Comments:

“It could enable everyone on this planet to have a standard of living as good or better than the present-day ‘haves’.”

Unfortunately, everyone includes Cosa Nostra and Mafiya, mobsters, gangsters; everyone we consider bad—and naturally they consider us to be bad, whereas they think they themselves are merely Doing their Thing.
There’s a line in ‘2001’, the book, which comes to mind: we can protect against accidents, but not malice (referring to HAL’s mal-programming).

By Alan Brooks on Mar 10, 2013 at 6:33pm

...btw, my comment above is obvious, you did write on how tech enables overlords.

However many think criminality is superficial, probably the majority—if they ever think on it—ignore criminality as being just another nuisance. But the reason criminals (true, hardened criminals, not youths stealing hubcaps) become criminals is they know the Law, and of course laws are relative to time & place, is unfair and their somewhat justified lack of respect exacerbates whatever innate rebelliousness they may be wired with.
This is something not well-known.

By Alan Brooks on Mar 10, 2013 at 6:53pm

Look at it this way if you will.  All of us, compared to what we believe it is possible humans can become, are barely infants.  Are we to condemn some infants to die in their crib because of the mess they made with their poo down here in the Slow Time?

Really?  Then which of us is “ok” enough to inherit abundance?  How did we get to be “ok”?  What parts were luck and what our own doing? 

Do we even understand why we were able to understand what we did understand to do those parts that were our efforts?  I don’t think we do.  Yet in the future we will gain the understanding to rebuild minds, personalities and psyches.  So are you so sure you can utterly condemn someone to true death now for what they in their ignorance have done? 

I cannot.  Oh, I will defend myself and what I value.  Sometimes it is unavoidable to put down an attacker hard.  But I will not condemn to oblivion just for being another ignorant and somewhat twisted up human infant.

By Samantha Atkins on Mar 11, 2013 at 12:48am

So if we stick to a certain belief system, and not transgress against its sacred rules, we shall be rewarded in an afterlife?

Where have I heard that before smile

By Khannea on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:07am

http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell-higgs/70036813/

By Russell Higgs on Mar 11, 2013 at 1:45pm

“Are we to condemn some infants to die in their crib because of the mess they made with their poo down here in the Slow Time?

Really?  Then which of us is ‘ok’ enough to inherit abundance?  How did we get to be ‘ok’?  What parts were luck and what our own doing?

... So are you so sure you can utterly condemn someone to true death now for what they in their ignorance have done?...

Oh, I will defend myself and what I value.  Sometimes it is unavoidable to put down an attacker hard.  But I will not condemn to oblivion just for being another ignorant and somewhat twisted up human infant.”

No, I’m not taking the side of the state on crime and punishment; plus the state could, if it wanted to, rehabilitate many criminals yet very few in the state want to. The system is self-perpetuating, not concerned with ‘corrections’ but with authorities getting their share of money and confiscated loot.

By Alan Brooks on Mar 12, 2013 at 11:41am

...and of course you know all that, Sam, but newbies here don’t always know what is going on; no one fills them in. One might add the private sector is little better- if at all- than the public sector. For instance, do you think private prisons are any better than govt. prisons?

By Alan Brooks on Mar 13, 2013 at 7:48am

Books

Human Destiny is to Eliminate Death: Essays, Rants, and Arguments about Immortalism

More Books
Videos
Science Against Aging - Video by Maria Konovalenko
Science Against Aging - Video by Maria Konovalenko
More Videos