Flying Cars
I know many, many people want flying cars to be a real thing. But, what is always going to prevent us from having true flying cars is, look at how people normally are with the cars on the ground. Drunk driving is tenfold going to be worse with flying cars, people are going to totally fly their vehicles into buildings, for sure. I think the closest we’re going to get to flying cars, is the hover cars we see in Back to the Future II that are more ground level, but hover. Even then, I don’t know if we’re ever going to be ready for them.
True AI
What I mean with True AI is an AI that can actually be a little more sentient and living than what we got now. When AI first rolled out, it really put a damper on everyone in so many ways that I don’t think we’re ever going to see it. There’s just too much at stake to trust an AI with the capability to think on its own and do things on its own. We’re just going to be stuck with Semi-AI that only talk back to you in text form and maybe help you code. And that alone already has ruffled the feathers of millions who are hating AI which is another thing to consider.
flying cars do exist (they’re called helicopters) but they’re horribly expensive and energy-inefficient. that’s just due to a law of physics, not due to human society at all.
There wasn’t one, we’ll only restrict who gets to have it, how, when etc.
Legal easy access to high quality drugs. Too many people are unable to regulate their alcohol, let alone ket, mdma, speed, lsd, etc if it were sold under similar rules as booze.
Improved traffic infrastructure, particularly cycling. People would prefer to keep doing the wrong thing than change their habits.
Flying cars would be the worst idea ever
Imagine drones flying all over the place,all the time. The noise, the visual pollution, the crashes where debris then falls down on other people
Now imagine these drones to be 2 tonnes
Flying cars are a bad idea because it’d cost hundreds of times as much for the fuel, and be ridiculously dangerous to drive. Drivers have a problem with the ~2 dimensions already. They are infeasible for at least another century.
They’d also need specialized takeoff and landing areas due to the amount of force it’d need to exert on the ground.
In the United States, practically every advancement in medicine will be forbidden, as long as the current regime rules us.
Don’t worry, all the scientists moving to China will get back up to speed soon.
Affordable, effective, mass manufactured suicide devices.
I’m not saying that I personally want one right this minute, but society tends not to encourage making suicide easy.
The closest thing we have, in the US, is cheap handguns, and while these do get used a lot for suicide, but they’re not guaranteed death, and can lead to severe injury and disability instead.
You could argue that society doesn’t want its members to suicide because of economic, religious, or whatever reasons, but the outcome is the same:
Society doesn’t want you to suicide, in the face of personal emotional trauma, economic, or medical difficulties.
Watch me get downvoted for suggesting this.
Belgium and Switzerland are the only two countries where the process of medically assisted suicide is alarmingly simple.
Pretty much all interconnected systems that could use technology. No aggregate medical systems, no collectve smart systems for home, transit, energy
We cannot have star trek because google, ms and pallantir want to se them to own us.
Neither are due to “society”.
Flying cars need a load of power and would be very expensive to buy and fly. And one would need a pilot license, too.
True AI does not exist. What we have are LLMs, digital parrots with a large dictionary, that only appear to be intelligent because they produce convincing sentences.
So, the second bit is basically you re-affirming my point about True AI. We can’t have it because of society’s complete distrust and because of that alone, is why we have mostly LLMs and have to specifically train some other AI models.
No, you can’t have it because it does not exist. LLMs are not the path to AI, even though they sell it as such.
I was there when they switched from the idea of “programmed AI” to neural networks. Now we have LLMs. Maybe, in a few generations, we might actually achieve AI. LLMs can do a lot, but thinking it isn’t.
So long as nobody can universally agree on what an AI even is, then there’ll never be one.
Trains in North America.
We had them at one point, built the nation with them, then so summarily decided that the automobile was better, that we built all of our infrastructure assuming that nobody would ever not want a car to go everywhere, making it doubly hard to convince people that public transit doesn’t have to suck.
The people didn’t decide, big oil did. They bribed politicians and destroyed their competition.
I live in a rural village that used to have a train stop. A train stop! Here! In the middle of nowhere. I think about it every day and it makes me angry.
Widespread commercial nuclear fission power, for better or worse.
Thanks to the gross mismanagement of Chernobyl and Fukushima and over-reaction to it (EDIT: and also Greenpeace, see reply), it has been largely defended and derived. And thanks to renewable energy being more affordable than ever, it might no longer make sense to build it.
That said, flying cars and generative AI have one thing in common: they are more harmful than anticipated.
If we had flying cars, even if the crash problem was solved by making them autonomous and fully protected from cyberattacks and unable to perform terrorist attacks (good luck lmao), we would still have noise everywhere. Think low-flying planes, but constantly. (And, of course, the proponents of the technology would call everyone complaining about it Amish Luddites who want to “stop progress”.)
Why do fission if we can advance fusion instead?
That’s a pretty good reason, too. Nuclear fusion is super cool and I hope to see it commercialised within my lifetime. (I was born in 1997.)
I think thorium is the way to go when it comes to nuclear fission. It’s debatably a far safer and more abundant material to work with.
Nuclear was killed by Greenpeace, not only did they take tons of money from shadowy donors to bad mouth nuclear (they turned out to be fossil industry related), they did it via spreading misinformation and plain lies. Everything incorrect the public thinks they know about nuclear power derives from a Greenpeace campaign. The worst part is that coal has killed more animals and people than all of nuclear incidents combined, including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh yeah, forgot about that. Edited to clarify, thanks!
Flying cars are not a practical technology at the moment because we don’t have a way of making them fly. Unless you basically want to just redefine the helicopter as a car. Once we’ve solved the flying problem I think we’ll probably just make themselves driving.
Having helicopters or planes flying over your house at all times would be terrible noise pollution. As if the dipshits “tuning” their rusted out junkers or Harley bikers with erectile disfunction driving up and down the road where not bad enough already.
This.
Flying cars exist , but are just large drones. They are small, inconvenient, noisy, and energy hungry.
Drunk drivers won’t be an issue, because they will self-drive.
Genuinely, adequate and extensive medical knowledge and technology for female bodies and people of color.
There is a colossal, glairing lack of medical knowledge and technology for female bodies and people of color. This is because of a millennium old issue of
- Patriarchy prioritizing the funding of medical research for men
- Racism excluding people of color from medical research, while downplaying the significance of their medical issues and their worth as people.
- Anti-science dipshits who oppose any and all sexual education among the masses and among experts because their magical sky fairy from an ancient text that’s been mistranslated century after century tells them vaginas are gross and evil.
Yeah! Vaginas are magical and delish! Magically delicious, if you will
Hard agree
This comments needs some downvotes.
How so?
And how should I trust your opinion since your account is 5 days old currently, as well as how your activity is that of a comment bot?
Troglodyte detected.
I know you are but what am I?
Do explain why.
I’d love to read what bullshit you can vomit on here
Please elaborate.
It’s largely bullshit. It has no relation to the post. And it’s clear that the commenter has a unrealistic view of the world.
I’d argue the “medical technology” makes it qualify, and that there is undeniable history of racial and gender inequality when it comes to ability to contribute to medical research, which may have resulted in similar disparity when it comes to handling medical issues (for example, mishandling of endometriosis).
You’d have to be extremely deluded to think society today or in the future is holding back the proper treatment of, and research of illnessnesses in, people of color and women.
Editing cause I don’t think what you said even makes sense.
That’s why I said “history”, the consequences of which are still felt today.
Sounds like you’re saying a lot of bullshit with nothing to back it up.
Hell, you’re not even able to refute my statement directly. You’re making vague gestures to falsehoods you can’t even explain. Fucking pathetic
suck my fucking dick 🖕
Oh no, I hurt its fragile fee fees.
Kinda extra embarrassing to be a snowflake online, compared to IRL which I’m sure you are. Pathetic.
A self prophesying comment! You got your wish
Not true. It could be downvoted more. Needs more downvotes.
P. S. prophesizing*
I’ll grant it should be “a self fullfilling prophecy”.
But it never has a “z” in it.
That comes from incorrectly thinking it needs similar similar patterns to other verbs.
And this isn’t some “simplified English” Vs “English” scenario. It’s not even recognised as part of American English.I take pride in my English, so I mean it when I say thank you.
That said, seems we’re both wrong. I was wrong to correct you. You’re wrong in that “prophesize” is in fact a real word. “Prophesy” and “prophesize” mean the exact same thing. The former is the older classic spelling. The latter, while newer, seems to date back as far as the 19th century.
Pre-birth DNA editing to ensure a healthy and ideal child.
Eugenics is awful. It’s horrible. There is no question and there’s a million historical and fictional deep dives one can do to objectively prove that it is against any form of morality you could possibly come up with.
But, improving the human experience, ensuring no one is born with a disability, ensuring that everyone has the best possible chance to enjoy and experience life would be amazing. If society could get its collective shit together we could in fact make sure that every person gets the best possible experience of our species. We could pretty much entirely eliminate childhood cancers. We could make super heroes (relative to unmodified humans). We could eliminate genetic defects that have plagued families and entire populations since pre-history.
Is it possible yet? We already have genetic screening which is actively used in many countries. IIRC downs syndrome rates are lower because of it being screened for now. But not everything can be screened for and we don’t fully understand all DNA yet.
If you could cure these things with an acceptably low risk of negative effects I am pretty sure people would be in favour of it. The research for that sounds difficult though.
We can do it to living people (Gene Therapy is just editing DNA using an inert virus to deliver the payload and modify gene expressions), and there is a very good chance CRISPR allows it for in utero cells.
If we had zero ethical boards, we’d be at the active experimentation stage to discover what each nucleotide pair precisely does which would involve growing humans directly.
That being said we are doing things that are close to it. For example look up the term organoid. Then Brain organoid. Then realize pretty much every university is growing unique but stunted human brains and experimenting on them; and then realize these organoids dream. Anyway that existential horror aside, this also extends to almost every organ in the human body. We’re essentially brute forcing gene expression discovery at the individual component level; if we were to scale that up to a full human (or get much, much faster computers so we could simulate it) we’d have the totality of DNA fully understood.
From there it’s trivial to combine our current tech that allows free form editing of DNA with exactly what we would need to change.
Correct me if this is naive, but wouldn’t this potentially also reduce the diversity of the gene pool?
Maybe that’s the eugenics issue. Correcting genetic damage might be small and rare. On the other hand if everyone wants a blond blue eyed baby that will grow up to be a 6’2” Adonis, genius, super athlete, then yeah
Only superficially. It’s really hard to tell what percentage of our DNA is actually useful, or could be useful under conditions we haven’t seen, or is actually a part of any given variation. What we do know, of the number of DNA combinations we have seen if we play out each possible version of those variations there’s around 4^2000 variations. Or in other words If a billion people were born every day since the start of the universe, there would not be a single duplicate person. And this is the extreme low end estimate based on limited data sets that generally don’t even include people of every major region, much less interesting micro-populations that have been breeding in isolation for a thousand years or more.
Now lets assume we remove all causes of congenital blindness. Generally speaking the number of genes making up most identified causes are less than 20 total. That would (simplified, yell at me later math nerds) knock that number down to around 4^1995.
That would still be more viable combinations than we could possibly run through from now until the heat death of the universe, assuming current population growth rates which we’ll have until we invent birthing pods.
In other words we’ll probably be fine, but if we need to, and it’s allowed to be researched more, we could just simply artifically introduce safe variation. i.e. people giving birth to people they aren’t genetically related to anymore.
No. Why? We could literally introduce diversity into the gene pool in a controlled manner.
Who wants their kid to be the one that gets the random mutation injection?
Who said anything about random?
What if you need to be a little crazy to stand out? No one wants a boring a artist, uninspired actor, musician that sounds like all the other ones…
“Oops, we reinvented downs syndrome”
Not adding a full chromosome seems to be easily doable on the basis of our hypothetical situation where we can easily do gene editing.
True all you can eat buffets.
“I ask the jury if this looks like a man who had all he could eat”
We stayed out all night looking for all you can eat fish restaurants.
Bottomless Pete: Nature’s Cruelest Mistake.
deleted by creator
