I was an over-priced consultant in the Y2K bug era and it was definitely a resounding success because nothing happened, due to the hard work of an assload of people,you insensitive clod!
Any government that would be stupid enough to do such a thing wouldn't last very long as it would soon descend into the mire of third-world existence and place itself at a technological disadvantage that would most certainly lead to its demise.
The fact that you and everyone else who joins in made your post on a computer through the internet shows implicit subscription to the philosophy of science. Name one technological invention or innovation that has come about through the application of theology or faith?
I think you've just solved the light speed problem. The solution is to just start at your departure point, and travel towards the departure point, utilizing the vacuum energy of the road to propel you backwards at exponentially-increasing speed until you arrive at your destination.
*runs off to patent this reverse-direction vacuum energy travel process*
No-one has been able to reproduce this event...yet.
Fixed that for you. Funny IDiots and their God of the Gaps. Before the Wright Brothers, it was absolutely impossible for man to fly too, because if he were meant to God would have given him wings right? Of course, what's hilarious (or sad, depending on your point of view) is that when someone actually does succeed in creating life from scratch, the religious idiots will actually use that as "proof" that life needs an intelligent designer since we humans had to do it for it to happen.
Easy: chemistry. Chemical properties determine what base pairs bond to others, and in the right environments, certain base pairs are more likely to bond than others. Atoms/molecules bond all the time into different chemicals, but some combinations have the special property that they encourage the creation of copies of themselves provides the right materials are available. Chemistry.
It is the height of selfishness and ludicrousness for some and not ALL to have life-extending capabilities.
No more than it is that some people have drive expensive cars and not everyone does. Just because something is not available to all RIGHT NOW doesn't mean it should be denied to all. That's how technology works: it starts out expensive and not working very well, then gets a little less expensive and works better, and continues on until it's almost free and ubiquitous.
We already have over 5 billion people on THIS planet, and probably 1/2 don't get the nutrition enjoyed and taken for granted by less than 1/4 of the human population.
There will probably always be haves and have-nots. The promises of nanotechnology/nanomanufacturing may solve this (or not). When we (as in mankind) have the ability to make anything we could want or need on demand, no one ever need be left wanting. That may be assuming a lot though.
Consider that embracing reincarnation is a way to begin to live life in a way that will earn you merits to a better, healthier, possibly wealthier future life.
A romantic notion, but not one grounded in reality.
Besides, WHO -- government, corporation, religious sect -- will decide who can extend his/her life? How much money one has? How influential or criminal one is? At what point is it a RIGHT for ALL to extend their life when debilitation makes its call? Imagine if the existing population gets the right by law, and reproduction continues?
This is a very good question, and the answer will probably be a combination of factors. Certainly it will start out being economically decided, but as technology brings the cost down to be generally available, certain regulations may have to be put in place, most likely to limit reproductive abilities.
And, if you live for a comparative 15 or even 45 lifetimes, what happens with the UNUSED body parts of say, 600 million people's spares? And what if some are wealthy enough to have multiple clones and not all the parts are used?
We throw away unused organic material all the time. When it becomes trivial to clone a heart from a standpoint of ability and materials, what would it matter if an extra one gets destroyed because it isn't needed? If you object on the grounds that you are assuming entire bodies would be cloned just to get at one part with the rest going to waste, I find that assumption unrealistic. We will be cloning parts, not people.
What if some of those clones gain sentience and are liberated? Would the source/host have the right to terminate that clone? Will the state or church mandate its destruction?
I'm sure eventually this will happen, but chances are there will be strict "6th Day" laws against it becoming commonplace or even legal at all. But if it does happen, a person is a person, even a cloned person, and should have all the rights and priviledges thereof as far as the state is concerned. Who cares what the church thinks? Prove I have a soul before you declare that a clone does not.
This isn't so much about "playing God" (I'm Buddhist, and I tend to feel we ALL are part of a fabric of causality and that we by definition are the fabric of "God", until proven otherwise), but it's about in THIS world denying quality of life for those souls and bodies already here and being ignored, to the greater harm of humanity as a whole. This generates bad Karma.
The onus is on you to prove God exists, not the other way around, anymore than it is up to you to prove that Thor doesn't exist. The argument about denying quality of life is a slippery slope. Curing cancer can be considered life extension, in fact, the whole of medical science can, t
Well for that matter, we don't quite know how to transport a brain from one body to another yet, but I imagine that by the time we figure that one out, we'll probably have figured the robot part out too.
Just one more freebee to add to the list of things you get for breaking our laws and coming to our country illegally. Add it right in behind free schooling, free healthcare, etc...
*sigh* Our tax dollars at work, going to provide lots of free shit for criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
That actually sounds more like a Dead man's switch than a time-bomb.
Any government that would be stupid enough to do such a thing wouldn't last very long as it would soon descend into the mire of third-world existence and place itself at a technological disadvantage that would most certainly lead to its demise. The fact that you and everyone else who joins in made your post on a computer through the internet shows implicit subscription to the philosophy of science. Name one technological invention or innovation that has come about through the application of theology or faith?
War on sex, going on for generations? I hope the irony here is lost on no one...
*runs off to patent this reverse-direction vacuum energy travel process*
Only if it's a combination solar/lunar panel.
For $98,000. Ouch.
Drinking while at the range?
Obviously, if you must, you should just go into those neighborhoods barefoot, thus ensuring your safety.
What do you mean not those kind of maps??
Better do it quickly.
Case in point...
Fixed that for you. Funny IDiots and their God of the Gaps. Before the Wright Brothers, it was absolutely impossible for man to fly too, because if he were meant to God would have given him wings right? Of course, what's hilarious (or sad, depending on your point of view) is that when someone actually does succeed in creating life from scratch, the religious idiots will actually use that as "proof" that life needs an intelligent designer since we humans had to do it for it to happen.
Easy: chemistry. Chemical properties determine what base pairs bond to others, and in the right environments, certain base pairs are more likely to bond than others. Atoms/molecules bond all the time into different chemicals, but some combinations have the special property that they encourage the creation of copies of themselves provides the right materials are available. Chemistry.
Admit it, you only used an analogy containing (zOMG) pwnies because this is slashdot. :P
You win :)
So what's Thor telling you these days?
You're right, the best reason to drag religion through the mud is because it doesn't understand the little concept we like to call reality.
A shotgun is cheaper and more efficient.
You mean an obviously better fake ;)
For now.
No more than it is that some people have drive expensive cars and not everyone does. Just because something is not available to all RIGHT NOW doesn't mean it should be denied to all. That's how technology works: it starts out expensive and not working very well, then gets a little less expensive and works better, and continues on until it's almost free and ubiquitous.
There will probably always be haves and have-nots. The promises of nanotechnology/nanomanufacturing may solve this (or not). When we (as in mankind) have the ability to make anything we could want or need on demand, no one ever need be left wanting. That may be assuming a lot though.
A romantic notion, but not one grounded in reality.
This is a very good question, and the answer will probably be a combination of factors. Certainly it will start out being economically decided, but as technology brings the cost down to be generally available, certain regulations may have to be put in place, most likely to limit reproductive abilities.
We throw away unused organic material all the time. When it becomes trivial to clone a heart from a standpoint of ability and materials, what would it matter if an extra one gets destroyed because it isn't needed? If you object on the grounds that you are assuming entire bodies would be cloned just to get at one part with the rest going to waste, I find that assumption unrealistic. We will be cloning parts, not people.
I'm sure eventually this will happen, but chances are there will be strict "6th Day" laws against it becoming commonplace or even legal at all. But if it does happen, a person is a person, even a cloned person, and should have all the rights and priviledges thereof as far as the state is concerned. Who cares what the church thinks? Prove I have a soul before you declare that a clone does not.
The onus is on you to prove God exists, not the other way around, anymore than it is up to you to prove that Thor doesn't exist. The argument about denying quality of life is a slippery slope. Curing cancer can be considered life extension, in fact, the whole of medical science can, t
Well for that matter, we don't quite know how to transport a brain from one body to another yet, but I imagine that by the time we figure that one out, we'll probably have figured the robot part out too.
The mental image of a cat attempting to beat the Dragonforce song on Guitar Hero III just has me in stitches thanks to that little slip.
*sigh* Our tax dollars at work, going to provide lots of free shit for criminals.
For $5, I'll change your English grades....