If science becomes more advanced, can we conquer death and diseases? Can we also revive all those who already have died? Can science make us Gods? Or is science just as mortal as us?
>>16793087No, some things are solved through magical thinking and superstition
>>16793087There is exactly 1 (ONE!) real problem, which is that modern(ish) human cattle (think last 10,000 years) has a fundamental grudge against the basics of biological life and the very fabric of reality. All other problems are fake. But I think science can potentially solve humanity's sole problem by genetically modifying future generations not to have this miserable trait.
>>16793087The Cosmist idea seems a bit too ambitious here. But very fine control over biological systems (more in a sense of having them play along with our intent) is certainly feasible.>>16793120It would simply take the right selective pressures to reverse the devolutionary effects here.
>>16793127>It would simply take the right selective pressures to reverse the devolutionary effects here.This is a self-refuting proposition because if humanity could keep such a long-term picture in mind it wouldn't have the problem we're discussing in the first place.
>>16793087There is no more advanced science, is not a trend is a method and has to stay the same bound to our human nature to be fooled by god and nature
>>16793131Not at all, if you put the timeframe of these degenerative effects in proportion with how long the species existed without these then it does not look nearly as grim. The issues only arose with ever tighter organization followed by technological advancement over a srsly quite brief period. Got us just far enough. I agree, the outcome could equally be very bad from here but nothing rules out improvement here. Well within reach. But ofc I would prefer a scenario where this new course is subtly held steady to prevent any future regressions.
>>16793087Science can't tangibly prove or disprove my feelings. You can't tell the difference between an honest person, and a dishonest person. You will be biased with your definitions, and ignorant and numb to what people are explaining to you.
>>16793538Same go for dreams, science can't tangibly prove or disprove them unless the person who experienced them tell you about it
>>16793087>revive all those who alreadyNot necessarily, though we can make great strides toward this goal.
>>16793087science can do whatever the being using it is capable of
>>16793618Can it affirm a hypothesis so amazing not even it can find a reason for me to sustain any lingering feelings of hatred [towards it]?
>weNo Anon. I say this with no malice, but you're definitely going to die. You'll be happier if you don't cling to fake salvation that maybe will come in a 1000 years, if at all.
>>16793120You love your captor because you are convinced you cannot escape
>>16794153Is my "captor" in the room with us? What does my "captor" look like? What does my "captor" force on me against my will?
There’s science to everything, but this doesn’t mean *we’ll* be able to science everything. I believe the human existence is meant to be an inherently limited one.
>>16794147kys
>>16794172It's a metaphor anonReplace captor with prison or constraints then
>>16793087Death doesnt exist.
>>16794212This. Anyone who claims "science can't solve everything" is only correct on our (limited) end. The shit we fail to grasp is still out there.
>>16793087The proportions in this image are all fucked up
>>16794827>Replace captor with prison or constraints thenWhat prison? Which constraints?
