Will the spread of big technology mean the end of religion?

[GaryLouisSmith]

Religion is a consumer product that is suppose to appeal to your deep subconscious, not your reason.

Well you failed, as I explained earlier, because emotionally I'm not attracted to the things religions do. In particular their arrogant assumptions of superiority, which you are reinforcing with every sentence you type.

You are a religious person, just like almost everyone else on this forum, with your materialism. The Great Mother, the Womb and Tomb. Matter itself.

[chewybrian]

True . But were do you stand on the right to bear arms??

I don't want to hijack the thread on that one. I do agree with it, but I don't think it includes weapons of mass destruction. Whether it would include all forms of AI would depend on where it ends up over time. It is difficult to predict such things.

[Sculptor1]

True . But were do you stand on the right to bear arms??

I don't want to hijack the thread on that one. I do agree with it, but I don't think it includes weapons of mass destruction. Whether it would include all forms of AI would depend on where it ends up over time. It is difficult to predict such things.

HAHA!

The trouble with juggling too many guns is that you end up shooting yourself in the foot as you have done on this thread - and directly contradicted yourself.

[Sculptor1]

True . But were do you stand on the right to bear arms??

I don't want to hijack the thread on that one. I do agree with it,

You said; It is a danger in the hands of the wrong people. But, certain weapons are inherently dangerous, and don't always require a human intent to be dangerous.

And yet elsewhere you have said; guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So there are two contradictions in your offering. One that you have argued against gun law - this allows the legal use of weapons in the hands of the wrong people, and two this quote points to guns killing people (without human intent).

[chewybrian]

I don't want to hijack the thread on that one. I do agree with it,

You said; It is a danger in the hands of the wrong people. But, certain weapons are inherently dangerous, and don't always require a human intent to be dangerous.

And yet elsewhere you have said; guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So there are two contradictions in your offering. One that you have argued against gun law - this allows the legal use of weapons in the hands of the wrong people, and two this quote points to guns killing people (without human intent).

There is no contradiction. I said I agree with the right to bear *arms*, but not the right to 'bear' nuclear weapons or mustard gas. I also said that *certain* weapons are inherently dangerous (you just quoted me saying it). An accident or misappropriation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons is too much risk to allow regular folks to have these things, not to mention the chance that they might go bonkers and use them.

And yet elsewhere you have said; guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I never said that. I said very little about gun rights because I don't want to derail someone else's topic. You are trying to trap me instead of reading and responding to what I actually said.

There is risk to allow people to have guns, but it is a much smaller risk. It is, arguably, worth bearing to allow people to defend themselves and their property. We want to protect and enjoy our freedoms, which few people throughout history have enjoyed. But, there is a limit where they must be fenced in. You have a right to free speech, and that includes some nasty things you can say or write. But, it does not extend to a ransom note or a threat to blow up a building. Is that inconsistent?

[Mark1955]

Well you failed, as I explained earlier, because emotionally I'm not attracted to the things religions do. In particular their arrogant assumptions of superiority, which you are reinforcing with every sentence you type.

You are a religious person, just like almost everyone else on this forum, with your materialism. The Great Mother, the Womb and Tomb. Matter itself.

roflmao!

[GaryLouisSmith]

roflmao!

Thanks for helping me learn internet slang.

[Ralfy]

The more important question is, Will "big technology" even last given limits to growth coupled with global warming?

Maybe I am naive but I still hope tech will help us to avoid the worst of it.

Plus:
the old but not outworn idea of education for leisure.

Increasing automation coupled with technologically advanced food production.