4 ms·

Doesn't that depend on what comes next. This period might really be a serious lull in time. I mean, everything you list seems super important now but - > comp

by mhurron 10y ago

Doesn't that depend on what comes next. This period might really be a serious lull in time. I mean, everything you list seems super important now but - > computers, technology And we make social media network after social media network > the industrial revolution Was actually 150 years ago > nuclear bombs Which gobble up nations resources and sit there providing nothing. > landing on the moon And never going beyond or back Without knowing what comes later, it's impossible to accurately measure how interesting now is. King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. What would be more interesting to see, the signing of a document that was promptly ignored, or the using of that document to limit the power of King Charles I 400 years later?

majkinetor 10y ago
Also, - AI singularity will probably be waaay more interesting then visiting period of first computers. - What are nuclear bombs compared to... death star ? - Why is moon important once you conquered entire star systems ... And most of all, why go back in time when you can simulate the world so realistically that you can go anywhere you want as anything you like. If humans are so technologically advacned that type of stuff will certainly be the norm. Its even probable that we live in VR so that can be a reason that we don't see time travelers - its not coded in our particular version of the world.
- RugnirViking 10y ago
  > AI singularity will probably be waaay more interesting then visiting period of first computers. That doesn't mean literally no-one out of the near infinite time remaining in the universe decides to come here. > What are nuclear bombs compared to... death star ? What are swords compared to nuclear aircraft carriers? Yet we have both as museums. > Why is moon important once you conquered entire star systems ... why is the place people first landed on america important? and yet its a historical landmark, protected and visited by many people time and time again.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I read a book called "King David's Spaceship" by, IIRC, Niven and Pournelle. It had one point in it that horse collars were a critical technology. Without horse collars, a horse could do five times as much work as a slave. A horse also ate five times as much. But with horse collars, a horse could do ten times as much work as a slave, but still only eat five times as much. This made slavery uneconomic, which changed all of society. But nobody's going back in time to watch the invention of horse collars... My point: Important and interesting are rather orthogonal.

by mhurron 10y ago

majkinetor 10y ago

Also, - AI singularity will probably be waaay more interesting then visiting period of first computers. - What are nuclear bombs compared to... death star ? - Why is moon important once you conquered entire star systems ... And most of all, why go back in time when you can simulate the world so realistically that you can go anywhere you want as anything you like. If humans are so technologically advacned that type of stuff will certainly be the norm. Its even probable that we live in VR so that can be a reason that we don't see time travelers - its not coded in our particular version of the world.

RugnirViking 10y ago
> AI singularity will probably be waaay more interesting then visiting period of first computers. That doesn't mean literally no-one out of the near infinite time remaining in the universe decides to come here. > What are nuclear bombs compared to... death star ? What are swords compared to nuclear aircraft carriers? Yet we have both as museums. > Why is moon important once you conquered entire star systems ... why is the place people first landed on america important? and yet its a historical landmark, protected and visited by many people time and time again.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

I read a book called "King David's Spaceship" by, IIRC, Niven and Pournelle. It had one point in it that horse collars were a critical technology. Without horse collars, a horse could do five times as much work as a slave. A horse also ate five times as much. But with horse collars, a horse could do ten times as much work as a slave, but still only eat five times as much. This made slavery uneconomic, which changed all of society. But nobody's going back in time to watch the invention of horse collars... My point: Important and interesting are rather orthogonal.