John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
I love your (signature?) Rosa!!! My favourite scientist coupled with my favourite animal. U sure know the way to my heart 
Designer Bodies
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
That's the most fatalistic thing I've heard today. Thanks. I see no validity in that statement besides a reflection of your negativity. It does not become you.
Wow. What the hell is wrong with you. That is the exception to the rule and ideally wouldn't be reality unless it is supposed to be, as the person might have literally lost their mind. In that case they should be evaluated for the possibility of a re-occurance of that dangerous condition and secluded appropriately.
Oh? Perhaps you're using a gross generalization. Can you support it? I take advil to lessen swelling if I have a muscle or headache. I don't take anythign to counter the advil. You?
Even if I had to take five pills to counter the four before and so on, the chain ends somewhere and gets an overall improvement of state. That's the intended effect. Eventually they'll be combined into one. Again you're simply focusing on the negative. How about at least a few supporting examples? You give me impression you see this as the norm. I don't, so convince me you're right. The more I think about it the more I think you're completely full of negative bullshit and won't be able to honestly support your assertion at all.
I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. Further, I think your personal judgement of behavior is irrelevant. I work a LOT. If you think I'm l azy, I think you're wrong. Everyone I know works a LOT. I think you're comparing what "work" or "laziness" is to some fantastic standard that's been impressed upon you by your culture.
LOL. It doesn't matter much what we think. As this becomes available, people will do it. Then to keep up you'll have to do it too or be left behind. Further, it is doing to change what it means to be human. I don't think you see the full implications of what's going to come down. It's okay, you'll see it soon enough.
Uh-huh. I don't think you fathom what I'm thinking at all. Perhaps I fail to communicate. The deal is: This shit is coming. Your distaste for it is irrelevant unless you actively fight against it, as it is inevitable.
Oh, and you reek of cynical negativity.
IMO, this is the beginning of a new age where humans design themselves with the help of their inventions. Maybe that's just "narrow, short thought".
So I forgot to ask. Maybe this would clear things up:
Rosa, what is your idea of improvement? How does a person or the species 'improve' from your perspective?
Using science to improve your memory capacity is improvement by the standard that you can remember more than you could before.
Using science to become 100 pounds lighter is improvement by the standard "it's less dangerous than being fat".
That's just lazy eh? Gawd. Throw away your stove or lighter. Throw away your computer too. As a matter of fact, you should just live in a cave. Shit that would be lazy too eh? I mean you wouldn't have any time to study because you'd be busy trying to survive all the time, so you'd be lazy in the context of your studies. How terrible of you. Please, don't be lazy or whimisical and definately don't use science to satisfy your whim.
Rosa, what is your idea of improvement? How does a person or the species 'improve' from your perspective?
Using science to improve your memory capacity is improvement by the standard that you can remember more than you could before.
Using science to become 100 pounds lighter is improvement by the standard "it's less dangerous than being fat".
That's just lazy eh? Gawd. Throw away your stove or lighter. Throw away your computer too. As a matter of fact, you should just live in a cave. Shit that would be lazy too eh? I mean you wouldn't have any time to study because you'd be busy trying to survive all the time, so you'd be lazy in the context of your studies. How terrible of you. Please, don't be lazy or whimisical and definately don't use science to satisfy your whim.
I just don’t see what’s wrong with improving ones mind and body through cybernetics? Immortality, enhanced consciousness and total physical and mental superiority to the previous talking monkey form.
Wes:
ON TOPIC:
As there is between a treadmill and a tiny pill the average mind will lose itself in by placing its faith on it.
Both are science, yet only one is a counterproductive hole.
Science has it merits, but don't you believe a human is likelier to progress if he feels progress? How is he to do it popping pills from his couch?
Fetus:
Humanity- life- is a machine lubricated by death, disease, and violence.
Looslely translated- chick is Amish.
ON TOPIC:
There is a difference between advil and Tivo, though.
As there is between a treadmill and a tiny pill the average mind will lose itself in by placing its faith on it.
Both are science, yet only one is a counterproductive hole.
Science has it merits, but don't you believe a human is likelier to progress if he feels progress? How is he to do it popping pills from his couch?
Fetus:
You have not thought on the consequences of immortality, maybe?
Humanity- life- is a machine lubricated by death, disease, and violence.
Last edited:
wesmorris said:
Paranoid? WTF are you talking about? :bugeye:
Even if we replace the word "fit" with "thin", the fact remains that being thin does not always correlate with being healthy. All I was doing was pointing out that even if such a miracle pill is developed, it will not replace the need to exercise.
wesmorris said:
Presumptuous?
You’re the one talking science fiction here, not me. The presumptive statements are yours.
wesmorris said:
Have I heard of “gene doping”? Well no, but I genetically engineer organisms as a profession, so I am more than a little familiar with the concepts involved. The article you linked to was also science fiction.
wesmorris said:
True. Conversely, you don’t know that any of the stuff you’ve alluded to will become reality. There’s nothing wrong with speculating on the future of scientific advancement. It’s fun. I was merely injecting a touch of reality into the mix.
being immortal and free of a body relieves one of the problems of phyical existance, most of all of being humen.
gendanken said:
I do think you have a point, however I think it's arguable from that angle that the "average mind" is already lost. Check your TV.
I disagree about the latter. Its level of counterproductiveness has not been established. In fact, depending on your measurement criteria I believe we could establish it as productive right here and now.
Does everyone have to come up with their own language, home and cell phone, or do we rely on the shoulders of our predecessors?
If he gets thin with no effort, maybe he decides "Maybe I can jog.". As a fat guy, he probably won't make that decision for good reasons. Not that there aren't other options, just an example of how he might end up doing it "from his couch". Perhaps given other options he'll choose rectification.
I'd think you'd always have the option to die. You don't always have the option to live.
It's also lubricated by love, respect and insight. Who is the one preaching balance (referring to your comments to my wifey regarding love in that kids thread
)
Hercules Rockefeller said:
You said my assertion was "suspect". You don't think that's paranoid? All I want is stimulation. Being suspect of my motives without knowing a thing about me is kind of paranoid in my book.
I wasn't trying to say you would be "healthy" by being thin. Healthi-ER, maybe?
The pill in reference, no... but I believe most that the need to excercise (at least as we commonly see it) will end as we begin to design ourselves.
Presumptuous?
Yeah, anytime the word "never" is used in this context I'd call it presumption.
I'm not totally sure what I'm saying will come true and did not intend it. It is however, a logical conclusion from what I know.
Then perhaps you're ignorant of recent developments. I don't know what you know, but I know you're not paying attention.
Oh? Perhaps you should write the editors of Scientific American and complain that they're publishing Science Fiction: Try this link instead . The last one was the first one I came across on the topic. Perhaps you label all cutting edge science "fiction"?
Obviously. I don't claim to be psychic. I just know what I've read. I do consider Scientific American a pretty credible source.
There’s nothing wrong with speculating on the future of scientific advancement. It’s fun. I was merely injecting a touch of reality into the mix.
My main objection was only that you said "never". I think that's silly and I think we are a species on the verge of self-determination to the point that I'm not sure we're gonna be the same species anymore. I think that is incredible.
I should however, express my respect for "keeping grounded" in tried and true science. I do appreciate the sentiment.
gendanken said:
Not at all as I don't happen to believe in that shit. Having your mind copied into a computer allows one immortality as well as the ability to fuck with all of ones psyche. If you get bored, then you can program out boredom from your mind, if you get sad you can program that out as well, in fact you can set your self into perpetual orgasm mood for the rest of eternity. Its like a electronic version of heaven, unlike the mythological heaven this one will exist.
Wes,
You are trying to make it my fault if I don't fit *your* idea of me.
Es graut mir vor dir, Wes.
Make-up ruins your skin, so you need fancy cremes to undo the negative effects of the make-up. In the long run, this makes the skin weak though.
My thyroid meds gave me nausea and headaches, so I had to take two other meds to ease the headches and nausea. I was tired and worn-out afterwards.
Final questions: Do you think improvement is good? Do you support it as something good? Or are you indifferent towards it, just taking whatever comes along your way, and adjust to it?
You are trying to make it my fault if I don't fit *your* idea of me.
Es graut mir vor dir, Wes.
Make-up ruins your skin, so you need fancy cremes to undo the negative effects of the make-up. In the long run, this makes the skin weak though.
My thyroid meds gave me nausea and headaches, so I had to take two other meds to ease the headches and nausea. I was tired and worn-out afterwards.
Final questions: Do you think improvement is good? Do you support it as something good? Or are you indifferent towards it, just taking whatever comes along your way, and adjust to it?
RosaMagika said:
No, I'm trying to explain that negativity is an ugly bias. If you view the world negatively, you'll live in a shitty world. It's that simple. It's your choice. Perhaps you don't care. As you wish.
Perhaps then you shouldn't wear makeup.
Improvement in general is what I strive for. Improvement in the context the species has begun to re-design itself is inevitable. I think it's also good in the big picture, if nothing else because is terribly interesting and not necessarily bad. It will be used both well and badly, as with anything.
Honestly I find it exciting, not necessarily for me but as a statement of the capacity of the species.
That too, but I can't say I'm not glad this shit is coming. I'm a technogeek. I love technology. It's the dawn of a new era and I embrace it - while wary of it's potential downside.
Right on- the average mind is found giggling on television, the classroom, the workplace, the theater, and loudest of all in the Oval Office.wesmorris said:
Really?
Walk to up to any woman nowadays who is dying to lose weight for the summer- look in her purse and you'll find millions of diet pills.
Obesity has tripled since 1980, and more than 120 million Americans are overweight or obese. You've watched the news, yes? Diabetic children are chique now, as big and plump as Medicis.
Tokyo and China have gone from the well balanced diet of their ancients, to the anorexic girls dying from the fenflouramine in their slimming pills. Why?
Globalization demands a more high tech designer lifestyle.
Not shunning science- love this computer as I do the pen I write with on the processed paper I buy with money printed in state of the art mints, and I relish that car that I drove here. But if we're talking simple pills here you think you can throw at people and fix a problem.........you're sadly mistaken.
The American and the athlete on steroids is proof.
You're being a dick, right?
*squirt*
He's likelier to keep taking the pills, and keep taking them since jogging means discomfort.
He wants to wake up one day and and get out there to dazzle the ladies overnight. The man in the labcoat says he can do it! He's a scientist and he'll fix all my problems! Cut me in half, squeeze my stomach down to a raisin and I'll be a god........ yet Carnie Wilson remains that fat, undisplicined pig of a slob she's always been.
You seem to think one can change human nature with a bottle.
Sore?It's also lubricated by love, respect and insight. Who is the one preaching balance (referring to your comments to my wifey regarding love in that kids thread
Good.
You have a point and I was not preaching- however, "evil" and death make conflict. Nothing gets done in a la la land.
gendanken said:
Yah.
So a thin pill would be bad? If you have the ability to regulate your metabolism by choice of pill, you shouldn't take it because there are a lot of people who are fat?
That's culture for you. Providing a safe alternative to death is bad? Do you think it can be stopped? Do you think it should be?
So we should abandon the polio vaccine?
Why? Steroids are also used to help a lot of people. I had a shot in my back one time that assisted in solving a long-term pain problem. Is that proof of anything?
Like I can help it.
LOL. What if instead it's redemption? What if he just woke up one day, having set aside his observation of self to realize "oh shit I'm fucked", but finds weight loss in a pill and the determination not to let that shit happen again? Is that impossible?
Should he be denied? Presuming you're already thin and simply judgemental of his condition, should your objection deny him that opportunity if it exists?
Do you think there are examples that contradict that, or does it matter? Since tools can be used badly, should they be rejected completely?
Well you can change your brain chemistry with a pill right now. That changes the nature of that human. Cybernetics and uhm, designer genetics will eventually (hypothetically of course) lead to the ability to choose your physicality basically by reading a catalog. At least that seems like the natural extrapolation of what's happening now.
Not at all really, I just though it was odd coming from YOU.
Hehe. I think your point had some merit though, so I'll get off you.Not if you think "if it's good and loving, it must be fantasy". That does seem to be your underlying message.
Wes,
On the basis of what criteria do you conclude that I have a negativistic bias?
On the basis of what criteria are you saying that negativity is an ugly bias?
You are giving me inconsistent advice.
You said:
If I want to keep up, I must improve. For example, make-up, in your terms is improvement of looks, and I must use it, or I will be left behind -- since men prefer improved women, which here means wearing make-up. If I don't use make-up, I will be left behind.
On one hand you are saying I must do things to keep up with others or be left behind, but on the other you are saying that I shouldn't use it.
Make-up may seem a little issue.
But what if a pill that enhances cognitive abilities makes me tired, and eventually that pill doesn't help me, because I am too exhausted to put my enhanced cognitive abilities into action? -- Should I not use that pill then, and accept being left behind?
On the basis of what criteria do you conclude that I have a negativistic bias?
On the basis of what criteria are you saying that negativity is an ugly bias?
Perhaps then you shouldn't wear makeup.
You are giving me inconsistent advice.
You said:
If I want to keep up, I must improve. For example, make-up, in your terms is improvement of looks, and I must use it, or I will be left behind -- since men prefer improved women, which here means wearing make-up. If I don't use make-up, I will be left behind.
On one hand you are saying I must do things to keep up with others or be left behind, but on the other you are saying that I shouldn't use it.
Make-up may seem a little issue.
But what if a pill that enhances cognitive abilities makes me tired, and eventually that pill doesn't help me, because I am too exhausted to put my enhanced cognitive abilities into action? -- Should I not use that pill then, and accept being left behind?
RosaMagika said:
On having read your posts here. Nothing positive, most negative.
Personal experience.
Yes but if being damaged to the point of discomfort, I'd choose lack of improvement over keeping up. Make-up in particular is IMO, a somewhat ridiculous "improvement" anyway. Perhaps you don't understand. You have a number of choices on how to keep up. Seems to me the wise decisions would be to choose the path of least damage. If something is damaging you to an unnacceptable level, it's probably a good idea to stop. Is that inconsistent with good sense?
For some criteria you would be considered "improved" by having makeup. Others not so much. It's up to you to choose your context and make your improvement choices accordingly. You said it hurts you. You can choose to seek improvement elsewhere to compensate.
How you do it is your choice. You don't have to keep up with anyone if you don't want. If you want to "keep up" you might, but you can consider whatever path to get there you want. Maybe you can work out twice as much or study twice as hard to compensate for your lack of make-up.
Kind of.I know it's a big deal for some.
Then you should try a different type of pill, find some other way, be left behind or suffer for you improvement.
Isn't choice grand?
Wes,
My posts here ARE NOT CRITERIA. They are only some texts, bringing some content. And this content you have judged to be negative. You cannot judge something without complying to some laws or evaluation guidelines.
Again, I ask: On the basis of what criteria have you judged the content of my posts to be negative?
I don't know your personal experience and the criteria you have developed or gained thus. I would like you to state your criteria clearly.
(In the *form* like: "Solving 80% of all answers at test X gives you grade 3 on the scale of 1 to 5." or "Being unemployed is bad." or "Blacks are an inferior race to the white race." or "Being intelligent is good." ...)
My posts here ARE NOT CRITERIA. They are only some texts, bringing some content. And this content you have judged to be negative. You cannot judge something without complying to some laws or evaluation guidelines.
Again, I ask: On the basis of what criteria have you judged the content of my posts to be negative?
I don't know your personal experience and the criteria you have developed or gained thus. I would like you to state your criteria clearly.
(In the *form* like: "Solving 80% of all answers at test X gives you grade 3 on the scale of 1 to 5." or "Being unemployed is bad." or "Blacks are an inferior race to the white race." or "Being intelligent is good." ...)
RosaMagika said:
It seems you take the worst case as given and present it as such.
I think you're being negative. If you don't like it, that's fine with me. I might be wrong. Honestly I don't care, as I do not extend that assessment beyond your comments in this thread and didn't intend to make an issue of it to begin with. You seem to have a negative bias based on your expectation of what "laziness" is. You seem to have a static notion of laziness. Didn't you say "people are lazy and whimsical"? Do you think that's negative? Would you just call it "true"? That is a negatively biased statement because it presumes your idea of "lazy" is indeed applicable as a general statement. I think the nuetral perspective finds that people are never, ever lazy. They are constantly pursuing the subjective good. Perhaps as you admitted, you just hate them for what they want. That's not negative though is it?
Negative: "this is bad" or "so who is this going to screw over"
Positive: "this is good" or "so who is going to benefit from this"
Nuetral: "this is" or "how do we determine the benefit/detriment ratio"
different criteria apply to each of your statements, but most are of the negative slant. often you use large negative assumptions as a retort like: "people don't learn do they?" What kind of shit is that? I learn. You learn. I cannot see why you could say that without being in a foul mood or just basically negative in general. It's straight cynical.
Here's a quick rundown for a couple of your posts.
That's certainly not neutral or positive.
Morbid, negative. (presuming you view carrying guns and killing people as bad)
Morbid, incorrect and negative.
Obnoxiously sarcastic, morbid, unrelated, negative. People figure out their own risk analysis.
Big negative point of death and badness, not even relevant. People's awareness of their benefit/cost analysis is their business.
You have no idea what costs will be. What if it's dirt cheap? What if everyone's included because the method is simple and easy to recreate? Seems you've simply presumed negatively "everyone is going to be screwed".
That is self-explanitory. WRONG (and to the negative to keep with your theme, now making sweeping shitty statements about your species). We DO learn. See your library. See emerging technology.
That is simply incorrect and negative. Science has increased your lifespan and made your life easier and better. It has also added stress. Up until now, we are humans. We don't change but we can change our circumstances through science. It's not necessarily better or worse, it depends on what you make of it.
Coming soon though, better or worse is apparently likely. Actual change on the species level is forthcoming, by will. Given that it hasn't happened, spinning it negatively or postively is quite premature. I try to see the postive side of it because that's the way I am. The negative side seems easier to see. Obviously to me, your negative vision is quite clear.Okay, balancing: One can kill, plead temporary insanity and be fried in an electric chair. You present your example as if no one is ever held accountable for their actions. IMO, that's a pretty negative view. What about the people who are? Your glass was half empty until you poured the water on the floor and pronounced it entirely empty for all of eternity and broke the glass.
sometimes, sure. other times, not. you choose the negative side again.
they also use science to save their lives and go to the moon and talk to each other on the internet. Again, you choose one negative example and present it as the entire case. All of your negative statements have equal postive offsets as far as I can see, but you still choose the negative for each retort.
You failed to state your criteria for improvement, yet included a negative assessment thereof. Perhaps you could be specific about your criteria?
I must admit the possibility that I completely misunderstand you, however IMO, your statements here are clearly negatively biased. You apparently strongly oppose the idea of humans designing humans. I don't think that's rational because it's inevitable and all of your objections have seemingly taken the worst case as given. The question should be "how do we deal with it"?
I do not mean to imply you are a negative person, you are simply negative in this context.