By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

pleaserecycle said:
o_O.Q said: 

"The theory of gravity is just a theory."

are you really putting the big bang up against something like gravity as a comparison?

"A scientific theory is something that has been observed, has evidence, working models."

no one has observed all of the matter of the universe springing from a singularity

you can't model a singularity

to compare this with gravity is really reaching don't you think? since we can observe it directly and can model the acceleration of 9.8 m/s

 

I think you raise a good point.  Singularity is just a consequence of the Big Bang model.  But because the Big Bang model describes the observable world so well, it makes sense to explore its consequences.  I wouldn't consider it as a "belief" in the singularity though... it just means that it's within the realm of possibilities and has not been disproven yet.  

And also, a quote from your first post:

o_O.Q said: 

 

Atomic bombs, nuclear bombs, tanks, assault rifles, war planes, aircraft carriers, biological weapons... these are all technological devices created by science for one purpose- to end life

These are more engineering developments.  Science explains how the universe works, engineering is how to use it.  

i'm not even saying that i think the theory is wrong or whatever, i just wouldn't put it on the same level as gravity since there's less evidence we deal with directly



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:

i don't think scientists working in the field would put both on the same level but ok

and i'll repeat, you cannot model a singularity

Then you completely miss the point of the Hadron Collider.

So... You are wrong. Again.

o_O.Q said:

are you claiming that you can model a singularity using CMB? can i get a quote on that?

 

The CMB is part of the model. Don't you understand how a model is fundamentally is built? It's not built using a singular piece of evidence.

o_O.Q said:

correct, but belief in something without adequate evidence is faith though which is what i said... and in every case i brought up, the people believed and acted on their belief

No. Faith is belief without *any* evidence. Without "adequate" evidence implies there was still some evidence.

 

o_O.Q said:

there always has to be some type of precedent or cause associated with a belief, people don't just believe things in a vacuum, there is always some type of stimulus that affects their behavior people may believe in god because of a book, or spiritual experience or whatever the other thing is that people regard these things as evidence to themselves subjectively so what you put there is not entirely right
there is a reason for example that the doctors of the past believe in blood letting just as the christian believes in god because of their bible

Those people are regarded as idiots.

Believing in something simple because of a book is gullibility.
You need more than just a book, you need more than just some kind of random experience. You need proof, you need evidence, you need citations/sources.

What doctors believed in the past is ultimately irrelevant, we have already established that science, including medical science will change as new information comes available, science is flexible that way, religion is not.

o_O.Q said:

Its ironic that you'd say that... you spoke of CMB before 

have you personally done the experiments to verify the existence of it? if not you therefore have faith in what the scientists who have are telling you correct?

I have read the peer reviewed journal about the CMB.

So no. I don't have "faith" because there is something tangible for me to comprehend.

o_O.Q said:


that's not to call their evidence into question but to demonstrate that you right now have faith and you can take issue with  me saying that but if you're being objective you'll know that its the truth

I do not use faith. I use scientific understanding to create my views... And I am happy to change my view if new evidence comes to light, either via reading or debate.
I am not rigid like religious nuts.

o_O.Q said:

 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion"

those are not atheist countries, just secular... you said specifically atheist countries previously

They are not as separate as you think.

 

o_O.Q said:

i'm not even saying that i think the theory is wrong or whatever, i just wouldn't put it on the same level as gravity since there's less evidence we deal with directly

That is a false.
Just because you don't have any understanding of the Big Bang or it's supporting evidence, models and so on, doesn't mean it shouldn't be lumped in with other theories.

I do have to ask though, are you a hard-line religious creationist?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

o_O.Q said:

i'm not even saying that i think the theory is wrong or whatever, i just wouldn't put it on the same level as gravity since there's less evidence we deal with directly

I see what you're saying.  Since we directly experience gravity it seems so intuitive that what goes up must come down.  But we run into indirect measurements when we attempt to quantitatively describe gravity.  We're not actually measuring the acceleration of an object toward the earth; we're usually measuring the time it takes for an item to hit the ground from a certain distance.  This requires rulers, stopwatches, and mathematics.  Then we can go back "in time" and show that at a specific point, say 1 meter from the ground, the object had a velocity of x and an acceleration of y.  I know that the Big Bang theory is much less intuitive, but the same process occurs.  We're still using mathematics, but this time our apparatus is an antenna or telescope.  And similarly, we can use the model to extrapolate what happened in the past.



Pemalite said:
o_O.Q said:

i don't think scientists working in the field would put both on the same level but ok

and i'll repeat, you cannot model a singularity

Then you completely miss the point of the Hadron Collider.

So... You are wrong. Again.

o_O.Q said:

are you claiming that you can model a singularity using CMB? can i get a quote on that?

 

The CMB is part of the model. Don't you understand how a model is fundamentally is built? It's not built using a singular piece of evidence.

o_O.Q said:

correct, but belief in something without adequate evidence is faith though which is what i said... and in every case i brought up, the people believed and acted on their belief

No. Faith is belief without *any* evidence. Without "adequate" evidence implies there was still some evidence.

 

o_O.Q said:

there always has to be some type of precedent or cause associated with a belief, people don't just believe things in a vacuum, there is always some type of stimulus that affects their behavior people may believe in god because of a book, or spiritual experience or whatever the other thing is that people regard these things as evidence to themselves subjectively so what you put there is not entirely right
there is a reason for example that the doctors of the past believe in blood letting just as the christian believes in god because of their bible

Those people are regarded as idiots.

Believing in something simple because of a book is gullibility.
You need more than just a book, you need more than just some kind of random experience. You need proof, you need evidence, you need citations/sources.

What doctors believed in the past is ultimately irrelevant, we have already established that science, including medical science will change as new information comes available, science is flexible that way, religion is not.

o_O.Q said:

Its ironic that you'd say that... you spoke of CMB before 

have you personally done the experiments to verify the existence of it? if not you therefore have faith in what the scientists who have are telling you correct?

I have read the peer reviewed journal about the CMB.

So no. I don't have "faith" because there is something tangible for me to comprehend.

o_O.Q said:


that's not to call their evidence into question but to demonstrate that you right now have faith and you can take issue with  me saying that but if you're being objective you'll know that its the truth

I do not use faith. I use scientific understanding to create my views... And I am happy to change my view if new evidence comes to light, either via reading or debate.
I am not rigid like religious nuts.

o_O.Q said:

 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion"

those are not atheist countries, just secular... you said specifically atheist countries previously

They are not as separate as you think.

 

o_O.Q said:

i'm not even saying that i think the theory is wrong or whatever, i just wouldn't put it on the same level as gravity since there's less evidence we deal with directly

That is a false.
Just because you don't have any understanding of the Big Bang or it's supporting evidence, models and so on, doesn't mean it shouldn't be lumped in with other theories.

I do have to ask though, are you a hard-line religious creationist?

"Then you completely miss the point of the Hadron Collider."

can you link me to something where scientists claim they've been able model a singularity using the hadron collider?

 

"No. Faith is belief without *any* evidence."

so therefore we can exclude religious people? since they would claim that their books are evidence right? you're pushing a poor argument

 

"Believing in something simple because of a book is gullibility."

did you not just tell me that you believe in CMB because you read an article?

 

"So no. I don't have "faith" because there is something tangible for me to comprehend."

and religious people would claim that they have their bible

and back in the day archaeologists would have said they had piltdown man (before it was proven to be a fake)

 

"What doctors believed in the past is ultimately irrelevant"

in the future they'll say that about the doctors we have now... what does that tell you?

 

"They are not as separate as you think."

no there's a big difference

 

"Just because you don't have any understanding of the Big Bang or it's supporting evidence, models and so on, doesn't mean it shouldn't be lumped in with other theories."

says the guy that thinks you can model a singularity lol

 

"I do have to ask though, are you a hard-line religious creationist?"

what makes you say that?



pleaserecycle said:
o_O.Q said:

i'm not even saying that i think the theory is wrong or whatever, i just wouldn't put it on the same level as gravity since there's less evidence we deal with directly

I see what you're saying.  Since we directly experience gravity it seems so intuitive that what goes up must come down.  But we run into indirect measurements when we attempt to quantitatively describe gravity.  We're not actually measuring the acceleration of an object toward the earth; we're usually measuring the time it takes for an item to hit the ground from a certain distance.  This requires rulers, stopwatches, and mathematics.  Then we can go back "in time" and show that at a specific point, say 1 meter from the ground, the object had a velocity of x and an acceleration of y.  I know that the Big Bang theory is much less intuitive, but the same process occurs.  We're still using mathematics, but this time our apparatus is an antenna or telescope.  And similarly, we can use the model to extrapolate what happened in the past.

yeah i get that but i'm more talking about aspects like the singularity, which is said to be an infinite point of mass and is a point where the laws of physics and mathematics no longer work



Around the Network

I think this is a difficult question to answer, because in the vast majority of instances I don't think you can place the majority of blame for wars, creation of weapons, or other things that negatively impact humanity's chances of survival on either religion or science.

On one hand, many conflicts and other atrocities that are ultimately justified by religion find themselves far deeper rooted, usually in issues of power, territory control, or desire for riches. The Crusades, enslavement of Africans and Native Americans, Holocaust, and a seemingly infinite number of Middle Eastern conflicts have all been justified by religion, but I have serious trouble believe that any of these would not have taken place if religion did not exist. The desire for power, or money, or hatred for others, will remain constant, and religion often just winds up being the excuse used to rally others to the cause. Without religion, something else would be substituted just as easily.

And as far as science goes, it's tough for me to blame "science" for the creation of weapons of mass destruction. The pursuit of science is simply us trying to learn more about the world and how things will react under various circumstances. If people use that knowledge to create a weapon, and then order the usage of said weapon, I have trouble blaming that on science. It feels like blaming the Chinese alchemists who discovered gunpowder for last year's Las Vegas shooting.

So with all that established, if I had to pick one of the two to be more likely to result in the extinction of humanity under these guidelines, where science or religion actually directly results in our destruction, I guess I'd go with science. I can imagine some sort of Horizon Zero Dawn scenario where we accidentally create killer robots or something while trying to develop useful technology a lot easier than I can...I'm not even sure how practicing religion would destroy humanity. Even religions that have expressly stated commands to destroy nonbelievers seem to have toned that down quite a bit, so I guess an extremely radical one would have to form and then gain access to nuclear weaponry.



o_O.Q said:

 

can you link me to something where scientists claim they've been able model a singularity using the hadron collider?

Are you trolling? Legitimate question.
Because if you have to ask that... Then you have completely missed the point of smashing particles together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Purpose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collider
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11711228
http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang2.html
https://mic.com/articles/114664/the-biggest-machine-in-the-world-could-reveal-the-secrets-of-the-universe#.MBG4exPDS

o_O.Q said:

 

did you not just tell me that you believe in CMB because you read an article?

I didn't just read an "article". - Clearly you don't understand what peer review is and why it is important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal

o_O.Q said:

 

so therefore we can exclude religious people? since they would claim that their books are evidence right? you're pushing a poor argument

Correct. And you want to know why we can exclude their religious books?
Because their religious books are the claim and not evidence. - Again, read above on the importance of Peer Review/Scientific Journal.

o_O.Q said:

 

and religious people would claim that they have their bible

and back in the day archaeologists would have said they had piltdown man (before it was proven to be a fake)

This is a logical fallacy.

o_O.Q said:

 

in the future they'll say that about the doctors we have now... what does that tell you?

That the Scientific method works. - Not everything we know today will be rendered as false in the future either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

o_O.Q said:

 

no there's a big difference

Prove it.

o_O.Q said:

 

says the guy that thinks you can model a singularity lol

That is your assertion, not mine.
I have provided evidence for my claims, you need to stop being ignorant and start doing the same.


o_O.Q said:

 

what makes you say that?

Your lack of understanding of basic science?
Schools exist for a reason.

my next question is thus. Do you believe in the theory of evolution and natural selection?

Last edited by Pemalite - on 11 January 2018

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

o_O.Q said:
Hedra42 said:

None of your links support your claim that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

The first explains the history of bloodletting, how it was used in the days when the human anatomy was not fully understood, and shows its decline as medical science advanced.  It even cites an experiment conducted in 1828 by a scientist that proved bloodletting was ineffective for 'flu, and that by the 1870's, patients had to be convinced not to be bled when they fell ill. Finally, it details the use of leeches in modern day medicine and how they are beneficial, backed up by scientific reasoning. The use of leeches today is certainly not based on faith within the scientific community.

Your second details how, in 1911/1912, a skull and jaw were found by some workmen, treated with chemicals and dyes, with the teeth deliberately worn in certain ways to make them look like they were the 500,000 fossils of an early human, and passed on to scientists. The level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity into question. In fact, your link says that despite extensive investigations and work, it was clear that something with these bones did not fit with human evolution, and that skepticism abounded among paleontologists for the next couple of decades. It wasn't until 1939 that chemical analysis was developed to date bones, and not until 1953 that more advanced chemical analysis was able to debunk the hoax. Carbon dating was not a thing until 1959. In fact, your link shows that continued questioning and scientific testing uncovered the truth in the end, that the scientists involved in the 'discovery' were the victims of an elaborate hoax. They could only, perhaps, be accused of being distracted by the fact that the 'find' had been made in England.

Your third link is some research about the risks of almagam fillings written by a Swedish dental professor. On reading it, it sounds like having an amalgam filling will result in mercury poisoning, yet we all know millions of people in the world have almagam fillings with no ill effects. The use of almagam is subject to restrictions in certain groups of people, so risks are recognised, but I don’t see how this link supports your claim about scientists having “a good deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence.”

On to your next comment:

many people believe in the big bang even though its just a proposition... its quite alright to say that its just a proposition... but people don't really behave like that's the case with these things

These people you refer to are not scientists.

On to your final point, where you wanted to know what claims you'd made without supporting evidence: 

i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”

The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...”

(in response to Pemalite’s comment "Ironically, it's the far-right, typically religious conservatives that are against the idea of things like climate change and thus the solution to many of those issues you have listed.") 

"how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite"

"i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science "

(In response to Pemalite’s “That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.

That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.") 

"they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?"

I would love to see some real supporting evidence for these. Maybe then we could have a proper discussion.

Although….

Hedra42 " What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?"

 o_O.Q “maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos”

Maybe a proper discussion is off the agenda.

 

"The first explains the history of bloodletting, how it was used in the days when the human anatomy was not fully understood, and shows its decline as medical science advanced."

yeah... and before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim?

 

"The level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity into question."

yes... that was my point, thank you

 

"In fact, your link shows that continued questioning and scientific testing uncovered the truth in the end"

yes after decades of faith in bs

 

you seem to not understand that i'm not calling this a permanent condition necessarily but it does exist and it looks like you acknowledge that it does even if you won't concede my claim 

 

"These people you refer to are not scientists."

i know of people employed in scientific fields that believe in the big bang and most likely you do also... i think what you meant to say is people educated on this topic

 

"i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”"

well i mean logically, i don't think someone could believe that logically, since explosives, pollutants etc etc etc are creations of science right?... what about you? do you think anyone who believes that could be thinking logically?

 

"The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...”"

definition of "arguably" - "it may be argued (used to qualify the statement of an opinion or belief)."

 

""how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite""

oh... you disagree that religion suppresses technological advancement?

 

""i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science ""

yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you?

 

""they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?""

the fact that these things went on for decades and centuries in some cases... are you denying history?

 

"maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos”

Maybe a proper discussion is off the agenda."

what is your problem with dodos?

 

o_O.Q said: 

 

Hedra42 said:

 

The first explains the history of bloodletting, how it was used in the days when the human anatomy was not fully understood, and shows its decline as medical science advanced."

yeah... and before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim?

Your claim was "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

The link does not substantiate the claim because it is about medical practices that were based on scientific observations and the available evidence of the time. They probably did have successes with leeches in the past, otherwise they wouldn't have been as widely used as they were, but we are talking about science today. Your link actually shows that modern medicine still uses leeches in certain circumstances, but this is based on the scientific evidence of the benefits of anti-bloodclotting agents in their saliva, not faith.

o_O.Q said: 

 

Hedra42 said:

 

"The level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity into question."

yes... that was my point, thank you
 

No, that was not your point, and it has been deliberately taken out of context. Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"
 

 My point was that the scientists of the day were unknowingly working on hoaxed evidence, and came up with reasonable claims based on their observations. Despite these initially accepted claims, there was an unease about the authenticity of the bones which, back then, couldn't yet be proved. This unease, and the subsequent testing and re-testing until the truth was revealed had nothing to do with faith.

 

o_O.Q said: 
Hedra42 said:

"In fact, your link shows that continued questioning and scientific testing uncovered the truth in the end"

yes after decades of faith in bs
 

No, not after decades of faith in bs, as you so eloquently put it, it was after decades of wasted research and thought trying to fit these relics into the record of human evolution, and decades of uneasiness and speculation over the authenticity of the find, according to your own evidence.
 

o_O.Q said: 

you seem to not understand that i'm not calling this a permanent condition necessarily but it does exist and it looks like you acknowledge that it does even if you won't concede my claim

You said "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

Scientists test hypotheses and theories based on existing evidence and observations, to ascertain proof and further their knowledge. If new discoveries are made, they may need to modify their hypotheses and theories. Sometimes a new discovery might turn a theory on its head, or lead to a medical breakthrough that makes existing practices look primitive and cumbersome in comparison. That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time.

Every step forward in science provides the foundation for the next, providing successes to build on and lessons to learn by. Even as they pass into obsolescence,  every scientific advancement is still as vitally important historically as today's cutting edge developments.

 

o_O.Q said: 

Hedra42 said:

(o_O.Q )- many people believe in the big bang even though its just a proposition... its quite alright to say that its just a proposition... but people don't really behave like that's the case with these things

(Hedra42 )- These people you refer to are not scientists.

 

i know of people employed in scientific fields that believe in the big bang and most likely you do also... i think what you meant to say is people educated on this topic
 

The theory of the origin of the universe  was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding.

Personally, I think that based on the evidence so far, the big bang theory is plausible, but it is incomplete - it doesn't answer questions like what caused the expansion, or whether what we are observing is the first such instance of the expansion of the universe. There are questions still to be answered about the nature of the contents of the universe which may, in time, change the way we understand its origins, and the theories that go with it.

But I don't 'believe in the big bang' just because it's the big bang, and nor do scientists.

Now, on to the quotes of your claims - which I had hoped you would provide supporting evidence for, but I see that you haven't.

Where is your supporting evidence that nobody can disagree with the fact that science has a more negative impact than religion?

Where is your supporting evidence that science has caused more loss of life than religion? (using the word arguably is not a get-out clause. If there's an argument for something, there should be something supporting it)

The rest of your 'claims' don't have supporting evidence either, but I'll respond to them anyway

o_O.Q said: 
Hedra42 said: 

(in your response to Pemalite’s comment "Ironically, it's the far-right, typically religious conservatives that are against the idea of things like climate change and thus the solution to many of those issues you have listed.") 


"how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite"

oh... you disagree that religion suppresses technological advancement?

I didn't voice my disagreement with anything. I am asking for supporting evidence on your argument against Permalite's statement.

o_O.Q said: 
Hedra42 said: 

""i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science ""

yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you?
 

I picked up on that quote of yours because it specifically attributes ignorance and greed to the practitioners of science. Where is your evidence? Don't try to get out of it by now applying these attributes to everyone.

o_O.Q said: 

Hedra42 said: 

(In response to Pemalite’s “That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.

That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.") 

"they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?"

the fact that these things went on for decades and centuries in some cases... are you denying history?

 

I have already explained how scientific progress works, and I believe Permalite has, too. Again, I am asking for supporting evidence for your response to Permalites statement.

o_O.Q said: 

Hedra42 said: 

I would love to see some real supporting evidence for these. Maybe then we could have a proper discussion.

Although….

Hedra42 " What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?"

 o_O.Q “maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos”

Maybe a proper discussion is off the agenda.

what is your problem with dodos?

 

I rest my case.

By your response, you have said that maybe we should never have progressed from the stone age. You have made unsubstantiated claims that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. You have claimed, without supporting evidence, that science has caused more loss of life than religion, and you have claimed, without supporting evidence, that nobody can disagree that science has had a more negative impact than religion.

You have failed to give proper evidence supporting your claim that scientists work on faith, and you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between theory/hypothesis and faith. You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'.

And all you can come back with is a question about a problem with dodos? That's why I think a proper discussion is off the agenda.


 

Last edited by Hedra42 - on 11 January 2018

Definitely Science. We don't know how the full scale of science can affect us. Also technology is advancing at a rate much higher than humans have evolved. The fact is we don't really know how these changes will affect us over the long run and I definitely think something has to give at some point. Forget atomic bombs, how will AI affect humanity in the future? We're already relying way too much on technology nowadays and I just feel it might mean the end for us



kopstudent89 said:
Definitely Science. We don't know how the full scale of science can affect us. Also technology is advancing at a rate much higher than humans have evolved. The fact is we don't really know how these changes will affect us over the long run and I definitely think something has to give at some point. Forget atomic bombs, how will AI affect humanity in the future? We're already relying way too much on technology nowadays and I just feel it might mean the end for us

The end of us could just be another step of evolution. Machines and AI could explore the universe much more efficiently than us humans. Robots have already conquered the solar system, they have been to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto and whatnot while us humans only made it to the moon. Maybe we don't even need to preserve humanity. I mean don't just always think about yourself but also others, isn't that what religion teaches us?

I say we should be nice to any form of super AI that might evolve in the next 100 years or so. If we are lucky, it will keep us as pets, the same way we keep our dogs and cats. But I don't think it's neccessarily a bad thing to just accept that humanity itself will one day be heavily outclassed by machines and AI.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.