@Taweret to be fair that kinda is what scientific progress felt like until about oh 15 minutes after they wrote that

@georgieboy @Taweret yeah the 20th century was basically electricity, avionics and then computers. That's about it. Nothing since then

@InternetEh @Taweret ::whining child in car voice:: fifteen whole ass minutes!??!!?!?? aaaaawwww that's too loooooooong that's like a million yeeeeeaaaarrrs

@Taweret

I had too look up the Wright Brothers on Wikipedia just now to see if this was obtuse or ironic.

Ironic, but by a tiny margin.

@suetanvil @Taweret It's still a little obtuse, hot air balloons had existed for centuries at that point

@Tel @suetanvil @Taweret But the Montgolfieres of the brothers Montgolfiere were not made in the US, so I guess US Americans were unable to see nor comprehend that.

@Taweret That same month, Popular Mechanics published this cover story :

I know which story I'd rather read.

@rgegriff @apLundell @Taweret "...there is no way that a bee should be allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration to fly."

@Taweret That's some turn-of-the-century optimism about how long the human species will be around for.

I mean, a million years is enough time to evolve into something completely different, assuming we manage to carry on with our genes for that long.

@JordiGH @Taweret And we do not go extinct by our own doing. And something else, which is fitter than us in the Darwinian sense, does not evolve.

@wizzwizz4 @JordiGH @Taweret Huh? What is the point of your post? The "Darwin frame", as you put it, is easily transferable to competing species. The same principles apply.

@wizzwizz4 @JordiGH @Taweret The HIV and the Corona virus are speciation events. A little faster than 1 million years.

@wizzwizz4 @JordiGH @Taweret OK, I cheated. But real speciation events can take considerably less time than 1 million years. E. g. the proverbial Darwin's finches or the cichlids of the Nam Lolwe/'Nnalubaale/Nyanza.

@wizzwizz4 @JordiGH @Taweret You said we needed to talk about speciation first. So I did. The 1 mio year''s timeframe was given in the first post of this thread.

@wizzwizz4 @JordiGH @Taweret And your point has no significance to the content and aim of this thread 🙂

@Taweret Now we say more or less the same thing about FTL data transmission and travel.

It will happen eventually. Human ingenuity is an amazing thing.

@profoundlynerdy @Taweret Right. Are you familiar with the 2000s exitement of the 70s? They predicted we'd all have flying cars by the year 2000, along with colonies on Moon and Mars. Instead, the whites are still stiffling any real progress of humankind.

@carl @Taweret Ad Hominem, sir.

The only people standing in the way of progress are those who:

1. Infringe upon human liberty by ignoring the Natural Law Principle. This ultimately stifles human creativity and thus economic expansion.

2. Violate the non-aggression principle.

3. Espouse ideas that have been proven to fail repeatedly throughout history, often with high body counts attached.

@profoundlynerdy @Taweret
Natural Law? Survival of the most ruthless? Sorry, natural law alone is not for humankind. Humanity stands in contrast with natural selection.
white people violated the non-aggression principle worldwide with colonialism something fierce. You do contradict yourself: Aggression is part of the natural law, but all of a sudden this is not valid for humans? You need to decide what argumentation you want to follow.
Please elaborate 3. for me?

@carl @Taweret

1. "Natural Law theory" != "the law of the jungle." It means that some rights per-exist government and cannot be taken away even by majority rule, absent due process.

Murder is naturally criminal, as is theft, fraud, sexual assault, etc. Further, a man has the right to contract freely with his fellows. No statute can change this.

So for example, even in a place like Saudi Arabia two gay men can get married, because marriage is a being contract. To interfere with this is evil.

@carl @Taweret

2. The non-aggression principle (NAP) simply means that man may not justifiably initiate "force" [violence or coercion] to achieve his ends — except to preempt a worse harm.

Therefore, under the NAP, a man may not assault another man, simply because he doesn't like his views. But, for example, a man may justly preempt a sexual assault that is ABOUT to occur with violent force to prevent that harm, etc.

@profoundlynerdy @Taweret We have such different realities, that neither one of us is likely to benefit of an exchange.

@Taweret but we have been flying more than 100 years before this article and only 10 years after this we had an aeroplane :)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Octodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!