Ive read a few of your video comments and posts on Anarchy, Venus Project, Atheism, Utopia, etc. I appreciate the rationality and logic of your arguments. There seems to be a lack of that kind of rhetoric in the current world climate. The whole value argument is always a never ending one for people have a tough time defining value/quality. I suggest reading Robert M. Pirsig's book: Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance, absorb it, then read Lila. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but I...
@Antiserum221 ... appreciate the effort. And would like to discuss some of the points with you. However, it owuld be a complete circletalk if you did not understand what I meant when using terms such as value/quality outside of the "current" definition. I also value knowledge and rationality, esp. since its required for my field. But I would cherish them just as much if I was studying a degree that didn't put as much emphasis on it.
i was watching discovery, a show about alternative energie .
there are numerous tehnologies that can provide us limitles energie, but you now what they are to EXPENSIVE, you realise what that means no?. that we care more about money that abous us , humans. so we have, the knowhow , but we dont have financiar resourses . how great is tha ?
How can the heat death scenario possibly occur? Because of the expansion of the universe some galaxies are expanding away from each other faster than c. How can matter and energy possibly get distributed evenly with this happening?
I think that once equilibrium is reached, we may have evolved into higher dimensional life and, who knows, find or create a new piece of retail where the different laws apply (perhaps designed synchronistically and created by individuals that interact infinitely with others) that are currently out of our current ability to grasp. Just a thought.
though there are some valid points all around. the closed system theory he refers to is based off the big bang theory having limited amount of matter or energy scattered across our known universe until reaching said equilibrium. as for the comparison of utopia. interesting take. one thing I think he forgot to realize as a student of all human psychology is "Complacency" my example is building a house of cards. when its built you only stare at it for so long, before u intentionally knock it down.
though there are some valid points all around. the closed system theory he refers to is based off the big bang theory having limited amount of matter or energy scattered across our known universe until reaching said equilibrium. as for the comparison of utopia. interesting take. one thing I think he forgot to realize as a student of all human psychology is "Complacency" my example is building a house of cards. when its built you only stare at it for so long. before u intentionally knock it down.
your metaphor is kinda like equating heaven with hell. heaven becomes something like hell because there are absolutely no problems, change or work to be done.
but the universe has no consciousness or direction, unlike society. even if a society were to reach "equilibrium" as in terms of the even distribution of property, rights and duty, there would still be goals to achieve, even if only for own entertainment's sake.
Great vid! My only question is how do we know the universe is a closed system? I thought it was an ever expanding, infinite universe. I don't think utopia is possible because we are always evolving and expanding, there will always be a new frontier. We could be doing a lot better right now though. If people were educated holistically and not under the thumb of their nations education system only.
"utopia" basically means perfect world. That is a very subjective concept and either everything is "perfect" or nothing is.
A "perfect world" is impossible. We just want a functioning system that is as non bias as possible. A system for the people instead of taking advantage of the people. Some kind of balance of opportunities (exterior/system) and responsibility (interior/people)
Resources based economy is a good goal but there is no plan as of yet to get us there. We need to build a bridge.
I think the equilibrium utopians seek is that of economic equilibrium, which if you take the Austrian view to (as I do) means exactly what an equilibrium on a graph displays...it means everyone in the society is acting such that they are maximizing their benefits and that no other actions would be more advantageous. In other words, everyone would be conducting the actions that fully meet their ends and no change would be necessary. Highly unrealistic to say the least, as for undesirable I dunno
Yes, XOmniverse's analogy between the physical enthropy and the social utopia is quite a valuable point. But from the strictly physical point of view, I don't understand quite well why "the heat death" state of the Universe wasn't reached long time ago already - given the (perhaps?)unlimited lenghth of time during which the Universe developed into it's present state. If the Universe has failed to reach the heat death up to now, why should it reach such state at any point in the future?
Any system left alone, will tend to equilibrium, but nothing in this world is left on its own. Non Equilibrium is required for Energy flow. Energy flow is necessary for Order to emerge and maintain Complex Systems. There is no "equilibrium" in the real world. Its contionuously changing and adapting based on the feedback it receives. Society is a nonlinear, dynamic, emergent, self organizing system.
In a sense this is essentially correct. So far as scientists can tell, the arrow of time appear to be oriented by the rise of entropy. As entropy reaches an asymptotic limit, change will become less and less apparent and time become moot. Forever is a long time, but at the very least things would stay that way longer than the universe has currently been in existence.
First, statistically speaking, entropy can decrease. Nietzsche theorized quite some time ago that given some ridiculous spans of time, the universe would eventually escape heat death.
Second, systems do not reach 100% entropy since that would count as a more order rather than less. Instead, they continually approach an asymptotic limit.
Point being, causation (weakly) continues. Of course, this doesn't necessarily kill your metaphor.
I agree, utopians reify the zero, and they think that if they don't see the logical conclusion of all of their ideas, then it isn't necessarily going to happen. To paraphrase Rand: "And you all keep running, struggling not to know that yours is the morality of death."
great understanding of Entropy law or the second law of thermodynamics.
I guess this is the first american guy who understands this law, no offence, but all atheists in America deny this law, yet its the most well-proven law in whole science may be.
Hmmm... hate to burst your bubble, but lots of people in the US understand entropy. To say otherwise is to be willfully naive of the state of science in the home of some of the world's foremost centers of research. If you've somehow come to believe that the fact of physical entropy implies the existence of a supernatural god, then you've got a whole lot of very smart people that disagree with you.
Here is the actual problem that we need to solve before we talk about Entropy.
To claim that some people know about Entropy while the vast majority of them don't know how many senators in their own country or don't know where are their troops are going and why is something really absurd.
read the book names: "how stupid are americans" which is written by an american author and see some videos made by americans about the misinformation in america before you make such comments.
I think most people are very aware of the general level of intelligence in the US. That doesn't detract from the fact that there are still a lot of very smart people there as well. There are a lot of profoundly unintelligent people most anywhere you go, including YouTube. I don't think I need to pussyfoot around pointing out flaws in your posts just because some people are dumb.
I don't understand why people affiliate a perfect society as one without problems? I don't see nothing wrong or evil about problems. If fact all of our achievements are b/c of the problems we faced. Such a society is not one without problems but is that of our ability(means to reason/knowledge) to solve new and unexpected problems that inevitably arise. As of now our ability to solve problems is greatly limited by religion, irrational inspiration, lack of information, etc.
I understand the basics, but I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I may display some ignorance with this comment. It actually seems kind of obvious which makes me think I'm missing something. Isn't everything in the universe attracted to everything else? So it seems like when all momentum ceases, gravity will pull everything back into one place and this could potentially be the source of a new big bang, implying an endless cycle.
Momentum does not stop unless their is friction. Space is frictionless, so objects in motion do not stop. Gravity does continually act on all objects, but there's something called "escape velocity". Scientists haven't exactly worked out the mass of everything, so they haven't decided whether the universe in moving at escape velocity or not. However, there is evidence of dark energy starting to counteract gravity to increase universal expansion. This could prevent a Big Crunch.
i doubt many people were as happy as gladiators were seeing as they operated on a giant bandwidth of meeting equilibrium. HOLY SHIT IM GOING TO DIE, NO WAIT I KILLED EVERYONE AND THE WHOLE COLLISIUM IS CHEERING MY NAME FUCK YEA-BLERGH dead.
Heat-death like the big bang is really just the limits of the orthodox physical model of the universe.
Generally speaking the further one gets from the scope of the empirical data on which a model is built the less accurate the predictions of the model are.
Newtonian physics begins to come unstuck when you talk about stellar distances. And likewise, thermodynamics begins to become unstuck at atomic and galactic scales.
I dunno about you but Im very well disposed to let the *utopian-ists* go sit in a far off place in wait of their utopia of background radiation and single protons; the farther off they sit the better!
If your last sentence was true, it would only mean that some pain is necessary to live a happy life. It wouldn't actually contradict any of my thoughts on ethics.
Google Technocracy technate for more information on energy economics... which tie into ecological economics and thermoeconomics.
The technate design from the 1930's figured out energy accounting... all to do with energy... and it is all based on idea from Willard Gibbs, a father of thermodynamics.
Technocracy technate is not a Utopia though... just a science based social design. Utopia is defined as a place that does not exist.
Anyway... google Technocracy technate, and check out that.
this may be true,but to think we have any control over it ,by applying it to our social and or economic constructs is fool hardy at best,...want proof?
This is the idea of marxism, I believe. The theory I have of marxism, is that once this utopia is reached, a state is no longer needed and history no longer needs to be recorded. I find this idea to be very hard to achieve, as far as life will be completely perfect, due to do the capacity for human error.
I'd say Utopia is a zero entropy state. Life is basically a struggle against entropy. I think Tesla said something like "we are low entropy beings creating high entropy matter." It seems to me like Utopia would be where all energy is useful (zero entropy, total exergy). I'm no physicist, just an ME. Maybe we view energy more opportunistically.
Perfect balance would not necessarily cause reality to cease to exist, but would alter the levels of change in a given society to a more sustainable equilibrium. Complete entropy is a different concept altogether.
I thought the universe was an open system? If it's not, the when it reaches equilibrium, does it become open? If so, does it become part of something else then?
Open with regards to what? Open implies there's something outside of it that can come inside an opening.
Then of course, the whole thing (the "universe" with the opening and the stuff outside it) would be the actual universe and would still be a closed system.
It's an interesting correlation, reminds me of Marx and his dream for a perfect society.
Of course, thankfully, living beings by their nature, fight against entropy. Only in death to we achieve equilibrium. To live is to fight that which would make us even.
I agree fully with this. It kind of shows why good and evil are actually both mutually dependant, and that the fight is more important than who wins in the end.
That's wrong. In physics, one man against the universe, his "fight" to live is not against the "evil" fact that he cannot live w/o effort is not negotiable. In social relations, however, his fight against evil people didn't have to happen.
Reality is immutable and unchangeable. Human action is volitional.
it seemed to me that you talked as if there are pre-existing paramiters within which matter-energy can be distributed in. if by "universe" you mean "existence" than you are essentially talking about matter-energy. it's wrong to think about space/time as existing independently of matter-energy within it.
as for utopia, i agree that it is not desireable. i've realized this when hearing about transhumanists. people who want to end the negative aspects of human life with technology.
Well I have no problem with transhumanism. I don't see it as inherently utopic. Using technology to reduce the negative aspects of human life is what we do already; transhumanists just want to do this with the human physical body as well.
"transhumanists just want to do this with the human physical body as well"
yeah, that's what puts me on edge. not just because of the possible errors or reprocussions but because we'll be something different. no suffering simply strikes me as a hollow existence.
i'm not sure i follow but if what you mean is that popular demand is what will determine whether of not transhumanism is desireable i don't think it's relevant.
you know what utopia is to me? The movie wall-e where everyone no longer does anything productive, not even completting a simple task as walking up to perform an action, and everyone fat and never walks again and sits around all day; Seems like America is headed right in this direction.
Ive read a few of your video comments and posts on Anarchy, Venus Project, Atheism, Utopia, etc. I appreciate the rationality and logic of your arguments. There seems to be a lack of that kind of rhetoric in the current world climate. The whole value argument is always a never ending one for people have a tough time defining value/quality. I suggest reading Robert M. Pirsig's book: Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance, absorb it, then read Lila. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but I...
Antiserum221 11 months ago
@Antiserum221 ... appreciate the effort. And would like to discuss some of the points with you. However, it owuld be a complete circletalk if you did not understand what I meant when using terms such as value/quality outside of the "current" definition. I also value knowledge and rationality, esp. since its required for my field. But I would cherish them just as much if I was studying a degree that didn't put as much emphasis on it.
Antiserum221 11 months ago
Thank you for that, it was very informative. I'm doing a research paper on Social enthrapy and chaos, any referances that may be useful?
kelsorocs3 1 year ago
i was watching discovery, a show about alternative energie .
there are numerous tehnologies that can provide us limitles energie, but you now what they are to EXPENSIVE, you realise what that means no?. that we care more about money that abous us , humans. so we have, the knowhow , but we dont have financiar resourses . how great is tha ?
valentindaniel84 1 year ago
How can the heat death scenario possibly occur? Because of the expansion of the universe some galaxies are expanding away from each other faster than c. How can matter and energy possibly get distributed evenly with this happening?
DrShpilev 1 year ago
I think that once equilibrium is reached, we may have evolved into higher dimensional life and, who knows, find or create a new piece of retail where the different laws apply (perhaps designed synchronistically and created by individuals that interact infinitely with others) that are currently out of our current ability to grasp. Just a thought.
Problembeing 1 year ago
No information can be lost, only distributed and can be traced mathematically. Information just transmutes.
Problembeing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
though there are some valid points all around. the closed system theory he refers to is based off the big bang theory having limited amount of matter or energy scattered across our known universe until reaching said equilibrium. as for the comparison of utopia. interesting take. one thing I think he forgot to realize as a student of all human psychology is "Complacency" my example is building a house of cards. when its built you only stare at it for so long, before u intentionally knock it down.
Wes9909 2 years ago
though there are some valid points all around. the closed system theory he refers to is based off the big bang theory having limited amount of matter or energy scattered across our known universe until reaching said equilibrium. as for the comparison of utopia. interesting take. one thing I think he forgot to realize as a student of all human psychology is "Complacency" my example is building a house of cards. when its built you only stare at it for so long. before u intentionally knock it down.
Wes9909 2 years ago
This law doesn't apply to American politics,
where equilibrium or utopia will never be reached.
coolintensity1 2 years ago
your metaphor is kinda like equating heaven with hell. heaven becomes something like hell because there are absolutely no problems, change or work to be done.
but the universe has no consciousness or direction, unlike society. even if a society were to reach "equilibrium" as in terms of the even distribution of property, rights and duty, there would still be goals to achieve, even if only for own entertainment's sake.
but it would prolly be pretty boring
sleeplessmind 2 years ago
Great vid! My only question is how do we know the universe is a closed system? I thought it was an ever expanding, infinite universe. I don't think utopia is possible because we are always evolving and expanding, there will always be a new frontier. We could be doing a lot better right now though. If people were educated holistically and not under the thumb of their nations education system only.
reynoldsmjx 2 years ago
"utopia" basically means perfect world. That is a very subjective concept and either everything is "perfect" or nothing is.
A "perfect world" is impossible. We just want a functioning system that is as non bias as possible. A system for the people instead of taking advantage of the people. Some kind of balance of opportunities (exterior/system) and responsibility (interior/people)
Resources based economy is a good goal but there is no plan as of yet to get us there. We need to build a bridge.
davidspoo 2 years ago
I think the equilibrium utopians seek is that of economic equilibrium, which if you take the Austrian view to (as I do) means exactly what an equilibrium on a graph displays...it means everyone in the society is acting such that they are maximizing their benefits and that no other actions would be more advantageous. In other words, everyone would be conducting the actions that fully meet their ends and no change would be necessary. Highly unrealistic to say the least, as for undesirable I dunno
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Yes, XOmniverse's analogy between the physical enthropy and the social utopia is quite a valuable point. But from the strictly physical point of view, I don't understand quite well why "the heat death" state of the Universe wasn't reached long time ago already - given the (perhaps?)unlimited lenghth of time during which the Universe developed into it's present state. If the Universe has failed to reach the heat death up to now, why should it reach such state at any point in the future?
danielsondanielson 2 years ago
Any system left alone, will tend to equilibrium, but nothing in this world is left on its own. Non Equilibrium is required for Energy flow. Energy flow is necessary for Order to emerge and maintain Complex Systems. There is no "equilibrium" in the real world. Its contionuously changing and adapting based on the feedback it receives. Society is a nonlinear, dynamic, emergent, self organizing system.
MrBr3w 2 years ago
sure my last comment was for, hasatum.
IslamPlanet 2 years ago
In a sense this is essentially correct. So far as scientists can tell, the arrow of time appear to be oriented by the rise of entropy. As entropy reaches an asymptotic limit, change will become less and less apparent and time become moot. Forever is a long time, but at the very least things would stay that way longer than the universe has currently been in existence.
hasatum 2 years ago
Two minor quibbles:
First, statistically speaking, entropy can decrease. Nietzsche theorized quite some time ago that given some ridiculous spans of time, the universe would eventually escape heat death.
Second, systems do not reach 100% entropy since that would count as a more order rather than less. Instead, they continually approach an asymptotic limit.
Point being, causation (weakly) continues. Of course, this doesn't necessarily kill your metaphor.
hasatum 2 years ago
I agree, utopians reify the zero, and they think that if they don't see the logical conclusion of all of their ideas, then it isn't necessarily going to happen. To paraphrase Rand: "And you all keep running, struggling not to know that yours is the morality of death."
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
if anyone wants to know more about Entropy, I made a video about the Entropy law refuting an atheist who doesn't know how to caculate 1+1 may be.
you can find it here:
watch?v=Duj7Gmq0iXQ
IslamPlanet 2 years ago
great understanding of Entropy law or the second law of thermodynamics.
I guess this is the first american guy who understands this law, no offence, but all atheists in America deny this law, yet its the most well-proven law in whole science may be.
good work man, keep it up.
IslamPlanet 2 years ago
Hmmm... hate to burst your bubble, but lots of people in the US understand entropy. To say otherwise is to be willfully naive of the state of science in the home of some of the world's foremost centers of research. If you've somehow come to believe that the fact of physical entropy implies the existence of a supernatural god, then you've got a whole lot of very smart people that disagree with you.
hasatum 2 years ago
Here is the actual problem that we need to solve before we talk about Entropy.
To claim that some people know about Entropy while the vast majority of them don't know how many senators in their own country or don't know where are their troops are going and why is something really absurd.
read the book names: "how stupid are americans" which is written by an american author and see some videos made by americans about the misinformation in america before you make such comments.
bye.
IslamPlanet 2 years ago
I think most people are very aware of the general level of intelligence in the US. That doesn't detract from the fact that there are still a lot of very smart people there as well. There are a lot of profoundly unintelligent people most anywhere you go, including YouTube. I don't think I need to pussyfoot around pointing out flaws in your posts just because some people are dumb.
hasatum 2 years ago
I don't understand why people affiliate a perfect society as one without problems? I don't see nothing wrong or evil about problems. If fact all of our achievements are b/c of the problems we faced. Such a society is not one without problems but is that of our ability(means to reason/knowledge) to solve new and unexpected problems that inevitably arise. As of now our ability to solve problems is greatly limited by religion, irrational inspiration, lack of information, etc.
universalwhat 2 years ago
I understand the basics, but I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I may display some ignorance with this comment. It actually seems kind of obvious which makes me think I'm missing something. Isn't everything in the universe attracted to everything else? So it seems like when all momentum ceases, gravity will pull everything back into one place and this could potentially be the source of a new big bang, implying an endless cycle.
AnarchyInYourHead 2 years ago
Momentum does not stop unless their is friction. Space is frictionless, so objects in motion do not stop. Gravity does continually act on all objects, but there's something called "escape velocity". Scientists haven't exactly worked out the mass of everything, so they haven't decided whether the universe in moving at escape velocity or not. However, there is evidence of dark energy starting to counteract gravity to increase universal expansion. This could prevent a Big Crunch.
hasatum 2 years ago
i doubt many people were as happy as gladiators were seeing as they operated on a giant bandwidth of meeting equilibrium. HOLY SHIT IM GOING TO DIE, NO WAIT I KILLED EVERYONE AND THE WHOLE COLLISIUM IS CHEERING MY NAME FUCK YEA-BLERGH dead.
vrebdab 2 years ago
This reminds me of the movie Equilibrium. If you haven't seen it, it's pretty good.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
no its not, full of plot holes, why is the black dude who is on emotion rending drugs freaking out in one scene.
vrebdab 2 years ago
Heat-death like the big bang is really just the limits of the orthodox physical model of the universe.
Generally speaking the further one gets from the scope of the empirical data on which a model is built the less accurate the predictions of the model are.
Newtonian physics begins to come unstuck when you talk about stellar distances. And likewise, thermodynamics begins to become unstuck at atomic and galactic scales.
Slightly off-topic, but worth pointing out.
Individualism101 2 years ago
I don't see the reason for horror when everything will be dead long before the actual heat death...
CelticRobot 2 years ago
I dunno about you but Im very well disposed to let the *utopian-ists* go sit in a far off place in wait of their utopia of background radiation and single protons; the farther off they sit the better!
FarFromEquilibrium 2 years ago
If your last sentence was true, it would only mean that some pain is necessary to live a happy life. It wouldn't actually contradict any of my thoughts on ethics.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Google Technocracy technate for more information on energy economics... which tie into ecological economics and thermoeconomics.
The technate design from the 1930's figured out energy accounting... all to do with energy... and it is all based on idea from Willard Gibbs, a father of thermodynamics.
Technocracy technate is not a Utopia though... just a science based social design. Utopia is defined as a place that does not exist.
Anyway... google Technocracy technate, and check out that.
TBonePickensetc 2 years ago
this may be true,but to think we have any control over it ,by applying it to our social and or economic constructs is fool hardy at best,...want proof?
look at the current state of the planet.
jalil124 2 years ago
This is the idea of marxism, I believe. The theory I have of marxism, is that once this utopia is reached, a state is no longer needed and history no longer needs to be recorded. I find this idea to be very hard to achieve, as far as life will be completely perfect, due to do the capacity for human error.
drew335533 2 years ago
All sloth is abundance.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
equilibrize
freedominsomalia 2 years ago
I'd say Utopia is a zero entropy state. Life is basically a struggle against entropy. I think Tesla said something like "we are low entropy beings creating high entropy matter." It seems to me like Utopia would be where all energy is useful (zero entropy, total exergy). I'm no physicist, just an ME. Maybe we view energy more opportunistically.
mooktank 2 years ago
Hmmm, it sounds like the Jews are behind this "entropy" you speak of.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
we are gonna DIE zomg :DDDD
P.S. very good video, as always, XO ;)
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Perfect balance would not necessarily cause reality to cease to exist, but would alter the levels of change in a given society to a more sustainable equilibrium. Complete entropy is a different concept altogether.
TruthHidden 2 years ago
Is your point that life needs imperfection and challanges to be overcome to give it any meaning?
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
if you asked me, I would say YES.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
I thought the universe was an open system? If it's not, the when it reaches equilibrium, does it become open? If so, does it become part of something else then?
tiecuando 2 years ago
Open with regards to what? Open implies there's something outside of it that can come inside an opening.
Then of course, the whole thing (the "universe" with the opening and the stuff outside it) would be the actual universe and would still be a closed system.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
what about if the universe is a false vaccume containing differing fundemental laws then the universe around it.
vrebdab 2 years ago
It's an interesting correlation, reminds me of Marx and his dream for a perfect society.
Of course, thankfully, living beings by their nature, fight against entropy. Only in death to we achieve equilibrium. To live is to fight that which would make us even.
boxant 2 years ago
I agree fully with this. It kind of shows why good and evil are actually both mutually dependant, and that the fight is more important than who wins in the end.
sharperguy 2 years ago
That's wrong. In physics, one man against the universe, his "fight" to live is not against the "evil" fact that he cannot live w/o effort is not negotiable. In social relations, however, his fight against evil people didn't have to happen.
Reality is immutable and unchangeable. Human action is volitional.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
it seemed to me that you talked as if there are pre-existing paramiters within which matter-energy can be distributed in. if by "universe" you mean "existence" than you are essentially talking about matter-energy. it's wrong to think about space/time as existing independently of matter-energy within it.
as for utopia, i agree that it is not desireable. i've realized this when hearing about transhumanists. people who want to end the negative aspects of human life with technology.
fede2 2 years ago
Well I have no problem with transhumanism. I don't see it as inherently utopic. Using technology to reduce the negative aspects of human life is what we do already; transhumanists just want to do this with the human physical body as well.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
"transhumanists just want to do this with the human physical body as well"
yeah, that's what puts me on edge. not just because of the possible errors or reprocussions but because we'll be something different. no suffering simply strikes me as a hollow existence.
fede2 2 years ago
I think that's a valid concern, though simple market economics would indicate that, if there is demand for suffering, the market will supply it.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
i'm not sure i follow but if what you mean is that popular demand is what will determine whether of not transhumanism is desireable i don't think it's relevant.
fede2 2 years ago
I mean that, if people prefer an existence that has some amount of suffering in it, then thats what they will try to achieve.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
oh, i see what your getting at. you maybe right, but i can't help thinking that it's a slipery slope into a robotic non-free existence.
fede2 2 years ago
you know what utopia is to me? The movie wall-e where everyone no longer does anything productive, not even completting a simple task as walking up to perform an action, and everyone fat and never walks again and sits around all day; Seems like America is headed right in this direction.
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
Entropia? :D
Mastikator 2 years ago