How can we speed up the pace of technology?

How can we speed up the pace of technology?

Why don't we use technology of cloning (which we already possess) to clone Elon Musk?

Imagine if we had 100 Elon Musks. Forget Mars, we'd be on Neptune before 2025.

Why don't we?

Then we would have 100x more abused spouses and workers.

Not thanks, one musk is enough.

The US gov couldn't afford that many handouts.

please return to reddit

send him to deep spaes :^)

You could eat them, they will be useful in that way.

>which we already possess)
dowe really ?
in that case we could just clone fucking cows by the trillions and feed the hungry

What if we create a time dilation device and place Elon Musk inside it so he can spend 100 years inside thinking about great things but to us on the outside the elapsed time will only be 1 year that way we'll be 99 years ahead

how about we clone you 100x so you can get shot 100x for being fucking retarded

we have to stop meme features and gizomos and enforce ecological usage of technologoy

also we need to set some trends - wasteful tech and unecological way of life should be shamed

apple is for niggers, Google is for pajeets, tesla is for jews. McDonald's is for le 56%

>How can we speed up the pace of technology?
A nice war would be enough, but it won't happen because it would force army to reveal what they already have and nobody want that.

Elon musk is a scam artist that dumb reddit idiots fall for.

Remove all the gov subsidies you get from buying electric cars and his company goes bankrupt the next day.

>Elon musk is a scam artist that dumb reddit idiots fall for.

Yes because Musk never finished any of his produ-

copying what I wrote in another thread:


Despite all the ministries of propaganda saying otherwise, technology has been stalled since the 1970s. I think this is due mostly to the abysmal failure of Artificial Intelligence, a field that doesn't even seem to deserve the title of "field."

The thing is though, considering how divisive politics is and always will be, the problems of our civilization can only be solved by technology. I'm thinking of the scarcity of resources, limited supply of labor, etc. Politics emerges as social methodology for addressing these issues. But it is possible, in principle, to take a completely anti-political stance (one of technological prowess).

Even if you think the Internet is a net negative for humanity, technology itself is the most important thing for our species.Through it we have a means for addressing our most pressing problems.

>has been stalled since the 1970s
I want some of the drugs you're taking

Yeah I mean it's not like the american taxpayers ever had to bail out GM or Chrysler, oh wait...

Can you name one innovation out side of IT since the 70s?
>inb4 fracking
But I'm serious. IT has gone along a predicable path since the 70s. Programming languages are not orders of magnitude more effective. We are all using von Neumann architectures still, etc etc. IT might be the exception to the rule, but the rule exists and it is haunting.

Why is he dumb for getting the government to finance his research?
How is it any worse than getting private companies to finance your research?
Or do you mean, he shouldn't need financing at all, just charge more?

There have been a lot of advances since the 70's.
In what area do you think there hasn't been any development?

>there has been no technological advancement since 1970
>...as long as you exclude the field where all the advancement's been happening
ok

I would say old-school, mature industries seem very saturated. Metallurgy, woodcrafting (wood processing). Both seem very limited, there's only so much you can do after many decades of research.

good idea user, no one that isn't in a multitrillion dollars megacorp is allowed to do prosper through research.

maybe we already have had not only 100 but 1million elon musks, but they couldn't escape from africa or any other third world shithole

I dont think the last 40 years of IT were as remarkable as the years from 1930 to 1970. But that's just my opinion I guess.

To your point, IT is only one small segment of the economy. Other sectors should be improving too, but they aren't.

.......................................

.......................................................
.........................................................................

fuck me man

cloning works like this:
- you take the DNA from cells from a living creature
- take an embryo from the same species
- replace the DNA in the embryo with DNA from your cell from earlier
- transplant the new hybrid embryo into a surrogate mother of the same species
- it grows up, eventually becoming an identical genetic copy of the original DNA donor
("identical" although technically it doesnt account for maternal mitochondrial DNA but we can skip that step for now)

anyway it has nothing to do with synthesizing new biomaterial out of thin air to create an increased food supply. Growing a clone cow takes the same amount of biological resources as growing a natural cow.

>should be improving
Says who? What if there are simply no more economically viable advances left in metallurgy? That field's been under research for several thousand years at this point, it's gotta run out eventually.

Median wages haven't improved for 40 years. Oil is as expensive as ever (even with fracking). We travel slower than we used to: no more super-sonic air travel; and we have rusty, defunct subway systems (at least here in the northeast). Biotech is hasn't come up with solutions to many diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. etc etc

I know nothing about metallurgy, but I do have a brother studying material sciences. From what I gather, researchers in that field believe there is still a lot to be discovered.

My point is that when sectors of the economy fail to innovate our civilization stagnates. And we turn away from technological solutions towards political ones (redistribution of wealth, etc). So innovation is vital to maintain our civilization.

>We travel slower than we used to: no more super-sonic air travel
When will people get over this? A single meme plane being retired because it didn't make economic sense does not equate to a loss of technology. Are you also going to complain we aren't all wearing carbon nanotube shirts?

Okay, granted it was a single plane. But with unsophisticated security systems, people are now asked to arrive 2-3 hours ahead of their flight. That's just ridiculous.

>From what I gather, researchers in that field believe there is still a lot to be discovered.
They would say that even if there wasn't a single thing to be discovered, they are the last people you should ask as they have an extremely vested interest in there being more things to research.
But regardless that's ignoring the important caveat: whatever advances there are must be economically viable for them to be useful.

>Why don't we?

The Bogdanov brothers are the results of the early clonings.

>I would say old-school, mature industries seem very saturated. Metallurgy, woodcrafting (wood processing). Both seem very limited, there's only so much you can do after many decades of research.

You're nuts. There's been absolutely a shitton of innovation in metallurgy and wood. Robots are absolutely everywhere in wood anything these days - furniture, construction, even musical instruments - it's all robot manufactured.

That is not a technology issue, it's a policy/privacy issue. (It's also nonsense, I've arrived ten minutes before a flight and made it).

On the privacy front, we could just X-ray/T-ray scan every single person climbing aboard a plane, but people get (understandably) angry if you do that. We could also hardware backdoor the electronics of every single person and just catch all the terrorists before they get within ten kilometers of an airport, but people get even angrier if you do that.

But more obviously, on a policy front we could just not give a shit, terrorism is not dangerous enough to justify the measures used to "prevent" it and many of the counter-terror measures are simply security theater with no proven effect.

>Forget Mars, we'd be on Neptune before 2025.

We're not going to Neptune. Not before 2025, not ever. It's too far away and there's nothing there.

How useful would a poor Elon musk be though? Oddly enough we can clone him but not his money. God damnit.

>Imagine if we had 100 Elon Musks.
spotted the retard
maybe you think if you got a clone of Hitler he WILL be like Adolf Hitler, don´t you?
hahaha fucking illiterate faggot.

i want to clone richard stallman

genetic engineering needs t be allowed. fuck people ethics we could solve so many problems with gm humans sure it might be a mess at first but it needs to be allowed to happen. once it is perfected we can create super humans super intelligent resilient to many diseases. i see this as the next step in evolution as we are likely as far evolved as possible. Also imagine if some scientists created some human monster thing and used it to generate electricity by feeding it

Sounds like there are innovations in robotocs, not in metallurgy and wood.

Genetics don't soley define a person there's also where/when/how they were raised, life experiences, etc. Most of the clones could very well end up as neets posting on vietnamese calligraphy forums.

>clone cows
>feed hungry (Africa)
>Africa's population boom continues to expand wildly, now with no intelligence shortage keeping Africans in populative stasis
>by 2030 there are around 5 billion Africans alone
>because there is no open season for Africans, the rampant overpopulation and invasive species ecosystem destruction caused ruins Africa.
>Africans spread to Europe and the Americas
>this process repeats itself because apparently they're still hungry
>all is lost after widespread riots and general crime topple entire nations

And that is why you don't feed the hungry.

can't tell if trolling to trigger Sup Forumstards, or if just another Sup Forumstard trolling Sup Forums