Deep Thoughts

[Pupik]

Veterinary Medicine

Simply put, it's because dogs and cats don't pay the bills in terms of medical research. There's also relatively little funding nor understanding of the internal workings of the pet world in comparison to humans. Most veterinary medicines, for example, are either varying doses of human medications, or stuff that failed to work right for people.

That's not to say we don't care or know nothing, but most pet clinics don't invest millions into equipment for procedures that potentially relatively few could afford, let alone want to have performed on their pet. In the world of agriculture, there's more investment and past understanding into that particular branch of the animal sciences, but that's likely due to cost/benefit analysis, and the direct effect it could have on feeding people in return.

On the other hand, telling someone "this procedure will cost thousands, and we're not 100% sure it will cure your pet" kind of makes many owners backpedal a little. It's not an industry like a mechanical repair facility, where you can follow a flowchart, more or less, and even guarantee the repair (or cover the costs of the following one if you're wrong).

 

[TheCracker]

In most sports you have a clear winner and loser. In music, the definition of 'best guitarist' etc, is totally subjective.

I suppose the 'best' plumber or computer programmer, could also be subjective to an extent, but as long as they meet all the requirements of the job better than anyone else, they would also be the best.

It's incorrect to label any artist, be they guitarist, abstract painter, sculptor, graffiti artist etc, as 'the best' since they don't compete for that title in any shape or form.

 

[Liquid]

So coming in second is like getting killed.

Or worse.

Andres Escobar

 

[photonrider]

Om mani padme hum.

 

[Danoff]

Two new deep thoughts:

Some people make things simple, and some people make things complicated. At first glance, the people who make things complicated look much more competent and important than the people who make things simple. You see these complicating people and think "my god they did a lot of work, that looks quite difficult". When in fact, what they did was do something incredibly inefficient and just made a relatively easy task hard by taking the long way around. Eventually you figure this out, and then you cringe every time you work with these people because you know that it's going to be a process... a very long and annoying process that will be made 10x more difficult than it needs to. On the converse, at first when you meet people who make things simple you might think "this person does nothing, every task they get assigned is just super easy, they're not busy, their job never looked difficult, we never have long drawn out meetings where lots of people have to sift through their work". And yet, eventually, you figure out that these people are just really good at cutting through the crap. You quickly learn that you want to work with these people because everything will be smooth and efficient.

As a client, when a professional is presenting their work to you, you sometimes get only 10 minutes to figure out what's really going on. Was the task really as difficult as they make it seem? Are you overpaying for a simple job that a monkey could have done? Sometimes it's difficult to tell. It's hard to keep in mind, especially when you're handing over money for a product, that sometimes when it looked easy, it was because you hired the right person.


Number 2

What is it with using "it". Like I did just now. I said what is "it" with using "it". What did I mean by "what is it"? What is what? Perhaps I meant "what is the thing with using 'it'". Now I used "thing" as a meaningless filler word instead of "it". Either way, what the heck am I trying to say? Something.... some... "thing". Some what? Perhaps it was no"thing". No what?

Here's the "thing". It's so unbelievably common to use these meaningless filler words that I almost can't imagine not using them. And yet, I'm really saying no"thing". What is a "thing" anyway. If I say the word "everything", I mean the entire universe. So a "thing" really is any"thing". Even an empty vacuum is a "thing". So when someone says "what is 'it'", and I say "no'thing'". I guess I mean what ever "it" was, it wasn't part of the universe.

 

[Joel]

More seriously, it (here we go again) is very interesting how certain words take on so many different meanings. You can be with it, or without it, but is it really as it seems?

 

[Pupik]

Number 2

There's a whole set of answers to that one.

But I suppose the smaller the word, the more interchangeable and varied in nuance and meaning it becomes.

 

[Touring Mars]

Some people have it, others don't have it - and some people are full of it.



I know... it's only rock and roll, but I like it.

 

[Danoff]

Listen to "Marching On" by One Republic. During the chorus he starts saying "right... right... right. right. left. right... right... right... right. left" Only problem is he jumps the beat with the right/left combo, which screws up the march. That's not a march, it's some sort of weird shuffle.

 

[ECGadget]

My thought for the day:

I wonder if people are destined to be with others, but can realise at different times. Thus, you may love someone, and then they leave. You can never get over them at all because they are the other half of you, but they can since they haven't realised yet. And some years from now they will realise and it will all work out.

 

[Techy]

I finished reading The Time Machine a few weeks back, and it got me thinking: If all of society's major problems are completely dealt with, like terrorism, world hunger, or racism, and everything's pretty much solved to the point of the unsolvable, will society become so lazy that they lose our sense of intelligence? Society will basically revert to a "State of nature" Hobbes suggested, but not in bestial savagery. We will still act responsibly and with order, but we'll just stop innovating - improving. Everything's already at their pinnacle, everyone's satisfied. What is there to do now? What I'm suggesting is probably like an uber-utopia but it actually isn't. There's just nothing to do now but wallow in our glory, entering a lethargic state. The books we read, the knowledge we have procured, all will burn away or become trapped somewhere. Our only knowing is living like sloths.

 

[XS]

I finished reading The Time Machine a few weeks back, and it got me thinking: If all of society's major problems are completely dealt with, like terrorism, world hunger, or racism, and everything's pretty much solved to the point of the unsolvable, will society become so lazy that they lose our sense of intelligence? Society will basically revert to a "State of nature" Hobbes suggested, but not in bestial savagery. We will still act responsibly and with order, but we'll just stop innovating - improving. Everything's already at their pinnacle, everyone's satisfied. What is there to do now? What I'm suggesting is probably like an uber-utopia but it actually isn't. There's just nothing to do now but wallow in our glory, entering a lethargic state. The books we read, the knowledge we have procured, all will burn away or become trapped somewhere. Our only knowing is living like sloths.

Have you read Fahrenheit 451? Not exactly the scenario you presented, but the end result would be similar. In your scenario it would only be a matter of time before someone would revolt against the complacency, thus creating a problem needing to be solved.

 

[Danoff]

I finished reading The Time Machine a few weeks back, and it got me thinking: If all of society's major problems are completely dealt with, like terrorism, world hunger, or racism, and everything's pretty much solved to the point of the unsolvable, will society become so lazy that they lose our sense of intelligence? Society will basically revert to a "State of nature" Hobbes suggested, but not in bestial savagery. We will still act responsibly and with order, but we'll just stop innovating - improving. Everything's already at their pinnacle, everyone's satisfied. What is there to do now? What I'm suggesting is probably like an uber-utopia but it actually isn't. There's just nothing to do now but wallow in our glory, entering a lethargic state. The books we read, the knowledge we have procured, all will burn away or become trapped somewhere. Our only knowing is living like sloths.

Goes against human nature - we'll always strive for better. If nothing else, we'll just want to explore - go places we've never been, do things we've never done. Looks at this:

This is what leisure time combined with energy and resources often looks like.

 

[Techy]

Have you read Fahrenheit 451? Not exactly the scenario you presented, but the end result would be similar. In your scenario it would only be a matter of time before someone would revolt against the complacency, thus creating a problem needing to be solved.

Nope, haven't read it. I might soon though. And yes, that can be possible. However, how could there be any revolt if everything has been solved already? Since the scenario I presented yields a society that has innovated everything that humans can extend their hands on, it is unlikely anyone would revolt because why would anyone do so. It's a bit like if once terrorism's eliminated, suddenly someone will revolt because there's no more terrorism. Obviously humans can procure insane motives - serial killers prove that. Even so, since everyone are like sloths now & the current generation has generated no intelligence, the revolting mindset can't come into fruition.

I dunno. I actually didn't expect responses on my thought, but it's getting interesting

Goes against human nature - we'll always strive for better. If nothing else, we'll just want to explore - go places we've never been, do things we've never done. Looks at this:

This is what leisure time combined with energy and resources often looks like.

You have a point. An individual's children will always look towards these kinds of dreams, and their children will do the same, and so on, eliminating the possibility of genetic breakdown of human inspiration. As you said, it is human nature to think this way. And there's no way it'll suddenly vanish.

 

[XS]

Nope, haven't read it. I might soon though. And yes, that can be possible. However, how could there be any revolt if everything has been solved already? Since the scenario I presented yields a society that has innovated everything that humans can extend their hands on, it is unlikely anyone would revolt because why would anyone do so. It's a bit like if once terrorism's eliminated, suddenly someone will revolt because there's no more terrorism. Obviously humans can procure insane motives - serial killers prove that. Even so, since everyone are like sloths now & the current generation has generated no intelligence, the revolting mindset can't come into fruition.

I dunno. I actually didn't expect responses on my thought, but it's getting interesting



You have a point. An individual's children will always look towards these kinds of dreams, and their children will do the same, and so on, eliminating the possibility of genetic breakdown of human inspiration. As you said, it is human nature to think this way. And there's no way it'll suddenly vanish.

In that case, if humans are now mindless husks that can't think for themselves anymore, then they're no longer human. It's impossible as a species to not be curious. Look at how we can't even learn from our very own past. Children are also a good example - they'll try anything even if they already know the outcome just because they're so curious they have to do it for themselves. I just think without altering human genetic code to the point that we're no longer human, it's impossible to squash every individuals fundamental curiosity no matter how content and problem free the society is.

 

[Techy]

In that case, if humans are now mindless husks that can't think for themselves anymore, then they're no longer human. It's impossible as a species to not be curious. Look at how we can't even learn from our very own past. Children are also a good example - they'll try anything even if they already know the outcome just because they're so curious they have to do it for themselves. I just think without altering human genetic code to the point that we're no longer human, it's impossible to squash every individuals fundamental curiosity no matter how content and problem free the society is.

It's not they can't think for themselves anymore. It's just that they can't think intelligently. As everything is solved, we don't need to think highly anymore. We all settle down to a sort-of dormant state.
Curiosity is certainly a fundamental part of biological life. In fact, if humans weren't curious, we'll still be living as cavemen. However, the scenario I presented is a point in humankind where everything's perfect. We all know that we strive to fix problems like world hunger, right? No matter how long it takes, how much effort goes into it, it doesn't matter. World hunger is a critical issue and can severely impact our future if it isn't addressed. Eventually it will get fixed and so will other global issues, assuming that the most convoluted issues can be solved peacefully. Once all is taken care of, we'll propose to innovate. Once we innovate all that we can, maybe we can extend mankind into space. We establish all these sorts of things, working until a "plateau" is reached, representing the very extent of human capabilities. This plateau will be the time to slow down. Although curiosity still drives us, we have done so much that we simply cannot do anymore.
This is probably the most dumbed-out scenario. But this is what irked me into posting my initial thoughts here. Probably even sounds like fiction, but I wrote what I wrote.

 

[Vegard]

Number 2

Use "why?" instead.

 

[XS]

I had a terrifying lucid dream this morning. I was fully conscious during the dream but I couldn't force myself to wake up. I literally ran around an old part of an old city I used to live in IRL. The scary part was there were other people in my dream, strangers, but they didn't feel like a part of my dream - figments of my creation, they seemed like real people. They seemed like they were real beings, all in another dimension, or world with me. But they scoffed at me, staring at me like they knew I was conscious and shouldn't have been. They were angry and wanted me out of their world, or at the very least wanted me to fall completely asleep.
Which leads me to my deep thought. There's been good evidence suggesting a global human consciousness exists. There's even been some fringe evidence of an afterlife universal consciousness. So I wonder if it's possible that should a global human consiousness exist, it can be integrated as an alternate dimensions into our dreams. Sure there's jokes about two people dreaming at the same time etc. etc. However, what if there's actually more to it, a dream realm created by our collective conscience? The possibilities are enormous.

 

[Danoff]

Sounds like you had a dream about a dream realm.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here's a thought - not so much deep as deeply worrying...

In the event of a global nuclear war, will any survivors ever know what happened?

If a crazy Russian general decided to do a 'Dr. Strangelove', a massive global nuclear war could be triggered within minutes, and all government and military sites would be destroyed, as well as the vast majority of infrastructure, knocking out all forms of communication from telephones, televisions, internet, radio etc. So it's likely that nobody who survived would know for a very long time what the hell happened - and it's possible no-one would ever know.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ken]

That's rather unsettling. I suppose that it would be that way.

 

[Omnis]

Here's a thought - not so much deep as deeply worrying...

In the event of a global nuclear war, will any survivors ever know what happened?

If a crazy Russian general decided to do a 'Dr. Strangelove', a massive global nuclear war could be triggered within minutes, and all government and military sites would be destroyed, as well as the vast majority of infrastructure, knocking out all forms of communication from telephones, televisions, internet, radio etc. So it's likely that nobody who survived would know for a very long time what the hell happened - and it's possible no-one would ever know.

Have a nice day.

As long as we can still grow food, I have a feeling we'll be alright...

 

[kennylmao]

Hybrid vigor has never been proven in human beings, but has hybrid vigor ever been disproved as a concept? Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this is the next step in the evolution of humanity. We create a human race that is genetically superior and solve the problem of racism at the same time.

That is, if we managed to avoid destroying ourselves first. *Sighs at world's problems*

 

[lbsf1]

Here's a thought - not so much deep as deeply worrying...

In the event of a global nuclear war, will any survivors ever know what happened?

If a crazy Russian general decided to do a 'Dr. Strangelove', a massive global nuclear war could be triggered within minutes, and all government and military sites would be destroyed, as well as the vast majority of infrastructure, knocking out all forms of communication from telephones, televisions, internet, radio etc. So it's likely that nobody who survived would know for a very long time what the hell happened - and it's possible no-one would ever know.

Have a nice day.

In short, we are all buggered .

Personally I would differ with you on the communication point though though. At least in the United States missile defence technology would be able to save the president, and if plans actually worked he would be up in the air in Air Force One (and would stay in the sky for the quite a while being refueled air to air until the ground situation was under control). Unless satellites were knocked out as well then emergency TV should broadcast (Those in remote area's I would hope have generators) broadcasts should get through to those in the most remote areas that are not nuked. Some people may struggle to know, however I think lots will get at least the preliminary warnings and hopefully any speech made by the President of the United States.

Still though, very harrowing to think that humanity could effectively destroy itself at the push of a button.

 

[Xilor]

I've had a deep thought this morning; what does it mean to be "myself"?

Is it simply that "I" is the person that I have been since my first breath?

But when you're born, you already have certain basic characteristics, like your temperament, and your genes.

So would I be myself if I was born with different genes?

Would I be myself if I was born with a different temperament?

Would I be myself if I was born at a different time, to different parents, in a different place?

At the end, what is it that makes me "myself"? Is it my genes? Or maybe my soul, for those who believe in that? Or is it a combination of everything above?

 

[INEEDNAWZZZ]

Something that's always thrown me off is the old saying 'there's somebody out there for everyone' in regards to relationships, and I feel that is indeed true - someone you completely trust, can confide in, find attractive, share everything with each other and have the exact same interests and personality. A soul mate, if you will.

My issue with it, however, is that this person could be on the other side of the world, with no way (unless by pure, unbridled fate, and even thats pushing it) of you and them ever meeting. So people go through life, meet their 'ideal' or 'perfect' partner, get married and live the rest of their lives together - in practice, obviously, as I know some end in different ways.

However, even though people say 'I've found the one' or something similar - have they really? Plainly, everyone has their own vision of what the perfect partner is; not just in just basic attributes like looks and personality but even minor, seemingly arbitrary details like the way they walk, their little quirks and so on. Even if you don't think of them outright like the primary and obvious aspects of a person, subconsciously they're there at the back of your mind. Its kind of strange to think that after getting married you go through your whole life effectively living a white lie; you're with someone who may be seemingly perfect to you, but not quite. And with the amount of people on Earth, there is bound to be someone who fits in with every possible criteria that you wish, and they'd be going through the same process at some point. And yet, you'll never ever meet.

 

[Danoff]

Something that's always thrown me off is the old saying 'there's somebody out there for everyone' in regards to relationships, and I feel that is indeed true - someone you completely trust, can confide in, find attractive, share everything with each other and have the exact same interests and personality. A soul mate, if you will.

My issue with it, however, is that this person could be on the other side of the world, with no way (unless by pure, unbridled fate, and even thats pushing it) of you and them ever meeting. So people go through life, meet their 'ideal' or 'perfect' partner, get married and live the rest of their lives together - in practice, obviously, as I know some end in different ways.

However, even though people say 'I've found the one' or something similar - have they really? Plainly, everyone has their own vision of what the perfect partner is; not just in just basic attributes like looks and personality but even minor, seemingly arbitrary details like the way they walk, their little quirks and so on. Even if you don't think of them outright like the primary and obvious aspects of a person, subconsciously they're there at the back of your mind. Its kind of strange to think that after getting married you go through your whole life effectively living a white lie; you're with someone who may be seemingly perfect to you, but not quite. And with the amount of people on Earth, there is bound to be someone who fits in with every possible criteria that you wish, and they'd be going through the same process at some point. And yet, you'll never ever meet.

Take comfort in the fact that your perfect person probably shares a lot of cultural traits with you and so they're probably in your country, and maybe even more local.

 

[Danoff]

It's weird that people have unique enough voices that they can be identified based on that alone.

 

[Famine]

Something that's always thrown me off is the old saying 'there's somebody out there for everyone' in regards to relationships, and I feel that is indeed true - someone you completely trust, can confide in, find attractive, share everything with each other and have the exact same interests and personality. A soul mate, if you will.

My issue with it, however, is that this person could be on the other side of the world, with no way (unless by pure, unbridled fate, and even thats pushing it) of you and them ever meeting. So people go through life, meet their 'ideal' or 'perfect' partner, get married and live the rest of their lives together - in practice, obviously, as I know some end in different ways.

However, even though people say 'I've found the one' or something similar - have they really? Plainly, everyone has their own vision of what the perfect partner is; not just in just basic attributes like looks and personality but even minor, seemingly arbitrary details like the way they walk, their little quirks and so on. Even if you don't think of them outright like the primary and obvious aspects of a person, subconsciously they're there at the back of your mind. Its kind of strange to think that after getting married you go through your whole life effectively living a white lie; you're with someone who may be seemingly perfect to you, but not quite. And with the amount of people on Earth, there is bound to be someone who fits in with every possible criteria that you wish, and they'd be going through the same process at some point. And yet, you'll never ever meet.

I don't remember the lyrics, but probably NSFW because it's Tim Minchin:

​

 

[Michael88]

I've had a deep thought this morning; what does it mean to be "myself"?

Is it simply that "I" is the person that I have been since my first breath?

But when you're born, you already have certain basic characteristics, like your temperament, and your genes.

So would I be myself if I was born with different genes?

Would I be myself if I was born with a different temperament?

Would I be myself if I was born at a different time, to different parents, in a different place?

At the end, what is it that makes me "myself"? Is it my genes? Or maybe my soul, for those who believe in that? Or is it a combination of everything above?

There is no soul, a complex accumulation of cells creates consciousness, your perception and your personality. You are nothing but a machine, but instead of metals and plastics you're made of flesh and blood.
In fact there is no permanent ''you'' because you're in constant flux, cells in your brain get damaged, get replaced imperfectly, cells re-arrange, ultimately changing your perception, personality and the way you think. Every day you wake up as a new ''you''. Even your genes change, everything changes.

You are a complex ever changing system that is aware of itself, that is the ''you.'' Every system has its own self awareness, so your current ''you'' would not exist if you were born as someone else.

Well, thats my view on it. Of course, there is also the possibility that I'm the only real person, and you all are just part of my elaborate dream, simplifying the question.
Sounds funny, but if it was true there would be no way to find out. Solipsism, its just really sad.