apathetic attitude. Everyone knows that we can all die tomorrow but we have also lived with that for so long that we're just used to it. Of course, we can't be bored with it because everyone I know has some kind of opinion. They just don't share them often because no one seems to care.

Though you bring up a good point about philosophy moving slower than technology. Perhaps instead of slowing down our technological progress, we could speed up our philosophical progress. I think the main factor that limits the growth of philosophy is that it is seen as useless by most. Capitalist societies especially run on skills being able to make a profit, and at most you may be able to write a book as a philosopher. That knowledge is powerful but it admittedly pales in comparison to a bridge or skyscraper. I think it would be useful to look into anything resembling a "practical" in economic terms, philosophy related job. I think it would also be useful to try and convince the public of the uses of philosophy. Technology has cars and roads and appliances to show off, I think it's about time philosophers show off what they can (and do) offer.

So as we harvest the many benefits of ever more powerful technology we should keep in mind that as we do so we are traveling ever deeper in to a new era which won't be as forgiving as the past. — Jake

I agree that our new toys are more dangerous but I don’t agree on how much more dangerous. There are many systems in place to defend ourselves against things such as nuclear war. There are plenty of passwords and failsafes to prevent foul play, but there is also the general factor of deterrence that prevents the desire to play foul in the first place. Everyone on the planet knows that nuclear war will kill all of us, and the people who hold the ability to launch nukes benefit from their high positions in society that would simply not exist in a post nuclear world. Generally, there is no benefit to nuclear war, even if you are being invaded. The rich and powerful who hold the power to launch nukes can simply leave their sinking ship and live leasiurely elsewhere.

I think that nuclear war will be more lethal after we colonize other planets. The people of mars will likely live in constant fear of nuclear war and make sure they are in good standing with Earth accordingly.

So really, the people who can actually declare nuclear war never will because they will suffer greatly as a consequence. Its like the leaders of our world are hanging off a cliff and we’re hanging from their leg. They won’t let go because if they do they will die anyway, even if they do want us gone.

Are you doubting here, or saying it might? — Brett

I believe it will but know it might not. I think ultimately it is up to human ingenuity to create the tech that solves our problems.

But, um, it would be we the insane who would be doing the engineering. — Jake

The victors decide history I suppose. There's something crazy about us all but if it helps us survive it becomes a feature.

In any case, notice the entire emphasis on 'mastery' and 'control' of nature - as befits a technological culture. But what is lost in all of this are the original questions of philosophy, which are not instrumental or technological in nature, but are concerned with the question of meaning, in the largest sense. But that kind of questioning is almost unknown in our technological culture, so much so that the question itself is no longer even understood. — Wayfarer

I’ll need to think on this one for a while. Earlier in this you say that finding out how nature works by observing its functions is “backwards” and I would agree. However, I don’t think that makes it less effective. Science now seems to be “reverse engineering” nature, and then using the knowledge we gain to help ourselves is technology. Sometimes we don’t fully understand the underlying (noumenon?) but we are always getting closer by trying.

Because I’m not sure if everyone’s desires are good for everyone else. It may also be unrealistic to expect all your desires to be fulfilled and lead to problems down the road for others. — Brett

Unrealistic now because we haven’t figured it all out. As far as we know, there’s nothing special in every human brain making us the way we are. It’s chemicals and electrical signals, just like every other organ. All we really need to do to feel satisfied is to get those to work in our favor. That’s really all drugs are. Of course, they add dangerously high levels of dopamine and have side effects. They certainly don’t have to, they only do now to facilitate addiction and because the kind of people that make illegal drugs aren’t the kind of people concerned about health risks.

I don’t know if I can agree with the idea about all ideas being healthy. Yes in a healthy individual, but otherwise trouble.
8h — Brett

But can technology also solve this problem? Maybe once we agree on what healthy is. We have politicians on both sides calling their opposition mentally deranged. I don’t trust them with the power to “cure”.

what do you mean by alarms?

Not all of our desires are healthy, nor should all of them be realised. — Brett

Technology can realise the most powerful, influential and possibly destructive forces we can imagine. The atomic bomb served what desire in who? — Brett

The desire for destruction. We love to destroy as much as we love to create.

However, we can fufill such a desire in safer less harmful ways. Putting yourself in a simulation where you can destroy things is a good way to reach that.

I think that it is the way we realize these desires that can be unhealthy. Having them in the first place can’t be unhealthy because that’s just how we come out. It’s like saying having two arms is unhealthy. It’s just the way we are.

So I have to think about whether technology can create a desire that wasn’t there in the first place. — Brett

Or were they already there? Perhaps sadness is just us lacking our desires. Theoretically someone with every desire they could possibly have fufilled would always be happy.

Yes. My father never desired a mobile phone. — Brett

I think I understand now. You say that technology has created a want for new materialistic items. Your father couldn't have wanted a mobile phone because he never could have had one.

My position is that he wanted what the phone gives us. He would have loved to communicate with his family instantly anywhere in the world. He would have enjoyed having any information he needed at the tap of his finger. He may not have wanted the phone specifically, but he would have liked the amenities the phone provided. So would a caveman. We have wanted to know things instantly or save memories or be closer to others since the dawn of time. Technology does that for us.

Desires do not change over time, how we obtain these desires does.

That's because we have only had two or three hundred years to accomplish the task of our self-destruction (compliments of the massive cheap energy of fossil fuels which are now becoming less and less cheap to access). Hopefully we can pull back before it is too late; but I don't think it's looking too promising. — Janus

But what of the nukes? What of the many other things that we thought would be our downfall even before 300 years ago?

True they cause disasters for us; but it is we who are causing greater disasters for ourselves as well as the rest of nature on this planet at least. — Janus

And who can stop these? Certainly not us if we don't look into more technology. Especially if we can't fully understand these problems.

That’s not a definition. :razz: — Noah Te Stroete

That is not a definition, sure, but it is an object we have defined.

Here is where the true nature of your (and when I say 'your' I am also referring, by implication, to the collective we) ignorance is so beautifully and ironically betrayed. Yes, if we destroy ourselves it will be because we weren't smart enough; because we thought that our place in nature is determined by ourselves. — Janus

And yet we have not destroyed ourselves yet, despite overwhelming odds. Why is that?

If we don't define our place, who does? Definition seems to be an inherently human idea. A chair is only a chair because we have decided it is a chair.

But you said that you (by which I assumed you meant the collective 'we') understood everything about dirt, which would seem to be a contradiction. Or were you talking just about yourself? If so, are you a soils scientist or something like that? — Janus

Dirt isn't the only thing creating disasters, is it? Wind and lightning and dry grass and the ocean cause disasters all the time. I never claimed that we knew everything about those.

And I meant we. I must have slipped or something. Accidents happen. I would like to be a biologist of some kind but animals gross me out when they're cut open, so I'll leave that for someone else.

We don't manipulate the laws of nature: at best we manipulate natural materials in accordance with our understanding of the laws governing their behavior. — Janus

You just made my statement longer. Using the laws of nature to manipulate materials is still using (manipulating) the laws of nature.

The point is that understanding the behavior of natural materials, the small picture, does not give us the big ecological picture regarding our place in nature, and the inevitable consequences of our over-exploitative manipulations. — Janus

Whoever said that? I may understand dirt but I certainly don't understand the importance of spider monkies in their ecosystem or ever where they live really. I know that if we study them we could know all that and then act accordingly.

As for our place in nature, who defines that but ourselves? We generally do what we please most of the time. If we are destroyed by over exploitative manipulations we weren't smart enough to live in the first place.

If you think it is possible to "understand everything about something" or "know all the properties of dirt" or that you can, without consequences "do anything I wish with the dirt as long as it can be done with the dirt" it shows how little you understand nature, not to speak of possessing mastery of it, and I think you are unknowingly in line for a very rude shock. — Janus

And who said that there would be no consequences? Everything has consequences. So, humor me. How does nature work? Why can't I learn everything about dirt?

And to be fair, I know exactly what can happen if I use dirt wrong. Floods or food shortages can be caused by having the wrong dirt in the wrong place. But, if I know everything about dirt, and I know everything about floods and crops, then I can move the dirt accordingly. Disasters are only allowed to happen because we don't understand everything.

Let's try this. Perhaps you could summarize what you think my argument is. If you wish. Or we could forget it and move on. Agree to that too. — Jake

From my perspective, your argument is this: You can't prove that there is no god and humans can't understand the overarching themes that define the universe.

My argument was that you don't have proof for that either, and on the contrary, we manipulate the laws of nature to our own ends all the time.