Most likely threat of human extinction

[VanPastorMan]

How do you stand being a Star Trek fan? Way too WOKE for you.

Even the orginal series had a black woman & a white man kissing. Plus a Russian being a valued crew member. There were episodes against racism, against nationalism, even some than can be viewed as anti-religion. Did Kirk ever MARRY those green women he was always banging?

Now the modern Star Treks have gay people, androgenous characters, or "others" (e.g., Dax, in Deep Space 9, male for one symbiont, female for another).

Then there's the whole concept that human society is no longer based on money. Replicators provide all you need! SOCIALISM!!! COMMUNISM!!!!

Isn't it too woke for you?

If you look at the time of the original series what was going on politically? We had the cold war. In the 50's people were building bomb shelters and then Kennedy had to go up against the Russians in Cuba. People were very scared. Then Star Trek came on and showed people that there was hope. In my mind this is why the franchise has endured. People want to think that things will get better. Jonathan Frakes, who played William Riker and is from Bethlehem PA, my adopted state said that when Gene Roddenberry was talking to him about the world of Star Trek he said, In the 24th century there will be no hunger, there will be no greed, and all the children will know how to read.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I am a Star Trek fan and so is my wife. I told her after watching an episode of Star Trek Next Generation, "You know Riker is using the holodeck for porn usage." There was an episode of Star Trek Voyager where Janeway had a romance with a holodeck character. So harlequin romance novels are there too.

Will Riker was a slut. Even In real life, and then he parleyed that into his Hollywood carrier. Every roll he played had the edge of a playa. He was good at it, because he wasn't acting, he was a slut!.
So I would like to ask, what did your wife think about the holodeck and being able to live out fantasies?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

A modest proposal, for sure.

Well played.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Will Riker was a slut. Even In real life, and then he parleyed that into his Hollywood carrier. Every roll he played had the edge of a playa. He was good at it, because he wasn't acting, he was a slut!.
So I would like to ask, what did your wife think about the holodeck and being able to live out fantasies?

We both thought that if you really had that technology then you wouldn't be able to deal with life. We don't have this technology but with these virtual reality goggles we could see something like that in real life.

 

[outside shooter]

 

[SqueakyClean]

Well played.

Heh. Wasn't sure if anyone was going to get that joke.

(For those that need context)

A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Between my Lord of the Flies joke a couple of days ago and this one, my literary-reference game has been in high gear lately.

If McMurtry can get off his tooshie and line up some more baby-mommas, I might be able to pull off a Cheaper By the Dozen reference.

 

[railsplitter67]

If you look at the time of the original series what was going on politically? We had the cold war. In the 50's people were building bomb shelters and then Kennedy had to go up against the Russians in Cuba. People were very scared. Then Star Trek came on and showed people that there was hope. In my mind this is why the franchise has endured. People want to think that things will get better. Jonathan Frakes, who played William Riker and is from Bethlehem PA, my adopted state said that when Gene Roddenberry was talking to him about the world of Star Trek he said, In the 24th century there will be no hunger, there will be no greed, and all the children will know how to read.

I really have only watched the original which is a favorite on my tv show list but for me the new spinoffs only reason would be if they had more of 7 of 9 in better lighting. I watched the original in syndication and the local PBS had them on Sunday midmorning with no commercials. Some were horrible, some really good but it was totally different from what snippets Ive seen of the new ones or even the movies in my opinion.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

I went with virus.

The Last of Us. If you haven't seen it, you should. You will know what to expect when it happens.

 

[SqueakyClean]

I really have only watched the original which is a favorite on my tv show list but for me the new spinoffs only reason would be if they had more of 7 of 9 in better lighting. I watched the original in syndication and the local PBS had them on Sunday midmorning with no commercials. Some were horrible, some really good but it was totally different from what snippets Ive seen of the new ones or even the movies in my opinion.

You might enjoy the newest series (Strange New Worlds). Alot of the more recent Star Trek series (Picard, Discovery, Voyager, Enterprise) have been going with this over-arching season long plot concept, which is all fine really, but kinda takes away from the episodic nature of the original series which is part of what gave it its charm.

Strange New Worlds seems to be doing a much better job of getting back to that formula.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I went with virus.

The Last of Us. If you haven't seen it, you should. You will know what to expect when it happens.

It's unlikely a virus could wipe us out, because the more lethal the virus, the more likely it will burn out by killing too many people too fast and running out of hosts. A really bad, easy-to-transmit, very lethal virus is more likely to result in a population bottleneck than an extinction. Plus, almost certainly some humans will find themselves immune.

One exception could be an immunodeficiency virus, especially one with a long latency period. Something like an airborne HIV could probably kill the entire species. But even then, there might be hope that small pockets of people - say on Sentinel Island or deep in the Amazon - might avoid infection and be the seeds of a new spread of the species once everyone - and the virus - is gone.

To really kill the species, you need 100% lethality delivered in a method that will still reach even the most remote human outposts.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

It's unlikely a virus could wipe us out, because the more lethal the virus, the more likely it will burn out by killing too many people too fast and running out of hosts. A really bad, easy-to-transmit, very lethal virus is more likely to result in a population bottleneck than an extinction. Plus, almost certainly some humans will find themselves immune.

One exception could be an immunodeficiency virus, especially one with a long latency period. Something like an airborne HIV could probably kill the entire species. But even then, there might be hope that small pockets of people - say on Sentinel Island or deep in the Amazon - but avoid infection and be the seeds of a new spread of the species once everyone - and the virus - is gone.

To really kill the species, you need 100% lethality delivered in a method that will still reach even the most remote human outposts.

Have you seen the Last of Us (I don't want to spoil it for anyone) because if you have, I don't really think that a virus like that could kill off humans.

 

[Sope Creek]

I went with virus.

The Last of Us. If you haven't seen it, you should. You will know what to expect when it happens.

I went with climate change . . . because it's the most sure way. Asteroid? Hit or miss.

Nuclear war? Too quick . . . we'd avoid the full range of potential consequences (although a nuclear war could contribute significantly to global warming).

Virus? Hit or miss.

AI? We're already in the midst of global warming, and AI might choose to enhance the effects of climate change in order to get rid of us.

Other? I don't know what that'd be . . . aliens is just too far out there for me, in both concept and time. In other words, climate change will get us before aliens do.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Have you seen the Last of Us (I don't want to spoil it for anyone) because if you have, I don't really think that a virus like that could kill off humans.

The Last of Us is about a fungus, FWIW.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I went with climate change . . . because it's the most sure way. Asteroid? Hit or miss.

Nuclear war? Too quick . . . we'd avoid the full range of potential consequences (although a nuclear war could contribute significantly to global warming).

Virus? Hit or miss.

AI? We're already in the midst of global warming, and AI might choose to enhance the effects of climate change in order to get rid of us.

Other? I don't know what that'd be . . . aliens is just too far out there for me, in both concept and time. In other words, climate change will get us before aliens do.

OP hamstrung us with the 100-year restriction, which is why I went nuclear, because while unlikely, I think it's the only method that could, in theory, cause everyone to die in a century. Even losing the limitation, though, I don't see climate change as an extinction-level event. Maybe civilization-ending, but not extinction.

 

[Sope Creek]

OP hamstrung us with the 100-year restriction, which is why I went nuclear, because while unlikely, I think it's the only method that could, in theory, cause everyone to die in a century. Even losing the limitation, though, I don't see climate change as an extinction-level event. Maybe civilization-ending, but not extinction.

So do you see the civilization-ending event forcing humans to evolve out of the civilization-dependency we now have?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So do you see the civilization-ending event forcing humans to evolve out of the civilization-dependency we now have?

Beats me. Evolution is hard to predict. But civilization was a pretty successful development.

 

[railsplitter67]

It's unlikely a virus could wipe us out, because the more lethal the virus, the more likely it will burn out by killing too many people too fast and running out of hosts. A really bad, easy-to-transmit, very lethal virus is more likely to result in a population bottleneck than an extinction. Plus, almost certainly some humans will find themselves immune.

One exception could be an immunodeficiency virus, especially one with a long latency period. Something like an airborne HIV could probably kill the entire species. But even then, there might be hope that small pockets of people - say on Sentinel Island or deep in the Amazon - might avoid infection and be the seeds of a new spread of the species once everyone - and the virus - is gone.

To really kill the species, you need 100% lethality delivered in a method that will still reach even the most remote human outposts.

The true virus is liberalism

 

[Sope Creek]

The true virus is liberalism

You're a one trick pony, Mr. JBS.

 

[Sope Creek]

The true virus is liberalism

Johnny (Birch) one-note.

Whatever your other faults may or may not be, you, sir, are boring.

 

[railsplitter67]

Johnny (Birch) one-note.

Whatever your other faults may or may not be, you, sir, are boring.

You really need to look at your own postings and contemplate yourself like the other one I just responded to

 

[Sope Creek]

You really need to look at your own postings and contemplate yourself like the other one I just responded to

Boring . . . .

 

[railsplitter67]

Boring . . . .

Dumb

 

[Sope Creek]

Dumb

Boring . . . .

 

[VanPastorMan]

I really have only watched the original which is a favorite on my tv show list but for me the new spinoffs only reason would be if they had more of 7 of 9 in better lighting. I watched the original in syndication and the local PBS had them on Sunday midmorning with no commercials. Some were horrible, some really good but it was totally different from what snippets Ive seen of the new ones or even the movies in my opinion.

I was too young to remember Star Trek when it was on television originally. It was syndication which brought me in. When we first got Netflixx because my son shared his service with us I watched every series.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I was too young to remember Star Trek when it was on television originally. It was syndication which brought me in. When we first got Netflixx because my son shared his service with us I watched every series.

Don't let them get you down, Van. Just because Roddenberry was anti-religion doesn't mean you can't like the shows.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Don't let them get you down, Van. Just because Roddenberry was anti-religion doesn't mean you can't like the shows.

great point. Now of course Gene and I would disagree on some issues. But he sure did in his own mind come up with a world that has spawned many tv shows and movies.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

great point. Now of course Gene and I would disagree on some issues. But he sure did in his own mind come up with a world that has spawned many tv shows and movies.

I think you'd disagree on just about all the issues. But art is art. Tolkien was a devout Catholic. Lewis was a devout Anglican. They were still great friends, and I still love both their work.

 

[NPT]

This is it.....

An Influencer-Built "AI Girlfriend" Has Apparently Gone "Rogue"

An "AI girlfriend" chatbot has apparently started doing stuff it's not supposed to — stop us if you've heard this one before.

futurism.com

 

[VanPastorMan]

This is it.....

An Influencer-Built "AI Girlfriend" Has Apparently Gone "Rogue"

An "AI girlfriend" chatbot has apparently started doing stuff it's not supposed to — stop us if you've heard this one before.

futurism.com

You know there is some loser out there who will read this and then the AI girl will turn him down still. lol This would be a good horror film. Not only does she go rogue sexually but if she is unsatisfied she gets homicidal.