Support NeoGAF

[winjer]

I'm a bit surprised that nuclear weapons got so many votes.
Although they are the most terrifying weapon ever built by humankind they are also the main reason why we didn't have a WW3. Even when we had extreme psychopaths like Stalin in power.
Nothing like the fear of mutual assured destruction, to keep the peace between major powers.
Consider that WW1 and WW2 combined, had close to 100 million casualties. A WW3 in the 60s or 70s, between communist countries and capitalist countries, would easily surpass this number several times over.

 

[OZ9000]

I don't like religion in general however I think more kids need religion in their life. Or at least conservative values.

I have never seen such a steep decline in moral values and degenerative behaviour.

We celebrate prostitution, onlyfans, child gender transitioning, adultery, etc.

My vote would go to social media or nuclear weapons. Social media is psychologically damaging to the masses. Nuclear weapons however have severe physical and environmental consequences.

 

[farmerboy]

The mobile telephone. What a prick of a thing.

 

[DKehoe]

You do realise Resetera is a games forum of a few thousand people, and not representative of the secular people of the world in any way, shape or form, don’t you?

The obsession some people have with Resetera is so bizarre. It’s a small group of people and like you say not really indicative of the actual world at large. You can find people online saying all kinds of stuff. I don’t visit there but I’m also going to guess that the more out there opinions aren’t even held by the majority of people on there.

It’s been more than 5 years now. People need to drop the obsession and move on with their lives.

 

[Rickyiez]

Dating Apps

 

[Alx]

I voted cigarettes. Not to be edgy, but most other inventions have at least one practical benefit. While everybody's life would be unmistakenly better without cigarettes.

 

[CGNoire]

Social Media and its not even close.

 

[CGNoire]

Why is voting closed?

 

[Woggleman]

I agree with the person who said that nukes as terrible as they are most likely did prevent WW3. Even the most awful leaders don't want to end the world unless they are truly a suicidal maniac. If no nukes existed we probably would have had another world war.

Social media is just slowly rotting society and it allows extremists and people who would have otherwise been spread out to congregate and do some serious damage from sides of the divide. We used to be able to laugh and at and dismiss crazy people but now they link up on twitter and the world walks on eggshells around them.

 

[IDKFA]

the movable type printing press should be the winner...like most things the good comes with bad, the higher we reach the deeper we go
everything on that list is the direct result of the movable type printing press

That's interesting. I'd say the printing press was one of humanities best inventions.

It helped It helped improve literacy rates, spread ideas and was instrumental in pushing forward the Reformation in the 16th century.

Why is voting closed?

I have no idea. Maybe a mod could look into this as the 'close voting' option isn't selected.

 

[k_trout]

That's interesting. I'd say the printing press was one of humanities best inventions.

It helped It helped improve literacy rates, spread ideas and was instrumental in pushing forward the Reformation in the 16th century.

I agree, but because of the duality of our nature it is also one of the worst. We really are a wild crazy bunch lol

 

[OZ9000]

Secular Europe is getting along reasonably well. America is broken in its own special ways. But it's also a place of opportunity and creation.

Scotland would like to have a word with you.

 

[darrylgorn]

Nuclear weapons.

Even with the abrupt ending to WW2.

Picking anything else is silly.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Fake history.

Is there any other kind ? AFAIK we usually get only one side of the story and that's the story we managed to get our hands on.
History as "things we know that happened in the past" doesn't really exist until we have unfakeable evidence that caan't be tampered in any way.

Nukes.

After nukes we had the longest peace between major nations in recorded history, make of that what you will.
I think Nukes avoided us more wars than we would like to admit, the cold war being the prime example, it's cold for a reason.

People say religion but in the absence of it we are witnessing in realtime the result. US has trended more to secularism and all it's done is lead to more indulgence, and degeneracy. And look at the morals set by this new secular crowd for example on ree thier framework is built on hypocrisy, double standards and moral virtue signaling.

Religion is just the name people attach to our changing morals. It isn't immune to any of what you just said.
We had centuries of wars or religions built on hypocrisy, double standards and moral virtue signaling.
Why do you think millions of people immigrated to the United States ? More often than not it was to avoid persecution of one kind or another.

What religion brought was moral leadership under the form of the clergy, a type of leadership we are lacking today.
It doesn't need a religious character attach to it, look at MLK, Churchill, Mandela, FDR, Gandhi, where they first and foremost religious leaders ? I don't think so.
There is a lack of morals today because we don't have accountability, and you can't have one without the other.

 

[Trunx81]

Money.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Bit of a cop out answer, but surely capitalism.

It's at the root of so many of the world's problems.

Of course the obvious retort is that it's at the root of breakthroughs and positives too.

Ultimately though we're in a position where a few incredibly wealthy people could make dramatic and significant changes to improve the world but choose not to, to protect their wealth. On top of that, their enterprise is causing misery in various forms the world over.

So, I think the acquisition and protection of wealth, and the refinement of the methods to do so is our big problem.

In the short term, social media does, I agree, make everything more shit. Empowers terrible, harmful opinions and thought processes and fairly significantly drives the polarisation of opinion and "othering" of people.

I'm quite sure that the fallout from social media is immeasurable at the moment, but when it it's effects are more well understood, we'll find it caused great damage to our social cohesion, which caused a spiral of other negative effects.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Bit of a cop out answer, but surely capitalism.

It's at the root of so many of the world's problems.

Of course the obvious retort is that it's at the root of breakthroughs and positives too.

Ultimately though we're in a position where a few incredibly wealthy people could make dramatic and significant changes to improve the world but choose not to, to protect their wealth. On top of that, their enterprise is causing misery in various forms the world over.

So, I think the acquisition and protection of wealth, and the refinement of the methods to do so is our big problem.

In the short term, social media does, I agree, make everything more shit. Empowers terrible, harmful opinions and thought processes and fairly significantly drives the polarisation of opinion and "othering" of people.

I'm quite sure that the fallout from social media is immeasurable at the moment, but when it is, we'll find it caused great damage to our social cohesion.

Even if $1 trillion worth of stocks and cash were cashed out and send to people that's $125 per person (8 billion people). Even if that money was only sent to the poorest 4 billion people, that's $250 each.

That wont get far.

Also, a reason why prices have been extremely reasonable the past 20+ years (aside from covid inflation) is because the amount of money floating around is stable. So in most western countries, inflation was maybe 2%. You get price inflation when people are buying too much shit with too much money in their pockets. Or when there's a currency collapse, which is something stable countries with 2% wont run into.

All that extra couple hundred dollars would do is be a temporary fix buying shit before businesses jack up prices, then they will jack up prices nailing everyone.

 

[DKehoe]

I guess using asbestos as a building material is pretty bad.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Even if $1 trillion worth of stocks and cash were cashed out and send to people that's $125 per person (8 billion people). Even if that money was only sent to the poorest 4 billion people, that's $250 each.

That wont get far

I didn't say anything about distributing wealth to individuals.

 

[balls of snow]

Plastics will quietly be the worst disaster of them all. We have already filled our oceans with trillions of bits of plastic. The planet is now so polluted with plastic that cleaning it up will likely be impossible.

And plastics are made as a by product of...
Fossil fuels. The real killer.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I didn't say anything about distributing wealth to individuals.

Then what should rich people do with their extra money?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Plastics will quietly be the worst disaster of them all. We have already filled our oceans with trillions of bits of plastic. The planet is now so polluted with plastic that cleaning it up will likely be impossible.

If the world doesn't use plastic, what material(s) should they use?

For example, the laptop and mouse I'm using now has plastic buttons, the bezel is plastic, the power cable uses a plastic casing and the mouse looks like the entire shell is plastic.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Cigarettes because it is 100% bad. Religion and capitalism have the same flaws, human greed which isn’t an invention.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Then what should rich people do with their extra money?

They could fund things that would benefit the world, invest in clean energy rather than prolonging our dependency on fossil fuels because it turns a more immediate profit, perhaps.

I don't have a big list of things that would create a utopian society, but allowing a small number of people to control so much of the world's resources isn't working for most people.

 

[IDKFA]

Is there any other kind ? AFAIK we usually get only one side of the story and that's the story we managed to get our hands on.
History as "things we know that happened in the past" doesn't really exist until we have unfakeable evidence that caan't be tampered in any way.

I have a degree in history and I sort of understand where you're coming from. There are some events where the sources are slim and/or are clearly biased. However, this doesn't mean the events didn't happen as there is other evidence we can refer to, such as art or archeological evidence.

There are also many events where we have sources from different sides, complete with the other primary sources to back it up.

When we refer to fake history, we're talking about mild stuff like the claim Queen Charlotte was black, to the truly extreme of something like Holocaust denial. Fake history is making up events without any evidence at all.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

They could fund things that would benefit the world, invest in clean energy rather than prolonging our dependency on fossil fuels because it turns a more immediate profit, perhaps.

I don't have a big list of things that would create a utopian society, but allowing a small number of people to control so much of the world's resources isn't working for most people.

Fair point.

But a lot of rich people and banks with oodles of money tried that. The solar panel craze 10 years ago came and went and blew tons of money. Most of those companies made no money and many went broke. I know because one I tossed some money in one and it closed up shop. You never even hear about solar panels anymore. I think windfarms are the latest clean energy attempt which can be so bad California has brown outs.

I'd disagree on not working for people. There's poor people in the world like in every year, but it's never been better. Compare what we got now to even just 50 years ago. Even poor people can somehow have a cellphone, while in the 1970s not everyone could even afford a calculator because when they launched they were over $100.

Dont worry what other people have, just be content what you have.

I think a lot of the uproar is people seeing what other people have and complaining. And it's expected rich people float the boat and do everything for society. Just because someone has a big bank account doesn't and shouldn't mean they got to be captain of the ship and steer the entire country. I bet most of them just want to be left alone. They go to work, make some cash and just want to come home and chill out and eat dinner like everyone else.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Bit of a cop out answer, but surely capitalism.

It's at the root of so many of the world's problems.

Of course the obvious retort is that it's at the root of breakthroughs and positives too.

Ultimately though we're in a position where a few incredibly wealthy people could make dramatic and significant changes to improve the world but choose not to, to protect their wealth. On top of that, their enterprise is causing misery in various forms the world over.

So, I think the acquisition and protection of wealth, and the refinement of the methods to do so is our big problem.

In the short term, social media does, I agree, make everything more shit. Empowers terrible, harmful opinions and thought processes and fairly significantly drives the polarisation of opinion and "othering" of people.

I'm quite sure that the fallout from social media is immeasurable at the moment, but when it it's effects are more well understood, we'll find it caused great damage to our social cohesion, which caused a spiral of other negative effects.

The correct retort would be capitalism didn't create concentration of power and wealth, if anything it contributed to the opposite.

The acquisition and protection of wealth, and the refinement of the methods to do so. Those are things as old as humanity itself, no economical/political system is gonna stop that, nor created it.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

I'll go with the religion talk, and it was invented so it fits.

 

[AJUMP23]

Facebook and Twitter and TikTok are making a mess of things. Most of the other stuff we have corrected. But people really lack critical thought now.

 

[John Bilbo]

Isms as in ideologies, especially communism and fascism.

Viewing the whole world through one limiting and unquestionable lense ends up in a catastrophe.

 

[Trogdor1123]

At this moment in time? Social media I’d say. It is destroying society from the inside out

 

[The Stig]

The inflatable dartboard

Srsly though. Social media or guns.

 

[LaughingStock]

Social media will destroy society.

 

[lachesis]

I'd say the "first lie". Someone in ancient days, must have come up with the first lie, for whatever reason.
Perhaps it's to lure another man to a danger so that he can have better chance with a hot cave girl, or it's to secure more food to him/herself etc.
I think all, including religion, politics etc - stems down from that very first lie.

But without it, we won't be here. So... that's that.

 

[ntropy]

Religion does not provide any kind of framework for truth. It provides a framework for belief. Two very different things. And science has been held back by religion down through the centuries, not helped by it. The renaissance didn't happen thanks to religion, in happened despite it.

where do you think science originated from?
do you think it was a secret cabal of atheists formulating scientific principles?
institutional religion has no bearing on the religious forefathers of science like Bacon, Newton, et al who saw in scientific truth the affirmation of their faith

 

[Lasha]

Bit of a cop out answer, but surely capitalism.

It's at the root of so many of the world's problems.

Of course the obvious retort is that it's at the root of breakthroughs and positives too.

Ultimately though we're in a position where a few incredibly wealthy people could make dramatic and significant changes to improve the world but choose not to, to protect their wealth. On top of that, their enterprise is causing misery in various forms the world over.

So, I think the acquisition and protection of wealth, and the refinement of the methods to do so is our big problem.

In the short term, social media does, I agree, make everything more shit. Empowers terrible, harmful opinions and thought processes and fairly significantly drives the polarisation of opinion and "othering" of people.

I'm quite sure that the fallout from social media is immeasurable at the moment, but when it it's effects are more well understood, we'll find it caused great damage to our social cohesion, which caused a spiral of other negative effects.

Capitalism isn't an invention though. It's a theory that's been proven through centuries of trade to be the most efficient way to distribute goods in a market. You should probably rail against mercantilism or Communisim if you want to be angry as bad theories because both led to immeasurable damage to society.

 

[bitbydeath]

Then what should rich people do with their extra money?

Not receive it honestly, doing so would bring the cost of living down for everyone.

 

[EviLore]

where do you think science originated from?

It was formalized in Ancient Greece by thinkers who rejected mythological explanations for the natural world.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I'd say the "first lie". Someone in ancient days, must have come up with the first lie, for whatever reason.
Perhaps it's to lure another man to a danger so that he can have better chance with a hot cave girl, or it's to secure more food to him/herself etc.
I think all, including religion, politics etc - stems down from that very first lie.

But without it, we won't be here. So... that's that.

Eve: "Does this fig leaf make me look fat?"

Adam: "Uh...no."

And thus the world's first lie was born.

 

[AJUMP23]

Man invented Murder that was a bad one.

 

[Rest]

Ctrl + F: Mr. Socko - no results


I am ashamed of you GAF.

 

[Rest]

 

[daveonezero]

petroleum plastic. Totally unnecessary and totally avoidable but now it’s trashed everything.

 

[FunkMiller]

where do you think science originated from?
do you think it was a secret cabal of atheists formulating scientific principles?
institutional religion has no bearing on the religious forefathers of science like Bacon, Newton, et al who saw in scientific truth the affirmation of their faith

Just because a scientist had religious faith, it doesn’t mean that the religious faith they had was instrumental in their scientific discoveries. Quite the opposite in fact. Go look up how many scientists were vilified, castigated and straight up murdered by the church. The condemnations, the Roman inquisition, the denunciation of Copernicus and Galileo… and let’s not even get started on the church’s attitude to evolutionary science.

Yes, the Catholic Church funded a great deal of scientific research (there were no other sources), but it also condemned many scientists when the work the came up with contradicted doctrine.

Just Because science flourished in a predominantly religious society, it doesn’t mean that the religion was responsible for it. There was simply no other choice. And the likes of Newton and Bacon would be stone cold atheists in modern society. The same way the vast majority of scientists working in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology are non religious these days.

Science has existed longer that the church. It will exist long after it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

where do you think science originated from?
do you think it was a secret cabal of atheists formulating scientific principles?
institutional religion has no bearing on the religious forefathers of science like Bacon, Newton, et al who saw in scientific truth the affirmation of their faith

Im no historian or anthropologist, but I think it originated simply from human curiosity, trying things to survive, and spreading the word and knowledge as soon as random caveman Bob was smart enough to teach this to his other cave people.

People associate science with modern day medicine and computers, but it can be as basic as a cave dude learning how to keep fires going by storing dry wood underneath a manmade structure like a prehistoric hut. And then at some point they learned how to make fire themselves by rubbing two sticks together. Or at some point someone figured out if you make a barbed j-shaped hook on a fishing rod it works great at hooking into fish jaws so they cant get out.

Science, research, academics etc.... all seem to come from people who are patient, analytical, and will try doing things over and over again. Some people have it, some dont. There's some people in my family tree who went the science route, then there's a few who didn't give a shit about all that study and book nerdiness and they worked at the post office for like 30 years.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's actually quite hard to think of any human invention that has been 100% bad, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - which should probably be the main criteria for deciding on what the worst invention ever was.

Of the list above, only cigarettes are 100% bad. Even leaded petrol served a purpose once upon a time. But even with cigarettes, I used to smoke, and very much enjoyed the dopamine hit caused by the nicotine. So, 100% bad?

Much harder question to answer than it appears, as almost everything invented has had a purpose at one point or another.

 

[ntropy]

Im no historian or anthropologist, but I think it originated simply from human curiosity, trying things to survive, and spreading the word and knowledge as soon as random caveman Bob was smart enough to teach this to his other cave people.

People associate science with modern day medicine and computers, but it can be as basic as a cave dude learning how to keep fires going by storing dry wood underneath a manmade structure like a prehistoric hut. And then at some point they learned how to make fire themselves by rubbing two sticks together. Or at some point someone figured out if you make a barbed j-shaped hook on a fishing rod it works great at hooking into fish jaws so they cant get out.

Science, research, academics etc.... all seem to come from people who are patient, analytical, and will try doing things over and over again. Some people have it, some dont. There's some people in my family tree who went the science route, then there's a few who didn't give a shit about all that study and book nerdiness and they worked at the post office for like 30 years.

yes, what you're describing are like the seeds of science embedded in early man.
so from these primitive observations inevitably led to metaphysical explanations that manifest differently in ancient cultures
but is it possible to skip this metaphysical step and arrive at a rough form of the scientific method directly?
the conceit of man to confidently explain his environment tells me no.

i always wondered -- did primordial humans create fire themselves or discover it? but i digress

Just because a scientist had religious faith, it doesn’t mean that the religious faith they had was instrumental in their scientific discoveries. Quite the opposite in fact. Go look up how many scientists were vilified, castigated and straight up murdered by the church. The condemnations, the Roman inquisition, the denunciation of Copernicus and Galileo… and let’s not even get started on the church’s attitude to evolutionary science.

Yes, the Catholic Church funded a great deal of scientific research (there were no other sources), but it also condemned many scientists when the work the came up with contradicted doctrine.

Just Because science flourished in a predominantly religious society, it doesn’t mean that the religion was responsible for it. There was simply no other choice. And the likes of Newton and Bacon would be stone cold atheists in modern society. The same way the vast majority of scientists working in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology are non religious these days.

Science has existed longer that the church. It will exist long after it.

i'm not saying religion is responsible, but it's inextricably tied with science despite all the brutal opposition that you alluded to

 

[Rest]

It's actually quite hard to think of any human invention that has been 100% bad, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - which should probably be the main criteria for deciding on what the worst invention ever was.

Of the list above, only cigarettes are 100% bad. Even leaded petrol served a purpose once upon a time. But even with cigarettes, I used to smoke, and very much enjoyed the dopamine hit caused by the nicotine. So, 100% bad?

Much harder question to answer than it appears, as almost everything invented has had a purpose at one point or another.

Cigarettes, much as I hate them, were important in the development of modern marketing and industrial automation.

Part One: How Cigarettes Invented Everything - Behind the Bastards | iHeart

<p>Robert is joined by James Stout to discuss the Tobacco Industry.</p> <p>(2 part series)</p> <p>FOOTNOTES:</p> <ol> <li><a href='https://daily.jstor.org/a-brief-history-of-tobacco-in-america/'...

www.iheart.com

 

[TransTrender]

I figured, at the end of the day, social media will do more damage to humanity and this planet than nuclear weapons and leaded fuel. Maybe plastics will be there if we find out they're making everyone stupid and sterile. The background radiation and poisoning the planet with lead are really bad, but social media will soon surpass this as Clown World augers humanity in to the ground.

 

[Nobody_Important]

People voting social media over nuclear weapons are being shortsighted and dumb. Yeah social media sucks, but it can be regulated and policed far easier than NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS that can destroy the human race.


Get some perspective people.