aging reversed, GM babies, lungs not necessary.

[milkmiku]

Scientist reverse aging in mice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

First GM babies born, 30 of them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html

"living with out breathing"
http://gizmodo.com/5921868/scientists-invent-particles-that-will-let-you-live-without-breathing

All withing 1 year, if these things keep up we will be transhuman within 100 years.

Imagine wage slaves shackled to eternal youth. If only I had bought Alex Jones fluoride filters!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: 'One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line.


No it fucking doesn't, you stupid tunnel-visioned bio-conservative shithead. Fertility technology enables those who want kids but whose biology has prevented them so far to finally have them. That's the precise opposite of the disposable production-line mentality you're trying so desperately to accuse them of having.

My parents were lucky in that they were naturally fertile and were even able to birth me at home. What would you suggest to those who cannot follow their example?

Mind you, he is the director of a "pro-life" (anti-choice) organisation, and since these kids have been born already I guess he doesn't actually give a shit about them.

[Zav]

Mon dieu. These are incredible scientific advancements, albeit unbelievably volatile.
Imagine the horror of GM humans in a Capitalist system. I can picture the propaganda now. These people will be a slave class because they are 'unnatural'. And the Consumerism surrounding the ordeal of genetic modification will be immensely dystopian. If we must synthesize ourselves, let's destroy authority first. Then without exploitation we can eliminate our inheritable diseases, increase the durability of our telomeres, and whatever. My opinion on this matter is largely similar to my opinion on space exploration, GMO plants, and nuclear power (for material generation): It's fine as a concept, but in a Statist/Capitalist setting it's a horrible idea.

[NGNM85]

Scientist reverse aging in mice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

First GM babies born, 30 of them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html

"living with out breathing"
http://gizmodo.com/5921868/scientists-invent-particles-that-will-let-you-live-without-breathing

All withing 1 year, if these things keep up we will be transhuman within 100 years.

Imagine wage slaves shackled to eternal youth. If only I had bought Alex Jones fluoride filters!

I really don't think this is especially likely, at least, not in the way we understand it. If we do conquer the aging process, which is, at least, theoretically possible, (I really hope so, not in the least because I'd love to have the body I had when I was 17, again.) the first generation of superhumans, or posthumans, will be living in a radically different world. This is one of the key distinctions between science, and Science Fiction. Science fiction authors usually posit some MacGuffin, some scientific breakthrough like time travel, or cloning, and then paint a picture of how this would change the world, as well as the ethical, and philosophical implications. However; as much as I love Science Fiction; this isn't how science really works. Science doesn't advance on one front, at a time. Also; scientific discoveries, especially major ones, typically involve a multitude of disciplines, in ways that even scientists, often, don't expect. It's not like posthuman cyborgs are going to be punching the clock, and driving their SUVs down to Starbucks for a cup of coffee, on their lunch break. One thing we can be sure of; if we ever do reach this posthuman utopia, or dystopia, for that matter, it will, very likely, be a lot stranger than anything we imagine.

[Comrade Trollface]

Well, I guess I can get rid of these pesky lungs then. More trouble than they're worth anyway.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well, I guess I can get rid of these pesky lungs then. More trouble than they're worth anyway.

Okay, take a deep breath...oh, wait.

[MuscularTophFan]

It's only a matter of time till immorality is achieved in our lifetimes.

[Tim Finnegan]

Noting that if immortality is achieved, "our lifetime" becomes a meaningless term. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[Comrade Trollface]

Also, we might all have drowned in our own shit first. I should also point out that if anyone will achieve immortality in our lifetimes, it will be the super rich. So unless you can count yourself in their number, you will die.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mon dieu. These are incredible scientific advancements, albeit unbelievably volatile.
Imagine the horror of GM humans in a Capitalist system. I can picture the propaganda now. These people will be a slave class because they are 'unnatural'.

Even if that was happening (fertility assistance where genetic material from a third party is passed on to the child is the best we have now), our job as revolutionary leftists should be solidarity with artificial and modified persons.

Treating people as slaves because they were conceived in a test tube rather than round the back of the bike shed is a ludicrously fallacious argument, and somehow I doubt that revolutionary leftists will be the only ones to see that crap argument for what it is.


And the Consumerism surrounding the ordeal of genetic modification will be immensely dystopian. If we must synthesize ourselves, let's destroy authority first. Then without exploitation we can eliminate our inheritable diseases, increase the durability of our telomeres, and whatever. My opinion on this matter is largely similar to my opinion on space exploration, GMO plants, and nuclear power (for material generation): It's fine as a concept, but in a Statist/Capitalist setting it's a horrible idea.

It's not as simple as that. Revolutionary leftists such as ourselves cannot simply dictate to the rest of the world what technology people can and cannot use or conduct research in.

I cannot help but think of vaccines. I suppose one could oppose them on the basis that they will only be handed out to the rich or those lucky enough to be covered by any wide-ranging immunisation program. Or, politically active workers could demand that such things be deployed to benefit the widest amount of people.

[Thug Lessons]

OP, your thread title may be a slight exaggeration.

[Thug Lessons]

Where we're going, we won't need lungs to breath!!

*dives headfirst into the ocean and instantly grows gills so she can breath underwater. oh and the ocean is made of lemonade* <--- This is what Darwinists literally believe

[l'Enfermé]

Noting that if immortality is achieved, "our lifetime" becomes a meaningless term. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif
If immortality is extended outside of the top layer of the ruling class.

[Zav]

Even if that was happening (fertility assistance where genetic material from a third party is passed on to the child is the best we have now), our job as revolutionary leftists should be solidarity with artificial and modified persons.

Treating people as slaves because they were conceived in a test tube rather than round the back of the bike shed is a ludicrously fallacious argument, and somehow I doubt that revolutionary leftists will be the only ones to see that crap argument for what it is.

Yes, it should be. If it's self-aware or will be, it has human rights.
I'm aware of this. Have you seen the arguments justifying Capitalism in general? They are just as bad. I was merely suggesting that such an argument would be put forth by the bourgeoisie to justify slavery, not that it was valid. The same argument has been used before. Do you remember that blacks were considered a 'criminal race' during the American slavery and peonage periods? This would be quite the same thing.




It's not as simple as that. Revolutionary leftists such as ourselves cannot simply dictate to the rest of the world what technology people can and cannot use or conduct research in.

I cannot help but think of vaccines. I suppose one could oppose them on the basis that they will only be handed out to the rich or those lucky enough to be covered by any wide-ranging immunisation program. Or, politically active workers could demand that such things be deployed to benefit the widest amount of people.

I'm well aware that we don't have that kind of power. People will research anything just because they're curious, both a bane and a boon, thus I think we should try to make a Revolution before this research, always funded by Capitalists, gives Capitalism a few more centuries of fuel. If we engineer a new slave class, that will set Leftism back a long ways, just as entirely switching to nuclear power would, or mining asteroids and colonizing Luna.

I'm not sure how this analogy works. I do not oppose vaccinations, just like I do not oppose genetic modification. I oppose the context which uses such things for negative purposes. There haven't been enough politically active workers to demand anything in decades. If there were we'd have a minimum wage of something like $20/hour and a six hour work day right now.

[milkmiku]

Hey hey, look at the bright side of indefinite lifespan, Massive corporations will be able to swindle poor saps into indefinite debt.

Imagine a world where in exchange for a debt you'd not be able to pay off in 5 lifetimes you can have your aging stopped.

Oh boy.

[Revolution starts with U]

But then how will I do my breath awareness meditations? :crying:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey hey, look at the bright side of indefinite lifespan, Massive corporations will be able to swindle poor saps into indefinite debt.

Imagine a world where in exchange for a debt you'd not be able to pay off in 5 lifetimes you can have your aging stopped.

Oh boy.

The economic mess we're in now is due in part to debt, and it is in their material interests (but not necessarily their desires, as we can see in their stripping down and selling off of the safety-valve features like legal protections for workers and the social safety net) for this sort of thing to not be continued for an extended period of time. There would be an even worse clusterfuck (and quite possibly a financially terminal one at that) if they could offer extended or indefinite lifespans in exchange for credit. If one has an indefinite lifespan, then theoretically one could take on an infinite amount of debt because there is no lifetime limit on repaying that debt. But in doing so, money would become infinitely worthless under it's own logic, because the Methuselahs would all have an effective blank cheque from the borrowing power their lifespan grants.

Of course, problems would end up happening long before individuals end up owing quadrillions of dollars that they would have no hope of repaying this side of the next deca-millennium. But I think my point stands that for capitalism, indefinite lifespans are likely to be just as much a liability as an asset. Socialist or resource-based economies wouldn't have such problems, of course.