The mind numbing ignorance and irrational emotionalism that has dominated America's capitalist culture has made it difficult to see through the haze of the ensuing confusion of ideas and purported facts. Yet if we put reactionary illusions and values
aside and replace them with revolutionary ones, ones that embrace both the truth and universal justice then we can start to understand that a comic book reality is already upon us and came upon while we were in a stupifying conservative dream.
As I write robots are on the Gulf Ocean floor seeking to manage an oil leak cause in part by robots and evil corporate leaders that are similar to Lex Luthor. The mechanism by which I write and the company that makes it possible is largely if not entirely robotic as are many companies today. Yet we live in a nation where the working class is fed a steady diet of 19th century myths, and sporting events that mimic zero sum way our society is idiotically constructed.
A man worthy of superhero status has just led an effort to create a designed bacterium while the workers and population are fed a steady diet of Liberal and Conservative idiocy where the fact of biological evolution is actually debated! If you want to know about what is happening put down your so-called holy books and read a science fiction comic!
Sometimes I wish I could grab each and every conservative, look deeply into there eyes and shout "snap out of it", " wake up! Please, for the love of God, stop obsessing about slaveholders and the last century or the ones before that! Only your awakening can save us from an idiotic and senseless terror that makes us all suffer so much more than would otherwise be necessary!"
Dear citizens, "Stop refusing to learn anything! Stop glorifying your intellecual laziness and willingness to let someone else handle everything political. Look where that has gotten us!"
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
BOYCOTT THE AIRLINES! NO MORE INVASIVE SEARCHES!
Is the terrorist threat really so great that we should give up the cultural mandate that we wear clothing? I think not. I think not and I, for one, do not consent to being stripped search by machine or by human just to go somewhere on an airplane.
Air traffic is one of the least justifiable and economical aspects of the so-called modern society. What is so modern about being crammed into a can so you can have virtual sex with a hundred people in that can? So we fly too far, too fast to get really nowhere, some meaningless meeting that could have occured online. Or we could travel like human beings, not on a strip search airline.
It is just another reason to abolish Homeland Security, the Security fundamentalists who are strip searching you, your spouse and every other fool who gets on a airplane.
Resist, mfs!
Resist!
Walk, jog, run, drive, use a train, ship, bicyle, covered wagon. Visit at the speed of thought, use email, phone, snail mail, live where you work and refuse to work as a slave of the national security state.
Air traffic is one of the least justifiable and economical aspects of the so-called modern society. What is so modern about being crammed into a can so you can have virtual sex with a hundred people in that can? So we fly too far, too fast to get really nowhere, some meaningless meeting that could have occured online. Or we could travel like human beings, not on a strip search airline.
It is just another reason to abolish Homeland Security, the Security fundamentalists who are strip searching you, your spouse and every other fool who gets on a airplane.
Resist, mfs!
Resist!
Walk, jog, run, drive, use a train, ship, bicyle, covered wagon. Visit at the speed of thought, use email, phone, snail mail, live where you work and refuse to work as a slave of the national security state.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
A MESSAGE TO HUMANOID ENTITIES IN THE YEAR OF OUR HOMO SAPIEN 2009
The improvement of things, every thing imaginable seems to require some sort of improvement. Sometimes it seems that technological change and innovation is just part of human nature itself. Techno homo versus homo sapiens may be the contradiction we are finding in this contemplation of the question as to whether or not techological change is apparently inherent in humans, at least as we know them today. Apparently, indeed. Of course we are used to the innovations of hundreds and thousands of human-like generations, those things we were not so much born with, such as red hair, as we made such as a digging spade.
Of course I suppose it is time to reveal to an uncaring world my basic theory of technological development or perhaps, and I say only perhaps, more modestly my mere contribution if it be accepted by those technological historians and whatnot intellectuals of whatever discipline.
I should further note that this is only the seed of what I imagine to be my contribution, rather than the fully developed theory which is yet to be discerned.
The joke goes, "What's brown and sticky?" The answer is of course, the progenitor of all subsequent technology, the stick.
That's it, the stick is the alpha to whatever technological omega you may bring forth, you subtle casuist! Enough of an aside, now back to matters pertinent to another new blog, the perfection of humans and all the questions about where humanity should and ultimately will stand on those issues.
Of course any contribution of technology may be objected to on the grounds that it makes us less "human". Perhaps the first stick user heard an objection from others. Or perhaps the first human to use something upon which the stick is developed, the wheel for example others may have asserted, isn't a stick enough? Hence we see in these two general examples two kinds of conservatism regarding technological development. The most fundamental one, the one that eschews all technology is by now altogether a theoretical mode except for those free spirits that remain naked and stickless somewhere on earth. The second sort of question, about when is there too much or bad technological development is the kind of thing we will be addressing here.
I don't think any of us want to live in a stickless or technology free world but now that we can alter human beings and are on the cusp of creating humanlike beings or intelligences it is high time we address the important issues revolving around good and bad, liberating and oppressive technological development.
This range of issues overlaps concerns in the medical field and among those concerned with other already existing but nonhuman beings.
Unfortunately we see an accelerating pattern of destroying billions of years of evolutionary development with the destruction of habitats, forests, millions of species, virtually all of nature on land or sea. Without further study we can then blurt out that the vision of humanity advocated here will be in exact opposition to that carnage and ongoing destruction.
It is the siren song of millionaire wealth for all that currently drives the
relentless consumption of the biosphere. This is a foolish idea, that everyone can consume as if the earth had no limits, as if the bounty of nature is greater than any pattern of consumption underway.
This is not to eschew green and sustainable development, something that needs to be embraced while we prune away and root out the ecology destroying methods of production we now embrace.
So one might ask, even today about what sorts of genetic modifications of human skin might be ethical an which might be unethical. Would it be ethical to modify a person's skin so that it produces more Vitamin D?
What if skin could be modified to create glucose from photosynthesis, would that be an ethical modification and if so under what circumstances would it be acceptable or not?
Should the rich consumers consign a few billions to living on light? Or would there be a special diet for those with photosynthetic skins? Would certain individuals go green with such skin modifications as an act of virtue? Should they be allowed to do so?
What if death could be engineered so that the dying person is transformed into a tree or something like that over a period of days or weeks. Yes, you can be genetically engineered to become an oak, apple tree or cottonwood. "I'd like to be a cottonwood. Me too!" So a cotton wood it is and the family visits grandma and grandpa as they transform in the garden area over a period of perhaps a month, eventually becoming a tree with a long abandoned human corpse inside.
It almost makes tree worship look like another possiblity! This concern would overlap with the concerns of ancestor worship and perhaps be a more "natural form" than nature herself has provided?
What is NEW ununbium?
Instantaneous
Uncreated perfection
Of course I suppose it is time to reveal to an uncaring world my basic theory of technological development or perhaps, and I say only perhaps, more modestly my mere contribution if it be accepted by those technological historians and whatnot intellectuals of whatever discipline.
I should further note that this is only the seed of what I imagine to be my contribution, rather than the fully developed theory which is yet to be discerned.
The joke goes, "What's brown and sticky?" The answer is of course, the progenitor of all subsequent technology, the stick.
That's it, the stick is the alpha to whatever technological omega you may bring forth, you subtle casuist! Enough of an aside, now back to matters pertinent to another new blog, the perfection of humans and all the questions about where humanity should and ultimately will stand on those issues.
Of course any contribution of technology may be objected to on the grounds that it makes us less "human". Perhaps the first stick user heard an objection from others. Or perhaps the first human to use something upon which the stick is developed, the wheel for example others may have asserted, isn't a stick enough? Hence we see in these two general examples two kinds of conservatism regarding technological development. The most fundamental one, the one that eschews all technology is by now altogether a theoretical mode except for those free spirits that remain naked and stickless somewhere on earth. The second sort of question, about when is there too much or bad technological development is the kind of thing we will be addressing here.
I don't think any of us want to live in a stickless or technology free world but now that we can alter human beings and are on the cusp of creating humanlike beings or intelligences it is high time we address the important issues revolving around good and bad, liberating and oppressive technological development.
This range of issues overlaps concerns in the medical field and among those concerned with other already existing but nonhuman beings.
Unfortunately we see an accelerating pattern of destroying billions of years of evolutionary development with the destruction of habitats, forests, millions of species, virtually all of nature on land or sea. Without further study we can then blurt out that the vision of humanity advocated here will be in exact opposition to that carnage and ongoing destruction.
It is the siren song of millionaire wealth for all that currently drives the
relentless consumption of the biosphere. This is a foolish idea, that everyone can consume as if the earth had no limits, as if the bounty of nature is greater than any pattern of consumption underway.
This is not to eschew green and sustainable development, something that needs to be embraced while we prune away and root out the ecology destroying methods of production we now embrace.
So one might ask, even today about what sorts of genetic modifications of human skin might be ethical an which might be unethical. Would it be ethical to modify a person's skin so that it produces more Vitamin D?
What if skin could be modified to create glucose from photosynthesis, would that be an ethical modification and if so under what circumstances would it be acceptable or not?
Should the rich consumers consign a few billions to living on light? Or would there be a special diet for those with photosynthetic skins? Would certain individuals go green with such skin modifications as an act of virtue? Should they be allowed to do so?
What if death could be engineered so that the dying person is transformed into a tree or something like that over a period of days or weeks. Yes, you can be genetically engineered to become an oak, apple tree or cottonwood. "I'd like to be a cottonwood. Me too!" So a cotton wood it is and the family visits grandma and grandpa as they transform in the garden area over a period of perhaps a month, eventually becoming a tree with a long abandoned human corpse inside.
It almost makes tree worship look like another possiblity! This concern would overlap with the concerns of ancestor worship and perhaps be a more "natural form" than nature herself has provided?
What is NEW ununbium?
Instantaneous
Uncreated perfection
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
