[TV] Deep Fakes (channel 4 now)

[Blue3]

View attachment 131858

Anyone who considers that the best interests of the planet are served by the demise of humans, and actually advocate this (not saying either of you two do, and I hope you don't) should lead by example.

I'd rather support initiatives to make the world a better place, and work against the selfish shits who don't care what happens after they die, not to the planet or even their own families, and especially those who concoct fake news nonsense to de-weaponise their thundercuntery.

I would not wish harm on anyone I was simply agreeing with the premis that the earth as a planet supporting life in all it's wonderful ways has not been enhanced by human activity, yes humanity has done and is doing lots of good things to help protect this Eco system which would have done ok had our actions not altered the Eco system in the first place

 

[vegster]

You and your jokes [emoji38]ol:

No, I agree. Gene editing is already a thing. We could do all sorts, now, but medical ethics (and politicians*) may take a dim view.

Evolution is a brilliant bit of techno, I have to say. Africans with a mutation that created sickle cell anaemia made them safe from malaria, so the mutation persisted, despite other disdvantages.

Maybe being gullable and swift to follow leaders is one advantage, and the tendency to trust nobody and nothing another. When the environment changes, which strain of human will win? Events.....

*That said, how come Boris is still slender? Is it long Covid? Is it all that new-bird shagging? Or, using his access to all prohibited things - the spoils of political war - has he been editing his genes to eliminate his 'fat lad trait'? Hmm....

I think Johnson has not really lost an awful lot of weight. If he's lost a few pounds it's probably due to the stress and worry about all the lies he has to keep going like spinning plates.

 

[vegster]

I would not wish for the end of the human race but looking at it completely objectively, Earth and its flora and fauna would be immeasurably better off if humans became extinct.

The Gaia Hypothesis could to be said to be currently at work now with Covid-19. Global pandemics were one of the main regulators of life.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

The Gaia Hypothesis could to be said to be currently at work now with Covid-19. Global pandemics were one of the main regulators of life.

I'm not sure if I'm just being optimistic, but my view is that Deep fakery is just nature's perverse way of combating fake news via the Gaia principle.

Now that we've reached the point where politicians can say what they like and cry fake news when challenged. We can nolonger trust our eyes to tell us what is true.

The iminant tsunami of Deep fakes will remove the shadow of doubt, we'll nolonger believe any spin as it will all have the potential to have been faked.

Only then will we move forward and judge politicians by their actions, by what they do and not by their words, lies and broken promises.

 

[Bedsex]

I would not wish for the end of the human race but looking at it completely objectively, Earth and its flora and fauna would be immeasurably better off if humans became extinct.

The book “The World Without Us”, by Alan Weisman provides a study of this very point, using the area around Chernobyl, the abandoned parts of Cyprus and the DMZ between North and South Korea as case studies. It’s a fascinating read and one of my favourite books. I’m not an advocate for mass human extinction by the way, and nor is this book, as humans are capable of many wonderful things for the betterment of this planet and our species... well some humans are anyway.

 

[elwheelio]

A climate crisis was declared three years ago. People called a 13 year old girl names.
KFC runs out of chicken three years ago. People called the police.

The sooner humans die out, the better off our planet will be.

An often ignored fact. Environmentalism isn't really about saving the planet, it's about keeping it in a state in which existing species can survive. The planet will survive regardless which, IMHO, is comforting.

 

[The Clamp]

Earth’s near future probably doesn’t involve humans. It’s understandable that we largely won’t come to terms with this likelihood. It’s a massive head-****.
It’s not so much that we may have reached the point of being unable to save our species but more that we won’t change our ways.
In order for life to be sustained, it has to live sustainably. We don’t. We will die out. Relatively quickly. Nature weeds out life forms that aren’t in symphony with the rest of life. That’s us. And it’s happening right now.

 

[elwheelio]

Earth’s near future probably doesn’t involve humans. It’s understandable that we largely won’t come to terms with this likelihood. It’s a massive head-****.
It’s not so much that we may have reached the point of being unable to save our species but more that we won’t change our ways.
In order for life to be sustained, it has to live sustainably. We don’t. We will die out. Relatively quickly. Nature weeds out life forms that aren’t in symphony with the rest of life. That’s us. And it’s happening right now.

Those last few years are going to be rough.

 

[The Clamp]

Those last few years are going to be rough.

Hell on earth. My only hope is that we don’t take too many innocent species with us (more then we already have ) and we don’t damage the environment irreparably for the surviving species. I reckon at best we probably have about a hundred years left.

 

[Machiavelli]

I would not wish harm on anyone I was simply agreeing with the premis that the earth as a planet supporting life in all it's wonderful ways has not been enhanced by human activity, yes humanity has done and is doing lots of good things to help protect this Eco system which would have done ok had our actions not altered the Eco system in the first place

I wouldn't blame humans per se. Things have only started to go badly over the last 200-250 years, and humans were around before that. The key issues are: a philosophical break between humans and nature inaugurated by Descartes and taken up by Bacon and propagated through (too much of) the scientific method; the steam engine and resultant transportational technologies that have extracted fossil fuels from the earth's surface at exponential rates; an economic system that values growth above everything else, indeed at the expense of everything else; and, finally, a demos that is insufficiently aware of its power to change things.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would not wish harm on anyone I was simply agreeing with the premis that the earth as a planet supporting life in all it's wonderful ways has not been enhanced by human activity, yes humanity has done and is doing lots of good things to help protect this Eco system which would have done ok had our actions not altered the Eco system in the first place

Good.

I agree we have done harm and have the potential to do harm. The best measure of harm I guess is the ability to render another species extinct. Dodo, check. Woolly mammouth, check (and so on). But are we unique in our destructiveness? My understanding of Dawin is that the fittest survive. Extinctions have been happening forever. I accept that humans have added to that by willful negligence rater than a survival need of our own. I'm cheered that we have become aware and concerned. Humans have the ability to change their behaviour relatively quickly. The idea of lead free petrol was anathema to Thatcher not so long ago, and yet in 10 years time most cars will be all electric. Astonishing.

If you argue that the right to exists of other life forms is threatened by humans, I would counter that by saying that we too have a right to exist, and other life forms kill us without conscience. Covid-19 being just the latest example.

You may also say 'what about global warming?'. Well, again, humans are attempting to tackle that. America, China, India and Brazil will need to step up before there is improvement, though. I'd favour pressuring them. But in the end, community shame (see below) may work by itself.

I'd also add that the planet would not be a stable Eden in our absence. Another dominant species would step up. Maybe not yet, but as the species demographic shifts to favour a more sophisticated brain. And who knows what barabarism would ensue?

Anyway, we can't turn back the clock, but I'm an optimist. I'm hoping that the evolution of community (fuelled by our recent astonishing connectivity), with empathy being an advantageous characteristic (nobody tolerates a rude selfish shit for long in a connected community) will make people more concerned about the future of all of our children, and in a few years folk will find it hard to believe that not so long ago, James Watt, Secretary of the Interior (USA) said about deforestation: 'When you've seen one tree, you've seen 'em all'.

Interestingly, as I see it, the latest evolutionary battleground may therefore be between the mental architecture that makes a person engaged, positive, fair and concerned with the truth, and the mental architecture that makes a person fearful, agressive, small minded and willing to believe and spread fake news in pursuit of the status quo. In other words the next Darwininian survival battle may be over who is fittest in cyberspace. I shall keep the faith (in humanity) and do battle with those I regard as the enemy, because I don't want to see the planet go up in fossil fuel smoke with gun-totin' rednecks ruling the roost.

Cheers.

 

[The Clamp]

Good.

I agree we have done harm and have the potential to do harm. The best measure of harm I guess is the ability to render another species extinct. Dodo, check. Woolly mammouth, check (and so on). But are we unique in our destructiveness? My understanding of Dawin is that the fittest survive. Extinctions have been happening forever. I accept that humans have added to that by willful negligence rater than a survival need of our own. I'm cheered that we have become aware and concerned. Humans have the ability to change their behaviour relatively quickly. The idea of lead free petrol was anathema to Thatcher not so long ago, and yet in 10 years time most cars will be all electric. Astonishing.

If you argue that the right to exists of other life forms is threatened by humans, I would counter that by saying that we too have a right to exist, and other life forms kill us without conscience. Covid-19 being just the latest example.

You may also say 'what about global warming?'. Well, again, humans are attempting to tackle that. America, China, India and Brazil will need to step up before there is improvement, though. I'd favour pressuring them. But in the end, community shame (see below) may work by itself.

I'd also add that the planet would not be a stable Eden in our absence. Another dominant species would step up. Maybe not yet, but as the species demographic shifts to favour a more sophisticated brain. And who knows what barabarism would ensue?

Anyway, we can't turn back the clock, but I'm an optimist. I'm hoping that the evolution of community (fuelled by our recent astonishing connectivity), with empathy being an advantageous characteristic (nobody tolerates a rude selfish shit for long in a connected community) will make people more concerned about the future of all of our children, and in a few years folk will find it hard to believe that not so long ago, James Watt, Secretary of the Interior (USA) said about deforestation: 'When you've seen one tree, you've seen 'em all'.

Interestingly, as I see it, the latest evolutionary battleground may therefore be between the mental architecture that makes a person engaged, positive, fair and concerned with the truth, and the mental architecture that makes a person fearful, agressive, small minded and willing to believe and spread fake news in pursuit of the status quo. In other words the next Darwininian survival battle may be over who is fittest in cyberspace. I shall keep the faith (in humanity) and do battle with those I regard as the enemy, because I don't want to see the planet go up in fossil fuel smoke with gun-totin' rednecks ruling the roost.

Cheers.

It’s not the fittest, it’s the most adaptable. Which is the only hope humans may have. But we’ll probably take out most other species while we are at it .

 

[Machiavelli]

Good.

I agree we have done harm and have the potential to do harm. The best measure of harm I guess is the ability to render another species extinct. Dodo, check. Woolly mammouth, check (and so on). But are we unique in our destructiveness? My understanding of Dawin is that the fittest survive. Extinctions have been happening forever. I accept that humans have added to that by willful negligence rater than a survival need of our own. I'm cheered that we have become aware and concerned. Humans have the ability to change their behaviour relatively quickly. The idea of lead free petrol was anathema to Thatcher not so long ago, and yet in 10 years time most cars will be all electric. Astonishing.

If you argue that the right to exists of other life forms is threatened by humans, I would counter that by saying that we too have a right to exist, and other life forms kill us without conscience. Covid-19 being just the latest example.

You'll find that wherever humans have settled, the first thing they do is kill the top predators in that environment. This has been done everywhere. We've adapted our surroundings to such an extent that if you weigh the mass of all the land animals on the planet, just 3% of them now are will, humans comprise 30%, and the remaining 67% is made up of domesticated animals, for the most part for human consumption.
[MENTION=33848]The Clamp[/MENTION] is right to say that for Darwin, it's the most adaptable that survive, rather than the fittest. Despite all the silly talk about 'human nature', we've shown that we're adaptable, the question is: can we adapt again, and in the direction that we need to move towards?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You'll find that wherever humans have settled, the first thing they do is kill the top predators in that environment. This has been done everywhere. We've adapted our surroundings to such an extent that if you weigh the mass of all the land animals on the planet, just 3% of them now are will, humans comprise 30%, and the remaining 67% is made up of domesticated animals, for the most part for human consumption.
[MENTION=33848]The Clamp[/MENTION] is right to say that for Darwin, it's the most adaptable that survive, rather than the fittest. Despite all the silly talk about 'human nature', we've shown that we're adaptable, the question is: can we adapt again, and in the direction that we need to move towards?

Fair enough.

Not quite sure how fittest and most adaptable differ, though. Perhaps Darwin (who was a Christian) meant fit in the eyes of the lord, but I was under the impression he meant best placed to survive. Being adaptable is part of that. For humans it is our main strength, perhaps. But adaptable can mean many things. It can mean knowing to put on some factor 20 when it is hot and sunny, and a warm coat when it's cold. It can mean having a rapid mutation rate meaning there are multiple strains existant at all times and a sudden environment change will suit one strain better than another and the species survives. So I think the key is to have a wide genetic variety of strains in a population, which confers 'adaptability', and have the trait of cleverness (which can confer adaptability) as well. That said, if adaptability is so important, how come so many humans are socially conservative, unwilling to try new things, learn new things, consider different opinions and outlooks? I think the answer to that is that in the human set up, having dogged unambitious individuals is useful the the species overall. After all, where would we be if we didn't have a few Das Reichs to cheerfully and doggedly do the shit jobs? .

 

[The Clamp]

Fair enough.

Not quite sure how fittest and most adaptable differ, though. Perhaps Darwin (who was a Christian) meant fit in the eyes of the lord, but I was under the impression he meant best placed to survive. Being adaptable is part of that. For humans it is our main strength, perhaps. But adaptable can mean many things. It can mean knowing to put on some factor 20 when it is hot and sunny, and a warm coat when it's cold. It can mean having a rapid mutation rate meaning there are multiple strains existant at all times and a sudden environment change will suit one strain better than another and the species survives. So I think the key is to have a wide genetic variety of strains in a population, which confers 'adaptability', and have the trait of cleverness (which can confer adaptability) as well. That said, if adaptability is so important, how come so many humans are socially conservative, unwilling to try new things, learn new things, consider different opinions and outlooks? I think the answer to that is that in the human set up, having dogged unambitious individuals is useful the the species overall. After all, where would we be if we didn't have a few Das Reichs to cheerfully and doggedly do the shit jobs? .

I think in this context adaptable means such things as;

Being able to live in multiple environments.
Being able to consume a large variety of food.
Possessing multiple skills such as problem solving, farming, hunting etc
And the like

Whereas “fittest” in Darwinian terms simply means physically stronger and more resistant to disease.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think in this context adaptable means such things as;

Being able to live in multiple environments.
Being able to consume a large variety of food.
Possessing multiple skills such as problem solving, farming, hunting etc
And the like

Whereas “fittest” in Darwinian terms simply means physically stronger and more resistant to disease.

Darwin, eh? Amazing how his ideas have evolved.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I saw a programme on TV a few month ago about a species of frog which lives on only 10 trees (yes 10 single trees not 10 types) and it has a neat trick of hiding near to ferns growing on the tree and its skin starts to rise up in spots which then look very similar to the fern...

 

[m@goo]

The best deep fakery I've seen is by Peter Serafinowicz and the South Park guys.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fair enough.

Not quite sure how fittest and most adaptable differ, though. Perhaps Darwin (who was a Christian) meant fit in the eyes of the lord, but I was under the impression he meant best placed to survive. Being adaptable is part of that. For humans it is our main strength, perhaps. But adaptable can mean many things. It can mean knowing to put on some factor 20 when it is hot and sunny, and a warm coat when it's cold. It can mean having a rapid mutation rate meaning there are multiple strains existant at all times and a sudden environment change will suit one strain better than another and the species survives. So I think the key is to have a wide genetic variety of strains in a population, which confers 'adaptability', and have the trait of cleverness (which can confer adaptability) as well. That said, if adaptability is so important, how come so many humans are socially conservative, unwilling to try new things, learn new things, consider different opinions and outlooks? I think the answer to that is that in the human set up, having dogged unambitious individuals is useful the the species overall. After all, where would we be if we didn't have a few Das Reichs to cheerfully and doggedly do the shit jobs? .

This post started off badly. You've answered your initial question in what follows. And then Darwin was much more interested in science than Christianity, so that's a bit of a red herring.
It improves rapidly thereafter:
1, you're arguing for diversity, to enable adaptability
2, you're invoking the old chestnut of humans' differentia specifica resulting from some kind of rational/linguistic ability -- which is difficult to argue against but, at the same time, equally difficult to identify and precisely capture
3, you're arguing that there's a counter-1, the socially consevative. Beyond their dearth of ambition, their rampant insularity, their insistence that things were always thus and our way is the only way, they tend not to have done very well at school (or have been thwarted by not being exposed to further/higher education) and are blissfully unaware that this 'eternal' 'only way' is in fact a recent and highly contingent configuration that is also highly precarious -- and it's this last point that really gets them.

 

[Questions]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Million

Well worth a watch this. You realise it’s inevitable.