It will be very nice to have a comprehensive list of possible so called "disruptive inventions" or "closing inventions" i.e. such inventions that destroys industries and can do a lot of harm to corporations or states.
as kickstart, order means nothing:
- antigravity
- neutrino beam communications
- force shield
- electricity accumulator with decent power density (orders of magnitude larger than current lithium crap) and reliability
- FTL travel
- high-efficiency fuel powered electricity generator without moving parts
- atomic level 3D printer/copier
- inertial mass control
- simple consumer-grade fuel converter (organic compounds to gas/diesel)
- plants growth speed accelerator
- useable way of making building materials (blocks/bricks) from any soil. ....
Please continue.
Historically, "disruptive" inventions take years to come to fruition. Effective lightbulbs, steam engines, even smartphones, weren't disruptive until people looked backed some years later and were like "huh, the telegraph really did make the world seem smaller."
Perhaps the atom bomb was the one one that was immediate.
Not every great invention was "disruptive" or "closing". In the past there was no such greedy corporations and control obsessed governments we have now. Inventions added to life, without noticeable "disruptions". Moreover, some "disruptive inventions" was not accepted by people and state had to force them, like happened with potato brought from America to Europe. Peasants just ignored that great vegetable that changed a lot of things and completely changed food market.
"Closing inventions" work quick and can do real harm, like happened with tape recording replaced with digital f.e. Whole industry was destroyed and corporations was forced to close whole enterprises with huge losses. Some switched to the new technologies, some survived, thanks to other products, but some failed.
Yea, kinda my point. For example, the digital camera was a great invention, and disruptive, but it was gradual. Kodak, the biggest film company in the world ceased to exist because they didn't adopt it. But it took year and years.
biological immortality
Aging is caused by so many factors, that it will be centuries before we can even approach this, provided other things don't get in the way.
Yes, but there is main cause of aging - telomeres contraction. I don't think it could not be resolved, so there is clearly a way to do something about it. If only biologists and medics really wanted to solve that problem instead of making money on useless drugs that bring trillions to BigPharma.
Why would they want you to live longer? They want you dead
This all is not about "them". It's about us.
While you continue to care what "they" want or don't want for us, you will never came anywhere.
Why do you care what they want or don't want for us? The question is what we want, not them. They are just a one of many problems that should be resolved, nothing more.
Fuck "them". Fuck them everywhere and anytime. It's the only real method of finding way out.
Continue to not pay attention to the weapons used against you, fall victim to them. You assumed I attached caring to ot rather than being aware of it.
What weapons? Exactly. Be more specific. You could speculate endlessly about some abstract unnamed weapons but you will never find a ways to circumvent or ignore them without switching to exact things.
Lack of concreteness is a cancer of conspiracy theorists and critical thinkers communities.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://archive.org/download/silent-weapons-for-quiet-wars_2
Cancer cells are effectively immortal, but they are usually killed off by your own immune system.
It's going to take untold billions and decades upon decades.
No, they are not. They just broken so divide uncontrolled. It's not Deadpool comics.
That billions now spent on total shit for decades.
I think you and I have a disagreement on what we mean by "immortal" with regard to cancer cells. Whatever.
As for billions to spend, I would say it's a question of priorities. Man would have a moon base now if America didn't spend so much on black people. That's the problem with tax dollars, they go to short term priorities.
Frankly, if we are ever to get effective anti-aging treatments, it will come about because irreligious assholes like these guys fund it: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/21/silicon-valleys-quest-to-live-forever-could-benefit-the-rest-of-us.html
I personally don't think that endless immortality have any sense, especially from religious side. I believe that humans are more than body, and body isn't what constitute human, at some point we have to move forward. However it could be useful to enhance the period of healthy life. Humans usually acquire wisdom when their bodies already weared, so a lot is lost. Bible mention that humans lived hundreds of years so this goal should be fine even from religious point of view.
Oh, it would be grand if we had more years with the health of a 20 or 30 year old body. In many way, we've got great advancements that make being in your 70s more like the 50s.
But death comes for us all, I agree. The people who lived a long time in the Old Testament weren't as corrupted, and God chose to lower lifespans at a point.
a) Cause implies motion...suggested facts tempt one to hold onto, while ignoring to be (life) moved (inception towards death).
b) Being implies in-between inception and death...few suggest age as an "indefinite period" to tempt many to reason against each other about the definition (definite; affixed) of age, which in return tempts them to ignore being within motion.
c) Age/aetas/aevum/aiw - "life force" implies force (motion) generating life (matter).
I think that's what the mRNA therapy was about. I believe they know how, but need to perfect the delivery platform. Doesn't do much good if the delivery platform can cause cancer and kill you in 5 years
I think you are right, and they also want to cure viruses, bioengineer things including people against their will, and ensure that a breaktrhrough in longevity can't work by creating genetic causes of early death in humans.
mRNA technology in a nutshell is not what could be a permanent solution. Basically, it is injecting messenger RNA to force body to produce one or another substance on its own. It does not fix real cause, it is just sophisticated way of regular treatment with medicines.
What is closer to real solution is retroviruses for example. We already have noticeable part of DNA brought with retroviruses in the past. And it is permanent (at least for a few generations). Unlike mRNA that just force cells to produce some substance, retrovirus install some part of its DNA into human genome, so changing us one way or another. Mostly it is just useless piece of code, but theoretically it could be some code that fix problem with telomeres.
Both are genetic therapy, but fundamentally different.
So, even if vaccinaors tried to resolve aging problem in such brutal and dangerous way, they choose a wrong tool.
And I definitely would not be enthusiastic if same bastards would had choose retrovirus or some other way. They know nearly nothing about how all that DNA thing work in living beings, and looks like they don't really want to. They are like arrogant and ignorant junior programmer students who wrote their first "Hello world" which is still buggy, but already rushing to rewrite OS kernel or some CAD software randomly changing strings of code without any understanding what the fuck they are doing in stupid hope that some random change will give them desired result.
Only within zoe (animation) can bio (life) be mortal...logic implies mortals fighting each other about what bio means, while ignoring what zoe does.
Wouldn't it become too boring after few hundreds of years?
Highlander, there can be only one!
:)
Really it always wondered me why exactly "there can be only one" in that franchise, except bringing conflict for entertainment. :)
If one were to be immortal; then why would one keep measuring time? Furthermore...what happens if a mortal resists keeping measure of time?
I love this list and would like to add that the most disruptive inventions typically come from something nobody even considered.
Like that a body cannot be nothing (no-body); that together (con) contradicts apart (side) or to be odd (choice) within even (balance)?
True. :)
But what if it is just because nobody tried to really consider?
I think sometimes people believe their idea is so simple that someone else is already working on it so they don't try. Isn't that what happened to Kari Mullis? But he tried and made the PCR
Meanwhile PCR could theoretically be kind of ancestor of molecular 3D printers/copiers. Encode necesary protein in short DNA, replicate as many as necessary with PCR, transcribe DNAs to RNAs, feed RNAs to ribosomes, get needed protein in quantities. Pretty logical start for developing real and normal, well established genetic technologies, starting from simpliest possible things - creating simple proteins with DNA "Hello world" programs. Only when this process will be perfected and fully studied, it will be time for the next steps.
Unfortunately, it was used in completely wrong way by greedy bastards. And same bastards play with living beings genetics without any understanding how it works and any prior learning curve.
These are not going to come to frutition.
The only innovations we have since 2012 are the likes of smartphone gacha games, downloadable content, AI generated art, AI generated music, censorship/curation algorithms and NFTs.
Instead of going to space we will roll over and die to genocidal dictatorships by 2030. Maybe if we didn't have secret societies controlling everything we do and think it is another story, but as long as you have those around these type of fantastic tech are not gonna happen, there are more mundane and cost effective ways to control entire populations.
That's why it is important to know what will possibly break that stupid path.
Technology can't be prohibited. Look what happened with mp3 or torrents. All corporations connected with entertainment industry spent enormous efforts to stop that, from stupid ads like "downloading mp3 you downloading communism" to legal punisment of those who was caught using that new tech. But nothing helped them. People clearly win.
DIS (divided against) RUPT (broken apart) IN (being within) VENT (emit outwards) ION (action)
Ignorance disrupts ones discernment about being emitted outwards (vent) within (in) action (ion) aka outwards emission (life) within action (inception towards death).
a) Compression disrupts potential. Potential implies emission outwards; which compression inwards contradicts.
b) List/lysten/lean - "to incline to one side; to please, desire, wish, like"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/list#etymonline_v_12303
Few suggest lists to tempt many to incline towards a side within a conflict of reason (pro vs contra).
Corp-orat-ion aka corpus-orate-action aka speaking death (suggested words) into life (perceivable sound).
To be implies corpse/cors - "body" within ion/action...others utilize oration to brand that body; to overload it with information; to tempt ones ignorance of being (life) moved (inception towards death).
Consenting to a suggestion by another harms one...resisting temptation heals one.
a) What's the meaning of nothing?
b) How does natural order affect the meaning of nothing?
c) Does "everything" implies order; chaos or both?
E-Cigarettes.
Big corporations can't monopolize it because it's cheap and accessible to make the liquid and the parts (which are also repairable).
As a result, the state has been killing off small businesses with new regulations every few years. The website I've been using for the past year will be shutting down their site soon and will only now begin to take orders over the phone. If not for the fact that they'll take orders over the phone, this would've been the fifth time I'd have to go looking for a new place to buy eliquid due to my go-to shop being forced to shut down.
There's been no known health issues after 20 years despite many e-cig users vaping far more than they smoked, but there has been massive propaganda campaigns to scare people into not using them.
Impossible.
Yes, this is probably the most realistic disruptive tech for the next 40 years.
Remove simple and it’s technically feasible.
Conservation of mass prevents this.
I mean… with enough compression anything can eventually become a brick.
Where’s “negligible senescence medical treatments”? Or do you not even think that’s possible whereas FTL is?
Of course. But too ineffective from time and output perspective on a personal scale to be useful. That is why it is in the list with "simple" word. :)
That is why I created this post. :)
I'm more engineer than biologist. So this bias. As far as I understand, senescence is a consequence of telomere shortening. Solve telomere shortening problem, and you will get it.
FTL is perfectly possible, there is no, and can't be any limitations, even today there is at least three mathematically correct theoretical ways of FTL travel. And one experimentally proven possibility of FTL signal transmission (see Günter Nimtz and those who replicated his experiment with even better results).
Can a few suggest many to believe in impossibility? Could mass consent to a suggestion be utilized by few as potential?
https://www.footpack.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/adidas-impossible-is-nothin.jpeg
a) Compression implies pressing together...what about impression (inception towards death) generating expression (life) by pressing apart?
b) Brick (suggested information) and mortar (consent) implies free-masonry...