Thread 16756902

what would humans need to do in order to achieve a true mastery of nature status? we going by kardeshev types or what

>>16756902 (OP)
imo, remove moralfaggot limits around science, just don't boast openly unly there's a good achievement
>no we can't clone
>no we can't genetically engineer humans
>no we can't create a global science society where every country funds it and it's un-restricted everything goes
obviously human tendency to warfaggotry doesn't help either

>>16756902 (OP)
Mastery of nature? Be more precise pls. It is a label, Wittgetstein taught us this

>>16756946
my mention of kardeshev is also me questioning what defines mastery of nature

>>16756947
Yeah fair enough. It even crossed my mind while posting, but I was more eager about wanting to flex by namedropping ol' Witty

Kardashev seems like a reasonable starting direction. I think it's the sort of thing where future humans will be impressed at how very close our general intuition was towards almost understanding something profound or investing & discovering new revolutionary tech
(pic mostly unrelated)

>>16756987
>pic
ultra cool

>>16756902 (OP)
odds are it's not possible, just like a dog is clever but can't understand nuclear physics, a human is clever but can't understand reality past a certain point, it's not a matter of education but of innate capacity