3 ms·

Which is why human engage in mate selection and are great at multiplying. Plus innate abity to advance technology. We'll engineer ourselves to survive. Or nuke

Which is why human engage in mate selection and are great at multiplying. Plus innate abity to advance technology. We'll engineer ourselves to survive. Or nuke everything, whichever comes first. Heh. Edit: not to knock off the downvotes, if they're due, they're due. But may I enquire as to why I am being downvoted?

adventured 10y ago
I didn't downvote you, but I think it's pretty obvious: > Or nuke everything, whichever comes first. Heh. is the why. Casual amusement at nuclear holocaust/extinction doesn't tend to get a lot of upvotes on HN. Plus, it didn't make any sense: 1) a nuclear war wouldn't involve nuking everything under any plausible scenario; 2) you could direct every nuclear missile on earth at just the US (including the US arsenal) and still not manage to kill all the people in the US with either the initial blasts or the fallout, which is another way of saying that not only can we not nuke everything, but we couldn't even eradicate ourselves with nuclear war if we wanted to for some reason (much less wipe out the planet, much less wipe out all of humanity, that's all beyond far-fetched).
EdSharkey 10y ago
I didn't downvote you because you replied to me, and apparently I can't. In my opinion, you didn't add much to the conversation and then with that last crack you did a snarky mic drop where you totally blew it. I like to ask questions, perhaps with a careful dash of snark if I think I can flash out with some wit, and keep the conversation going. For example, I might reply to you, > Which is why human engage in mate selection and are great at multiplying. Are we really selecting mates based on any useful criteria? It seems random to me, rarely based chiefly on reproductive fitness. ... and then someone smart chimes in with a technocratic article on how we DO (for the most part) select based on X number of traits that increase the survivability of our offspring - and we roll on for a bit more and I learn new things.
- godmodus 10y ago
  Thanks for the reply! I didn't mean to sound snarky, it was more of the pessimist in me. But chiefly an optimist. I trust evolution is doing the right thing. But that is indeed a weak argument, seeing as it's not supported by either more philosophy or science. I do apologise for how it came through, in was on mobile and didn't have time to put in more prose. I should have brought in more facts into my own argumet to spark a discussion. I'll take the critism to mind and adjust.

adventured 10y ago

I didn't downvote you, but I think it's pretty obvious: > Or nuke everything, whichever comes first. Heh. is the why. Casual amusement at nuclear holocaust/extinction doesn't tend to get a lot of upvotes on HN. Plus, it didn't make any sense: 1) a nuclear war wouldn't involve nuking everything under any plausible scenario; 2) you could direct every nuclear missile on earth at just the US (including the US arsenal) and still not manage to kill all the people in the US with either the initial blasts or the fallout, which is another way of saying that not only can we not nuke everything, but we couldn't even eradicate ourselves with nuclear war if we wanted to for some reason (much less wipe out the planet, much less wipe out all of humanity, that's all beyond far-fetched).

EdSharkey 10y ago

I didn't downvote you because you replied to me, and apparently I can't. In my opinion, you didn't add much to the conversation and then with that last crack you did a snarky mic drop where you totally blew it. I like to ask questions, perhaps with a careful dash of snark if I think I can flash out with some wit, and keep the conversation going. For example, I might reply to you, > Which is why human engage in mate selection and are great at multiplying. Are we really selecting mates based on any useful criteria? It seems random to me, rarely based chiefly on reproductive fitness. ... and then someone smart chimes in with a technocratic article on how we DO (for the most part) select based on X number of traits that increase the survivability of our offspring - and we roll on for a bit more and I learn new things.

godmodus 10y ago
Thanks for the reply! I didn't mean to sound snarky, it was more of the pessimist in me. But chiefly an optimist. I trust evolution is doing the right thing. But that is indeed a weak argument, seeing as it's not supported by either more philosophy or science. I do apologise for how it came through, in was on mobile and didn't have time to put in more prose. I should have brought in more facts into my own argumet to spark a discussion. I'll take the critism to mind and adjust.