Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5537|eXtreme to the maX
More likely to serve the CCP, next step is cloned humans for organ harvest.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6203|USA

It's probably going to be quicker, easier, and cheaper to just grow an organ you need than an entire human containing organs you don't.

Bring on the designer organs. I look forward to people not having to be on a waiting list, family not having to petition strangers for a kidney for their daughter.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6203|USA

US political trivia:
Political references

U.S. Senator Rand Paul used near-verbatim portions of the plot summary from the English Wikipedia entry on Gattaca in a speech at Liberty University on October 28, 2013 in support of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's campaign for Governor of Virginia. Paul accused pro-choice politicians of advocating eugenics in a manner similar to the events in Gattaca.[34][35]
From Gattaca's entry.

lmao
uziq
Member
+476|2883

Dilbert_X wrote:

More likely to serve the CCP, next step is cloned humans for organ harvest.
i saw that movie. one of ewan macgregor’s worst.

the chinese have been taking organs from prisoners and blacklisted political/religious organisations for years. look up the falun gong.

i’m not against stem cell research. huge and promising area. it’s the heady rhetoric and triumphalism behind ‘defeating ageing’ that bothers me. as a species we should be asking questions about how to make life more meaningful, how we can better organise societies and our lives to enjoy a high quality of life, rather than trying to brute force our way through nature’s limits.

‘let’s defeat ageing! we can do away with retirement and be able bodied until we are 100!’. errr i’d rather talk about a 3 day work week, lowering inequality, and expanding categories of human leisure if that’s alright with you. i don’t want to live forever especially if it means enabling more fucking ‘productivity’. the earth as a biosphere needs a whole lot less ‘productivity’.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5537|eXtreme to the maX
As somebody said: Most people don't know what to do with a wet sunday afternoon, what will they do with eternal life?

Never Let Me Go is a better film, I like Carey Mulligan better than Scarlett Johanssen.

What the earth really needs is fewer people, that would solve all the problems.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2883
it's quite mad that 'the island' possibly pre-empted a nobel prize winning literature laureate. i'm pretty sure it came out the same year as never let me go, so i imagine it must have been in pre-production and writing phase for many years before.
Larssen
Member
+94|1318

uziq wrote:

‘let’s defeat ageing! we can do away with retirement and be able bodied until we are 100!’. errr i’d rather talk about a 3 day work week, lowering inequality, and expanding categories of human leisure if that’s alright with you. i don’t want to live forever especially if it means enabling more fucking ‘productivity’. the earth as a biosphere needs a whole lot less ‘productivity’.
That 3 day work week is a whole lot closer if you don't need to organise social security payments to a third of the population.
Larssen
Member
+94|1318

Dilbert_X wrote:

What the earth really needs is fewer people, that would solve all the problems.
It's amazing how you manage to wiggle this 'philosophy' into everything. Birth rates decline as welfare increases.
uziq
Member
+476|2883

Larssen wrote:

uziq wrote:

‘let’s defeat ageing! we can do away with retirement and be able bodied until we are 100!’. errr i’d rather talk about a 3 day work week, lowering inequality, and expanding categories of human leisure if that’s alright with you. i don’t want to live forever especially if it means enabling more fucking ‘productivity’. the earth as a biosphere needs a whole lot less ‘productivity’.
That 3 day work week is a whole lot closer if you don't need to organise social security payments to a third of the population.
this is really spurious logic. the idea that de-ageing technology is going to make us 'lifelong productive' is retarded.

why the fuck would anyone want to live for 130 years and work until death? retirement for most people is something to look forward to, not defer.

and you're being very optimistic and glossing over the vast canyon of understanding we have for brain regeneration. you can improve reaction times and mental acuity by dosing someone on amphetamines, larssen: doesn't mean you're regrowing neurons. it is currently impossible. about the best we can hope for is increased plasticity and the ability to do 'more with less' as cognitive decline and cell die-off proceeds.

the whole techno-futurist thing in general is icky and very occasionally cringe to me. i don't see nature's constraints or limits as a 'problem' to be overcome or 'transcended' into some 'singularity', thanks. i'm too broadly humanist to care for all of this cybernetic/gene-enhanced/post-human futurity stuff that nerds get erections over. that future sounds inhuman and dead. increased life spans for longer periods of working life ... no fucking thank you. this is straight-up capitalist dystopia shit.

and, let's be real, like with all cutting-edge tech and medical breakthroughs, this stuff is highly stratified in how its distributed in society. what will more likely happen is that a class of elite rich folk get access to 'extend' their lifespans whilst the rest of the people have nothing to look forward to except more endless drudgery in service of letting these self-elected eloi live forever. hard pass for me, i'm afraid. i'd rather talk about reforming systems of work here and now in the present, so that we can get more out of life in the already-long 75 or 100 years expected.

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-16 04:10:10)

Larssen
Member
+94|1318
We've been treating nature's contraints or limits as problems to be overcome for milennia, in every conceivable dimension. The line you're drawing is arbitrary. I have no qualms whatsoever with the idea that we might be able to keep people in good health mentally and physically for as long as they're alive. That would truly enhance quality of life.

I've already stated that brain regeneration will probably take the longest of all, but the question is whether or not it's impossible. Twenty years ago thinking about it would've been a dead-end, though now we're in the realm of denoting it conceivable. Great news I say. Could take another 50 years. Could take 100. We'll see and I'll be happy to support research into this area.

uziq wrote:

and, let's be real, like with all cutting-edge tech and medical breakthroughs, this stuff is highly stratified in how its distributed in society. what will more likely happen is that a class of elite rich folk get access to 'extend' their lifespans whilst the rest of the people have nothing to look forward to except more endless drudgery in service of letting these self-elected eloi live forever. hard pass for me, i'm afraid. i'd rather talk about reforming systems of work here and now in the present, so that we can get more out of life in the already-long 75 or 100 years expected.
I really wonder if that would be true. Ultimately it would entail solving problems before they occur, rendering many ad-hoc medical treatments unnecessary. If we refocus our attention to preventative therapies I'm sure accessibility can be guaranteed for everyone in a functional welfare state, if only thanks to the cost saved.

Last edited by Larssen (2022-01-16 04:19:51)

uziq
Member
+476|2883
it's not arbitrary at all. there is a 'hard limit' to our lifespans, it's hard-coded into our DNA and our very biological processes. wanting to treat avoidable illnesses or ameliorate suffering is VERY conceptually different to wanting to defeat ageing. apoptosis in the individual being is about as fundamental as homeostasis. death IS essential for life and for the continuation of the species. wanting to 'defeat time' is VERY different from wanting to cure smallpox.
uziq
Member
+476|2883
I really wonder if that would be true. Ultimately it would entail solving problems before they occur, rendering many ad-hoc medical treatments unnecessary. If we refocus our attention to preventative therapies I'm sure accessibility can be guaranteed for everyone in a functional welfare state, if only thanks to the cost saved.
which is precisely why i said we should look to address the pre-emptive causes of alzheimer's and dementia, or other neurodegenerative diseases.

for instance, last week a major US study on armed services personnel, over a vast and longitudinal data set, revealed that almost every person to develop MS had previously contracted monovirus (i.e. glandular fever). it's extremely likely therefore that mono virus remaining latent in the body for the individual lifespan is the cause of a whole host of neurodegenerative disorders. solution: invent a vaccine for mono.

much better proposal than 'let's stop ageing!'

again, much of this can be addressed by reforming our own present circumstances and lifestyles. alzheimer's is an illness of ageing, western populations. it is as much to do with our diets, with the insane amounts of particulates and toxins in the air we breathe, etc, as anything else. how about we improve the quality of life and the functioning of our societies before we set-out to become Immortals?

most technological breakthroughs bring a bunch of complications and ramifications as well as benefits; they incur unanticipated debts and prices, be there societal/social, environmental, etc. i'd rather not go down the twisting path of having 130 year olds in society whilst we can barely maintain the demographic pyramid at present.
Larssen
Member
+94|1318
Well then I'd ask what that hard limit is. Yes it's hard-coded in the sense that your cells just stop functioning in a healthy way. Your body starts failing, people die from heart disease, alzheimer, cancer, a stroke, a severely weakened immune systems etc. But we've already taken to treating all of this long ago. Lifespans have increased dramatically precisely because people have become much better at treating, preventing or postponing the onset of these causes. Every other day another person turns 100 years old. We've demonstrably already focused on defeating time in a sense, mostly because we've designated many age-correlated degredations as treatable diseases.

As a result we're in a state where almost everyone in a developed country is guaranteed a very long life which only ends when these aging processes stack upon eachother to a point where treatment is no longer fruitful and unlikely to succeed. We're already pushing the biological limit. In that reality life is severely diminished because of other age-related issues that we consider natural: i.e. bone, muscle, skin & brain atrophy (although they correlate directly to the aformentioned causes/illnesses). I do not see some higher overriding logic in treating these aspects of your body/genetics as biologically different and untouchable.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6203|USA

One of the bits of rhetoric against aging people is they do whatever they want because they won't be around for when the next several generations reap the consequences. But what if they could be?

Talk of defeating "aging," as the wide brush that is, isn't going to go away. We can probably afford to talk about that at the same time as improving society ever towards post-scarcity and positive work/life balance for all.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5537|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

What the earth really needs is fewer people, that would solve all the problems.
It's amazing how you manage to wiggle this 'philosophy' into everything. Birth rates decline as welfare increases.
Not fast enough.

Just think - one generation of one child per family would deliver all the CO2 cuts we need, probably more if you factor in that no new homes would need to be built for two generations.

Whereas a 10% increase in life expectancy does lead to a 10% increase in emissions, probably more as those are the years people spend on leisure travel.

Two or three generations of one child policy and everyone could live sustainably indefinitely, there'd be no need for wars etc.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2883
one child policies are not simple and frictionless things. there have been many disastrous knock-on effects in china.

sky-high abortions, illegal as well as legal, in order to have a 'preferred' son being one of them. we still live in societies where it is much wiser to have a son if you in any way want to secure a 'good' life or 'get ahead'. that doesn't just go for traditional or hierarchical societies, either: life-time earnings and social mobility are markedly higher even in the 'equal' west.

2 or 3 generations of selective overproduction of males would make for very interesting dating dynamics in 2120. is this just your way of getting revenge and making future men feel as cucked as you are?

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-16 15:51:42)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5537|eXtreme to the maX
Stadium death-matches, we can have mass stadium death-matches for entertainment, to cull the unwanted males and improve the gene pool at the same time.

The alternative is to allow ever-rising population and either ever-rising emissions or ever-falling standard of living - either of which will themselves be disastrous.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6203|USA

Very Hunger Games. Lots of big talk of survival of the fittest or whatever on the internet. I guess you'd be first in line for participation in the deathmatches. Mad Max is like one of the worst possible outcomes apart from outright extinction but there's still people fantasizing about all that along with zombies. I don't get it.
uziq
Member
+476|2883
dilbert is a reproductively unsuccessful male who has some fanciful ideas about 'improving the gene pool'. i guess you can make your own inferences.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6203|USA

The reason why Project Zomboid is so successful at telling these stories is because it isn't a juvenile power trip. You eke out a meagre existence on the dwindling chaff of your newly dead civilization, forced into a nomadic lifestyle between camps as the horde circulates around the map. Survival needs are an ever more pressing concern than the zombies. Mostly, you're going to die. Probably cold, tired, depressed, in pain. And then you become a zombie. It's a bad dream with retro graphics. Arguably worst of all, it's completely fair about it.

You don't come out of it thinking "man, this lifestyle would be so cool."
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5537|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Very Hunger Games. Lots of big talk of survival of the fittest or whatever on the internet. I guess you'd be first in line for participation in the deathmatches. Mad Max is like one of the worst possible outcomes apart from outright extinction but there's still people fantasizing about all that along with zombies. I don't get it.
OK whats your solution

Uziq's is do nothing and wait for science nerds to offset all his coal burning with a technological solution

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-01-17 04:38:43)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2883
once again, i don't burn any great significant amount of coal. i am skimming very lightly along a coal-consuming society for 2 years, living a very modest lifestyle with a very modest carbon footprint (especially compared to the average korean citizen/family), and i have spent my entire life in a country with a MUCH lower co2/capita emissions profile than YOUR lifestyle in australia.

lmao. i love how retarded you are. 'uzique has spent 11 months in korea so he is now the main contributor to the climate crisis'.

meanwhile over the last 20-30 years you've been in australia (17.10 tonnes per capita) and i've been in the UK (5.5 tonnes per capita). you've been driving a car everyday and i've been walking or taking the train. let's think about the long-term taking that co2/capita fiducial, shall we?

do a research n00b

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-17 05:24:06)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6203|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Very Hunger Games. Lots of big talk of survival of the fittest or whatever on the internet. I guess you'd be first in line for participation in the deathmatches. Mad Max is like one of the worst possible outcomes apart from outright extinction but there's still people fantasizing about all that along with zombies. I don't get it.
OK whats your solution

Uziq's is do nothing and wait for science nerds to offset all his coal burning with a technological solution
I'm more interested in your bizarre solution to adopt Chinese policy and then manage the male chaff with literal dystopian cage fights. I can't even tell if you're being serious. I would think as an engineer that you would at least come up with something like making human batteries efficient so we can have a functioning Matrix.

Lots of people from many fields working on problems.
Dilbert: OK whats your solution.

Let me just fire up my omniscience.

Dilbert: I know, cage fights!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5537|eXtreme to the maX
Humans as batteries would never work, maybe as organic bit-coin mining machines but then bitcoins are stupid.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2883
on anything outside of his very narrow specialism, i actually rate jay a more intelligent being than dilbert. at least jay tries to read widely and acquire more knowledge, no matter how badly he hacks it and stumbles on execution when applying those ideas independently.

dilbert rants and applies his precepts/presentiments/prejudices to everything. anything that doesn't fit must be wrong. it's really a form of death-in-life.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard