At the end of the day, that's exactly what a treatment for aging is: a cure for death. And if you view death as simply the cessation of the body's systems, there's no conceptual reason why you shouldn't be able to restart those systems or prevent them from crashing in the first place, given the right tools and technology.
The question is, should we be doing this? My take on it is, yes, yes we should. We should be doing everything we can to extend, as long as possible, every human life currently in existence. If it turns out that we've opened a Pandora's box in doing so, then we'll find further solutions to those additional problems. Either by colonizing space (if only near space, like Lagrange points and the moon), or by adjusting our society to accept death as a useful function of life. No matter what happens, though, it'll help humans evolve, culturally if not genetically.
My Dad is 64, and I distinctly remember him saying "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot Over" on more than one occasion when I was a kid back in the 70s and 80s, when we had to use dinosaurs to move floppy disks around. So this guy had no excuse not to be hip to kids' jive talk.
Excellent point, and I wasn't saying we shouldn't worry about it. It's just important to be clear on what the facts are. Arguing "They're coming for you now", when they're not, just sounds like hysteria and can be dismissed. Arguing "This is a slippery slope that can lead to them coming for you" is a more accurate, and potentially effective, argument.
No, but if they followed the example of the IRA/Sinn Fein, they might have been able to use force of arms to twist us into a political compromise. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan ignored the political process for too long to actually achieve anything meaningful for their side, I dare say an insurgency against tyranny in this country might learn from that mistake.
Breyer's argument makes sense, but there are already a number of cases that have left it up to the majority in society to decide if something is fitting or not. Like the decency test of "societal standards". Like it or not, but in our society, societal norms are usually the prevailing standard for whether something is acceptable, and therefore should be legal, or not.
Nothing topsy turvy about it: the liberal wing voted in favor of the state, the conservative wing voted in favor of property rights. That's pretty consistent with their other votes.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. At least an armed populace has a chance to say "No", and can't just be led willingly to the slaughter.
Besides, you wouldn't have to defeat the army, you'd just have to raise the stakes enough that the politicians in charge would think twice before trying something.
Warrantless wiretaps violate the 4th Amendment, not the 1st.
Shipping people off to Gitmo or some other godforsaken place is not (yet) something that citizens have to worry about. But the way things are going, it's only a matter of time, I suppose.
An old joke from my Navy days might help illustrate what you're talking about:
One day, a CAPT was walking across a parade ground, when he noticed that a flag had wrapped itself around a flagpole. Spotting a nearby LCDR, he called out, "Commander! Get that flag fixed!"
"Aye, aye, sir!" replied the LCDR. Looking at hte flag, he couldn't figure out to accomplish the task. Spotting a nearby ENS, he called out, "Ensign! Get that flag fixed!"
"Aye, aye, sir!" replied the ENS. Likewise, when he looked at the pole he could no way to safely climb up and fix the flag. Spotting a nearby Chief, he called out "Chief, I need your help getting that flag fixed."
The salty Chief looked up at the flag, saw the problem, and told a nearby Seaman to get a ladder, climb up and fix the flag.
Later, the original CAPT saw the flag flying proudly once again. When he ran into the LCDR in the officer's club that night, he said "Thanks for getting that flag problem fixed, Commander. I knew I could count on you."
I tried my own Google search just now, and turned up less than 500 hits. (You must've not enclosed your search in quotes.)
The first hit is a press release from Obama's office, stating that President Bush signed the law into effect. So one of the three bills you listed made it out of committee, passed a floor vote, and was actually signed into existence. I stand by my original comment: that's some leadership there, Lou.
* only a small subset of the people were eligible to vote. * those people who were eligible had a strong religious belief in their city-state and system of government.
That would be awesome! I'd love to see how this country would look after 20 years of having random people, the kind that can't get out of jury duty, picked to serve in the Congress. You think pork barrel spending and cronyism are bad now, wait until the congresscritters don't have to worry about whether they'll be reelected or not. Talk about drunken sailors in a whorehouse!
* Global Poverty Act (S.2433)
Status: Scheduled for Debate
* Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 230)
Was a cosponsor, not author.
Status: Introduced
* Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation
Not sure what this one even is. A search on GovTrack.us turned up no hits.
So of the three bills mentioned, one might not exist, he only wrote one of the others, and neither of them have passed. That's some fine leadership there, Lou.
Good point. Perfect example: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a budget of billions of dollars, easily exceeding the budget of many small countries. FTFY.
Slashdot Mirror
At the end of the day, that's exactly what a treatment for aging is: a cure for death. And if you view death as simply the cessation of the body's systems, there's no conceptual reason why you shouldn't be able to restart those systems or prevent them from crashing in the first place, given the right tools and technology.
The question is, should we be doing this? My take on it is, yes, yes we should. We should be doing everything we can to extend, as long as possible, every human life currently in existence. If it turns out that we've opened a Pandora's box in doing so, then we'll find further solutions to those additional problems. Either by colonizing space (if only near space, like Lagrange points and the moon), or by adjusting our society to accept death as a useful function of life. No matter what happens, though, it'll help humans evolve, culturally if not genetically.
Now...which politician will speak out in favor of wiping out aging?
Dunno, same one who'll speak out in favor of PANCAKES?
I want: YHBT-8P
In Texas the "Dipshit Moron Vegetable" doesn't do much. The "Die Please, Stupid" controls things like license issuance.
FTFY.
My Dad is 64, and I distinctly remember him saying "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot Over" on more than one occasion when I was a kid back in the 70s and 80s, when we had to use dinosaurs to move floppy disks around. So this guy had no excuse not to be hip to kids' jive talk.
So, in other words, this is non-news.
That explains why it's in Idle and not YRO.
idle.slashdot.org: Because the
Excellent point, and I wasn't saying we shouldn't worry about it. It's just important to be clear on what the facts are. Arguing "They're coming for you now", when they're not, just sounds like hysteria and can be dismissed. Arguing "This is a slippery slope that can lead to them coming for you" is a more accurate, and potentially effective, argument.
No, but if they followed the example of the IRA/Sinn Fein, they might have been able to use force of arms to twist us into a political compromise. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan ignored the political process for too long to actually achieve anything meaningful for their side, I dare say an insurgency against tyranny in this country might learn from that mistake.
Breyer's argument makes sense, but there are already a number of cases that have left it up to the majority in society to decide if something is fitting or not. Like the decency test of "societal standards". Like it or not, but in our society, societal norms are usually the prevailing standard for whether something is acceptable, and therefore should be legal, or not.
Nothing topsy turvy about it: the liberal wing voted in favor of the state, the conservative wing voted in favor of property rights. That's pretty consistent with their other votes.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. At least an armed populace has a chance to say "No", and can't just be led willingly to the slaughter.
Besides, you wouldn't have to defeat the army, you'd just have to raise the stakes enough that the politicians in charge would think twice before trying something.
Two nitpicks:
Warrantless wiretaps violate the 4th Amendment, not the 1st.
Shipping people off to Gitmo or some other godforsaken place is not (yet) something that citizens have to worry about. But the way things are going, it's only a matter of time, I suppose.
That's a good point, and one I'd not heard before. It also helps explain the rash of anti-eminent domain laws that were passed in the wake of Kelo.
To be fair, they both hate the 10th amendment. So at least they can agree on that.
An old joke from my Navy days might help illustrate what you're talking about:
One day, a CAPT was walking across a parade ground, when he noticed that a flag had wrapped itself around a flagpole. Spotting a nearby LCDR, he called out, "Commander! Get that flag fixed!"
"Aye, aye, sir!" replied the LCDR. Looking at hte flag, he couldn't figure out to accomplish the task. Spotting a nearby ENS, he called out, "Ensign! Get that flag fixed!"
"Aye, aye, sir!" replied the ENS. Likewise, when he looked at the pole he could no way to safely climb up and fix the flag. Spotting a nearby Chief, he called out "Chief, I need your help getting that flag fixed."
The salty Chief looked up at the flag, saw the problem, and told a nearby Seaman to get a ladder, climb up and fix the flag.
Later, the original CAPT saw the flag flying proudly once again. When he ran into the LCDR in the officer's club that night, he said "Thanks for getting that flag problem fixed, Commander. I knew I could count on you."
Why not? It would be the exact opposite of what we have now, maybe it would work out better.
I tried my own Google search just now, and turned up less than 500 hits. (You must've not enclosed your search in quotes.)
The first hit is a press release from Obama's office, stating that President Bush signed the law into effect. So one of the three bills you listed made it out of committee, passed a floor vote, and was actually signed into existence. I stand by my original comment: that's some leadership there, Lou.
It worked in Athens because:
* only a small subset of the people were eligible to vote.
* those people who were eligible had a strong religious belief in their city-state and system of government.
We have neither of those conditions.
You should read the 10th Amendment sometime, the one everyone always forgets.
Right, because you have 4th Amendment protections against search-and-seizure at the border, too.
Better to hide the encrypted section, a la TrueCrypt. What they don't know, can't hurt you.
That would be awesome! I'd love to see how this country would look after 20 years of having random people, the kind that can't get out of jury duty, picked to serve in the Congress. You think pork barrel spending and cronyism are bad now, wait until the congresscritters don't have to worry about whether they'll be reelected or not. Talk about drunken sailors in a whorehouse!
Status: Scheduled for Debate
* Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (S. 230)
Was a cosponsor, not author.
Status: Introduced
* Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation
Not sure what this one even is. A search on GovTrack.us turned up no hits.
So of the three bills mentioned, one might not exist, he only wrote one of the others, and neither of them have passed. That's some fine leadership there, Lou.