Most people can't even stay between two lines on the freeway without almost killing each other
At the beginning it will he a disaster. Yes. But it is a great cleanup of society from dumbfucks. Today, dumbfucks kill much more people just staying alive. Flying cars will guarantee dumbfucks will die quickly.
Those who are ready to exchange some freedom for safety does not deserve nor freedom nor safety.
If my roof have to suffer for extermination of dumbfuck, then, so be it.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
This thought somehow applied only to technologies that gives more independence to the people, but never applied to all that shit elites push.
How is that?
Why flying cars "shouldn't" but inbreed arrogant and ignorant aristocracy "should"? That aristocracy is much more harmful for humanity than flying cars. But somehow I never heard that anybody say "We can allow aristocracy to exist and rule, but shouldn't"
There are ton of things we "can", but "shouldn't". And all of them, suddenly, one way or another would have been made people more independent and humanity in general smarter and cleaner. The things we "should", again, suddenly, only benefits elites and make humanity dumber, encouraging grow of dumbfucks percentage.
Your argument is valid but you should apply it to all things, including ones that "sholdn't" but "is". Then, may be you will find out that flying cars are not in that list. Because humanity have no dumbfucks, since things that "is", that create dumbfucks become "isn't".
Your approach is like prohibiting kitchen knives, guns and chainsaws, because dumbfucks use them for doing shit. Does knives, guns and chainsaws "shouldn't"t because of dumbfucks? Obviously not. How flying cars different?
Getting rid of dumbfucks is the solution, not "shouldn't"ing of flying cars, RITEGs, well, whole science and tech branches that could rise humanity to the next level.
At the beginning it will he a disaster. Yes. But it is a great cleanup of society from dumbfucks. Today, dumbfucks kill much more people just staying alive. Flying cars will guarantee dumbfucks will die quickly.
Those who are ready to exchange some freedom for safety does not deserve nor freedom nor safety.
If my roof have to suffer for extermination of dumbfuck, then, so be it.
This thought somehow applied only to technologies that gives more independence to the people, but never applied to all that shit elites push.
How is that?
Why flying cars "shouldn't" but inbreed arrogant and ignorant aristocracy "should"? That aristocracy is much more harmful for humanity than flying cars. But somehow I never heard that anybody say "We can allow aristocracy to exist and rule, but shouldn't"
There are ton of things we "can", but "shouldn't". And all of them, suddenly, one way or another would have been made people more independent and humanity in general smarter and cleaner. The things we "should", again, suddenly, only benefits elites and make humanity dumber, encouraging grow of dumbfucks percentage.
Your argument is valid but you should apply it to all things, including ones that "sholdn't" but "is". Then, may be you will find out that flying cars are not in that list. Because humanity have no dumbfucks, since things that "is", that create dumbfucks become "isn't".
Your approach is like prohibiting kitchen knives, guns and chainsaws, because dumbfucks use them for doing shit. Does knives, guns and chainsaws "shouldn't"t because of dumbfucks? Obviously not. How flying cars different?
Getting rid of dumbfucks is the solution, not "shouldn't"ing of flying cars, RITEGs, well, whole science and tech branches that could rise humanity to the next level.