Best posts made by Ephemeral

@emily More for ya:

@spencer123

@zoobie I think terrorism is a more real threat, consider a repeat of 9/11; terrorism backed by another country could lead to WWIII

@stranger-f Good luck, hope you find your friend!

@bushmurry Duly noted.

@m-rmni Depends, if you have 5 seconds to defuse a bomb, knowledge; if you're trying to make friends with strangers on the internet, wisdom. Once in a while the two overlap in which case you'll need the wisdom to know which to pick.

@lazyaf I pray that you'll find your friend, best wishes.

@partizan This turned out to be a longer response than intended:

The most immediate threat seems to be wealth, so I would suggest pooling our resources into technology to develop robots to take over all menial life-sustaining labor like food production (agriculture and food distribution), water/wastewater treatment, housing construction, and government oversight (balancing cost). This would be a form of communism except robots would bear the brunt of the costs, not humans. The bare essentials would be provided to all members of society, systematically eliminating homelessness and survival costs; people would then be allowed to focus on art, further scientific research (fueled by curiosity, not necessity), or perhaps nothing at all.

This sounds like a great idea on paper, but in reality, humans are really ambitious, greedy creatures. Even if we provide all the bare essentials for survival, human beings will find something to fight over (income inequality, gender, race, etc.). It's not feasible to provide income equality to everyone because there's no way to determine the value of a job (i.e. should a football player be getting millions of dollars/year for something that doesn't directly benefit society vs. a school teacher); and who's to say that even if we decide on a way to compare the value of each profession, that people won't argue about it, protest, and cause a disruption. You can't eliminate prejudices and biases because this is a part of who we are, a part of the human condition. One could argue that we could become slaves to technology, i.e. develop artificial intelligence that will manage everything, decide people's jobs based on their genes or upbringing (basically their fate); this would lead to world peace, but not necessarily satisfy people either. Another way could be to create a world for every single individual by putting them to sleep in a pod and letting them imagine/dream whatever they want, but at that point you've isolated humanity from the real world.

The real question is, what would you like to preserve? Humanity? Free will? Survival? Even when people think about heaven, it's a very vague sense of utopia usually from the perspective of one individual. But I guess my answer is a bit too idealistic for the shitshow that is the world today. Maybe all I need to say is we should start with religion, then race, and then gender. What do you think?

@jin-khada Shit my pants.

Good luck! Hope you found the right people!

"How to Talk to Strangers"

One chapter will be: Internet Chatrooms and avoiding dick pics

@girlnextdoor That's cause i'm ugly as hell, probably.

@thestrangest And white christian anglo-saxons?

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Jiminibillybob

@willoww forgot Capri suns

@ragnar Will you be my dog?

@jessica-mormont 16 ounces in a pound (unit of mass), 8 fl. ounces in a cup (unit of volume)

@GirlNextDoor Usually one becomes friends first before asking for pictures, that seems to have worked for me. Also, knowledge and wisdom are different things, I think what you mean is Google can't replace human wisdom (which they are working on via artificial intelligence AI).

@willoww lol one day your possession is going to grow up and leave you for a man, i hope you'll be ready

@ragnar Since I do not have a dog, this is what I would say to a dog. Apologies for the misunderstandings.

@love_to_love_ I think it's fine for people to have religion as a guide for morality and social interaction, it's not fine when people use religion to explain natural phenomena in lieu of science.

Neil deGrasse Tyson describes the fallacy this way: "Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."