if people can afford better augments, and a seller has a higher quality augment in which to sell, the transaction should be allowed. but like much tech, in a free market that tech will become less high quality and eventually drop in price to the point the majority of consumers may buy it

There would be pretty strong motivation to not consumerize genetic manipulation.

genetic manipulation is much more tricky, who can we trust to play with our genes? how much can we play with our genes until we are "playing god"?

Some rich motherfucker spends a billion to develop a Methuselah mod and lives forever. Compound interest working over a thousand lifetimes. So long as he's one of a tiny number of Methuselahs he'll have massive power. If everyone lives forever he's nothing. Money wasted.

Concept is explored in the takeshi kovacs books and in the commonwealth saga.

That's why America keeps an Anti-trust law in place (which I wish we used more often) as well as the fact there does need to be some regulation such as the ban on augments or manipulation to increase lifespan

Once you climb that ladder you have strong motivation to pull the ladder up after you.

If i'm a god why would I be incentivized to make others gods?

Did the Gods give man fire willingly, or did Prometheus have to steal it away for them?

There actually is a rather good "young adult" book that covers the type of world your explaining Atkins. I remember it's title being "scythe" where everyone lives forever, so a organization was created to "gleam" some people every year to decrease population

The human psyche wasn't made for immortality, people think they want to live forever but I wonder how they would feel when they are a hundred, or two hundred.

And again, that's why I believe in a not TOTAL lazie faire system for cybernetics or Gene manipulation, there needs to be regulation to some degree along with proactive use of anti-trust laws

I think everyone who lives long enough comes to the realization that they do not want to live forever.

It also goes into that to some degree along with the fact we gain much of our perception of "beauty" and emotion from our mortality

Humanity may not have been built for immortality but the more society progresses we alleviate the old hurdles with technology.

I could imagine if we do somehow achieve immortality that hibernation will become a thing. Where eventually people will just enter into a torpor only to be risen if direly needed for whatever reason.

Memery. Immortals would likely enter into a state of long-term memery. Shitposting online to fill the time of their immortal lives.

If we reach the point of immortality, assisted Suicide would have to be allowed for those who are simply don't living

As money becomes meaningless to the immortals, only knowledge of ancient arcane memes acts as a viable show of status

Why kill them? Just entomb them in stasis.

Social hierarchy reverts to a /b/ like state

The true meme economy arises

We can only hope to see an Immortal Meme Economy in our lifetimes.

No, I want my populist theodemocratic republic.

☧

I'll trade you 2 pepe and a handjob for that loaf of bread

More like this:
Automation has replaced most, if not all jobs. Wealthy, thousand year old oligarchs make the rules, having purchased everything they need to run an autonomous society. Given their long lifespan, they've basically mastered anything they have the slightest interest in, and now merely seek some form of entertainment. You are a humble meme farmer attempting to please eldritch ubermensch NEETs so your family can move out of that tiny apartment and into a house in the country

Given how people lose skill in things they haven't done in awhile, i'm guessing as time went on people would become more and more easily bored and slowly devolve into a state of less and less mastery until everyone was a vegetable in front of a screen or in a virtual reality designed to alleviate their boredom and they will have lost basically all skill mastery they ever had

Sounds like the Matrix

We're all just invalids cared for by the machines our ancestors built

Man I wish I can live a NEET existence with robot butler satisfying my every needs

get an npc butler

```"The vigorous man industriously striving for the improvement of his condition acts neither more nor less than the lethargic man who sluggishly takes things as they come. For to do nothing and to be idle are also action, they too determine the course of events. Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering."
-Ludwig von Mises.```

Americans. Have you ever witnessed your lord and saviour Yuri Bezmenov? You will need him now more than ever.

https://youtu.be/iRCoThrepKk

@Torpid so basically wall-e

some things about the superintelligent machine im pretty sure this is about human like concious AI and we indeed can't stop anyone from making it, i am however 100% sure that it will be a garantueed end of human life no matter how fucking rich you are what color your skin in is wheter you actually like trump or think he is a nazi .If an AI like a mentioned comes to exist it will have no reason to keep us humans alive as we have done absolutely nothing good over the last ages for our planet

if an AI like that comes to exist we (humans and i mean every single one of you no matter how many guns you have or bunkers you have in your backyard) you will be seen as a virus and squashed

but the most important thing is to always stay positive

Hard IF, if Democrats fall in line with Palosi's speech should Democrats gain more seats 2020

Democrats speeches typically are bullshit but for the sake of argument assume it's true.

I have no idea what she said. If she's talking impeachment or tax records than it's not a good sign for the Dems. Heck, if she becomes Speaker it's a terrible sign because it means at least some of the new House Dems lied on campaign.

See my comments in Free-For-All

I mean talks of coming together across the aisle, rebuilding infrastructure, cleaning up corruption, lower prices of prescription drugs, reduction of "dark interest money" in electronics, transparency and openness in Congress, finding common ground, ending division, unity

Other things she said were mainly wrestling control away from Trump, question is how much of a distraction will that be from the rest of her stated goals and are other Democrats on board with the stuff that sounds positive.

Sounds hopeful

We'll see, especially since she herself is not the right person for the speaker job

Does anyone wanna debate objective reality and reason in vc

seems like democrats are now in a hard place

they either try to bridge the gap and alienate the left or go after trump non stop and alienate the center

if they dont tear into trump like they promised then the left might eat the democrats up

I wonder if we might get immigration reform in these next 2 years

if it continues and the dems don't change, we might actually really see Emperror Trump

america will soon be 50% white. and good luck winning after that.

dems promise gibs for niggs. and hold power untill economical collapse

Could you imagine if enough of the American government was united to ammend the Constitution to remove the two-term presidental limit just long enough for Trump to serve five terms just to spite the left?

five is too much, he might get another 2 or three at most.

he's 72, at the end of his second term he'd be like 78

People have lived past 100 years. I'm just saying, it would be one hell of a middle finger to the left if that happened.

YES, but Trump has another 6 years, so there is the possibility to wake up the right.

but america will be under 50% white just by birth rates and old white people dying.

Well, there are things that go against the blacks right now.

and the Dems don't seem to want to stop that right now, so they might shrink as well, though in an unnatural way.

dems keep promesing them gibs and they will keep voting for dems.

Yes but when their population shrinks because the murder rate is higher than the birth rate, that doesn't matter either.

and maybe the Reps could be in a position, where they could do something about welfare....

still feel that 🔥burn🔥 from last time😏

Or they could stop the rearrangement of funds to support the financially weak states (wich usually are deep blue ones)....

Sorry didnt realize this was debate, deleting my comments

Oh see <#464233883303673868>

There is a White Supremacist/Purist in RDR2....
Doesn't that mean that Rockstar admits that there might be Problems between the Races or something like that? 😉

What I'm saying is that due to illegal immigrations, there are a ton of Middle/Sough Americans that are killing blacks and push them out of some areas...

democrat party is abandoning the blacks for the hispanics

their population is actually growing

Not only that, they let Antifa dominate Cities (Portland for example), the War between Hispanics and Blacks escalating....

Yeah, because of Immigration, when the Wall is closed, that might change. And the "Race War" really going off....

of course democrats are always appealing to easiest and biggest democraphic that will vote them.
just say open borders and gibs for spics and they will vote.

strangely FL flipped red just recently

The democrats probably didnt expect that to happen

Its sad to see that the Dems got soo much power with so little blue on the map...

that isn't proportional and city peaople fucking over the Rural people...

they really didnt get much power and its only temporary

They have ~half the House with only about 10% of the map beeing blue

But now we see Pelosi more, wich is a very good thing. Couldn't be better!

she will be Trump's punching bag

Thing is trump doesn't need to punch her

Remember her Bush statement?

dont know much about her but I know she says stupid shit all the time?

Stefan, you do realize that the house was created to be representative of population right?

The Senate was meant to representative of the map

its part of the checks and balances. can't have 10% of the map running things but you can't have less than half the population run things either

Exactly. The more I live the smarter I realize the founding fathers were. I used to think the electoral college was the big gay, but after Daddy Trumpy won off the EC I understood how pure democracy with no republican structures sucks. People complain when a president wins in spite of losing the pop vote, but I see now that an EC pop vote disagreement is a narrow defense of the vulnerable fly over states.

The Founding Fathers realized that its bad when the politics of a Country are made by a couple of population centres...

At the time there were probably a couple of citiys that had more people than the rest of America.

Exactly. Big Bear Owen Benjamin distills this in a way that I quite like. "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".

Democratic Republics are <:PogChamp:388980101728960535>, pure Democracies are <:DansGame:413020438877437953>

Thats a classic argument.

Politicians as a class can be effectively become.obsolete if you follow 34 simple rules.

Honestly, we could probably do away with EC, if we restricted voting to landowners...🤔

I dare the Dem House to spend the next 2 years writing a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC, lol.

pOPuLaR VoTE iS GooD.

Well, I disagree...

I'm for counting every vote of a 2Million city as half or 1/4 of one living in the woods.

That was sarcasm

hence the way it was spelled

I know it comes up every election, but what are your thoughts on the odds of someone uncovering real, serious election fraud this year?

Some of these seem...fishy.

it's too easy to hide it.

block observers, "find" some ballots, replace others with fakes. all ballots are anonymous so there's no way to know.

whoops! found 10k absentee ballots in the back of this unmarked van.

with a conspiracy, the larger the number of people that necessarily have to be involved the harder it is to maintain. there's more people, so there's more chance of something leaking, or someone having a change of conscious.

but when you're dealing with utopians, it's less likely that someone is going to have a change of conscious. the people committing election fraud believe they are saving the world.

there have been slip-ups, like <https://twitter.com/Tim_Canova/status/1060575611868114944> but no one is going to come forward and fess up. and without that it's not possible to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1060723241193484288

I guess the only interesting thing this time around is that all the big mainstream republicans are openly calling it fraud.

That's a game of chicken and I don't really know who's going to choke.

https://discord.gg/grcaUr

so tim did a video about age bullshit

i have a biggo problem about this as a progressive bullshit liberaly gayfag because this whole idea only works to keep people more judgemental about ages if one was to say "lol just change your age"

your age isn't anything that should be changeable, it isn't like the transgender discussion at all

@Ottobon And where does it deviate? (minus scientist approval)

If you ask me, age is something that you can't actually find in your DNA. You can look at a body and determine its level of development or decay, but it doesn't tell you age. Every person is different at the rate of change to their bodies, and how often do people look different than their age? Or have problems that are only typical of someone older. Or are in better shape that is usually possible for someone as old as they are?

On top of that, people have different levels of "mental" age, usually we use this to refer to maturity. But there are teenagers who sometimes speak wisdoms you;d only expect in someone much older, or full on adults who behave like children

Age really is an arbitrary number

in morning i will reply meaningfully

but its not nearly same question

neither do you seem to comprehend why people who be attracted to either version of disconnect with biological reality, or its significance

oh wait

We can actually measure age incredibly accurately

By the way, I also just read in a journal for forensics that you can even determine sex/gender from just the teeth.

Wait ... I am still trying to find a study that concerns the accuracy with which age can be determined, but there is also another orthodontic journal that states that you can determine race/ethnicity from teeth.

"Certain morphological features of the teeth are known to show population variation which can be used to distinguish the ethnicity or ancestry. However, the determination of race from morphological features of the teeth remains debatable. These features, characteristics and occupational marks give an idea about the habits and cultural practices of a group of people/ethnicity. The dental characteristics such as the shovelling or scooping of the upper incisor (most common in Asiatic Mongoloids and Amerindians), taurodontism, chisel shaped incisors, Carabelli’s cusp, hypocone, and protostylid, peg shaping of the teeth can be used to determine the ethnicity of the individual [36-38]. According to Vij [8], Aborigines Australians, the Melanesians and the American Indians and Eskimos tend to be large toothed races with wide crowns and Lapps and Bushmen are small people with comparatively smaller teeth."

Krishan, Kewal, Tanuj Kanchan, and Arun K. Garg. "Dental evidence in forensic identification–An overview, methodology and present status." The open dentistry journal 9 (2015): 250.

Różyło-Kalinowska, Ingrid, et al. "Validity of the third molar maturity index I3M for indicating the adult age in the Polish population." Forensic science international 290 (2018): 352-e1.

"This study aimed to assess the application of Cameriere’s third molar maturity index (I3M) to select an individual of 18 years or older (adult) from younger than 18 years (minor) in a sample of Polish individuals. The final sample of 982 panoramic images aged between 15 to 24 years was analyzed. The specific cut-off value of I3M < 0.08 was analyzed. The specificity (Sp) and sensitivity (Se) for males were 91.2% and 86.2% respectively. The Sp and Se for females were 93% and 82.6% respectively. The probabilities of correctly classified individuals were 87.6% and 85.3%, and Bayes post-test probability was 96.3% and 97% in males and females respectively. Further analysis indicated the alternative cut-off value of I3M < 0.07, which improved the specificity, 95.3%, and 94.7%, and worsen correct classification, 86.5%, and 84.4%, in males and females, respectively. Our results showed that the specific cut-off point of I3M < 0.08 may be a useful tool for discriminating adults from minors in Poland."

Age is something we all go through. It is objective with no biological basis, just the effects on biology of a physical manifestation - time

Kind of. There is a related concept in biology called "biological age".

That one is more akin to a rating the way we informally understand it. It is more related to health and wear on the body.

When you read studies like these carefully, you can see that they make distinction between the two.

Borkan, Gary A., and Arthur H. Norris. "Assessment of biological age using a profile of physical parameters." Journal of Gerontology 35.2 (1980): 177-184.

Goggins, William B., et al. "Frailty index as a measure of biological age in a Chinese population." The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 60.8 (2005): 1046-1051.

I am unsure how well established the term is, though.

But it still happens as time passes

Different people do age differently, but it is still the passage of time

At what point do we throw away milennia of ideology to cater to a minute group of individuals who are keeping with the age?

Basically my issue is with the concept that everything is a concept decided by humans, so that automatically gives the oligarchy the right to change, edit, insert, or do away with rules defined by our society in order to prepare for events that appear later on as mutations or unusual disabilities. The things we decided are whats what are based upon group evidence as a society. There are legal and moral problems that come with such a thing as trans ageism. If someone legally changes their age, that implicates a lot of situations where we have determined previous age limitations to prevent or create problems and solutions to protect and uphold our society. So if a 60 year old man decides to say he was 17, and then proceeded to attend high school and then proceed to have sex with a female there? What are the legal and moral implications of that?

We say in a normal situation that would be pedophilia or rape of the highest statute, then criminal activity would increase and we would see crminals being released in droves.

Difference between protecting a group and catering to them is that our hard core facts help us differentiate whats a want and what is need. So why is that even a thing? Because people want it, not need it like real trans people because they arent being discriminated against and dont have the fight for protections and the ability to sue people at will for situations they put themselves in. The idea of a transition of mind from body type and age is something I dont particularly think is ok, because at that stage we have to rewrite every law we have in existence before trans people exploit them.

@SantaSoc I wouldn't "millenia of ideology." I'd consider it millenia of observation and experience and data.

Still doesnt answer the question lol.

Well the question you ultimately have is where you draw your objective values from. If you have no objective values, if you think it's all just concepts created by humans, then, you will inevitably get whichever people are in charge deciding what's rational, what's true or false, etc. No objective set of values is automatically going to get you that pretty quicklky I fhink. This is the role traditional religions and philosophies helped with. Moderns have accepted the notiont hat religion is irrational or dangerous (BS) but in reality, that lack of any respect for traditional beliefs, transcendental beliefs, ultimate metaphysical beliefs, is what reduces you to this radical subjectivity where the people in charge decide what's right and wrong, epriod.

You're begging the question whether objective values even exist.

Do you feel all value sets are equal?

hell no. only far left would think that.

Equal in what sense?

That they are all essentially equivalent. That there is no reason to prefer say, Western values over fundamentalist Islamic values

I'd say they're all on equivalent footing in metaethical terms.

How so?

They all stand independently as value systems.

So you would say the act of revenge rape would be morally laudable when seen in the context of the appropriate value system?

Yes, I would say that's so, by definition.

if you grew up in that system, you would believe it appropriate. Just as someone who grew up in a western value system would view it an inappropriate

now, you might be able to set them as not equal to each-other if you define a set of near objectable metrics for what equals "better". For example the amount of human suffering.

Basing a system of morality on human suffering seems pretty deeply flawed.

Why should any two systems agree about the right amount of human suffering?

someone doesnt understand ideas

all knowledge is integrated here are the basics

percepts come from our senses and our concrete objects

we form these percept into concepts based on what we see

also once enough people understand something a concept becomes a generalization the discussion of concepts and how credible they are lies in the information required for the concept

@SantaSoc

of course people jump to concepts without defining the percepts but that makes contradiction and with a contradiction check your premises one will be wrong

we also put concepts into groups

just to remind you reason is non contradictory logic

But our current age of society is based upon morals and legalities, so in what way is this concept of trans ageism palpable to the common person in a way that allows it to not conflict with the previous sets of morals defined by society as a no go level. When we discuss policies and laws that go into effect at a governmental level, we deny one group the right to have said morals and encourage others to push for their advocation of their morals. But one thing in a group setting that worked is the majority ruled based on group opinion, backed up by reason and evidence. But is feelings enough evidence to overturn a society's way of behaving socially? Is it the individual that gets to decide that or the group? The problem like I said earlier is that our government coins what is reasonable and that is also pushed by objective bias, which isnt a negative thing but isnt the entire goal perceived by us. When we as a society determine something as a group to hold true and then upend it based upon individual opinions then we allow for others to do the same thing. The problem isnt with the previous statement more of the state of the current society which is unstable socially. Where we need rules or guidelines for what is morally correct we often get the opposite with people trying to test other boundaries.

@Existence is identity

@SantaSoc I have the answers

I have the pizza

id argue people dont have morals

I am of the perception morals are instilled upon us by the person who surround is in our formative years, mist likely our parents.

It isnt 4 am sir

@SantaSoc define morals

of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :ETHICAL

: expressing or teaching a conception of right behaviora moral poem

conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

: sanctioned by or operativeon one's conscience or ethical judgmenta moral obligation

: capable of right and wrong action

@SantaSoc altruisms morals is determined by the group

Basically conforming to a standard of right or wrong, which is the societal level of morality.

yeah that should be switched to a individual level predicated on objectivism

My gosh, it's been ages since I've heard someone defend an objective standard of morality.

Music to my ears.

What

@Bookworm lol

@Bookworm do you read any philosophers?

My philosophical background is largely Thomist Aristotelean with some Stoicism.

Marcus Aurelius and the Enchiridion, mostly.

Incoming philosophy class with the nerd

@Bookworm Thomist? as in Thomas Aquinas?

Yes.

The figurative dwarf on the giant's shoulder.

@Bookworm oh ive read a bit of Aristotle a bit of Plato and mostly Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand and Aristotle was the only one gave a objective morality

from what I believe

also Aquinas tied reason to Christianity which is good and is why we they arent like the muslims

I have some more Rand and Aristotle on my reading list and book that sums up greek philosophers points

I will eventually read them all individually atleast once

@Bookworm so you havent read Rand?

No, but I'm vaguely familiar with her philosophical work.

It's not bad, or critically flawed, but if I went over it I'd probably have nitpicks.

you should Ill send you a 120 page book that gives you the basics

you should also read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged but those books are both over 500 pages

@Bookworm

What is His flesh?
His Flesh is the Word;
His Blood is the Breath;
Whoever welcomes the Word and the Breath,
They truly received a food, a drink, and a garment.
I pity those who say there is no resurrection.
The flesh does not resurrect,
But what is it that can resurrect,
So that we may revere it?
The Breath animates the flesh;
There is also a light in the flesh: the Logos.
What you say, you say through a body;
You can say nothing outside this body.
You must awaken while in this body,
For existence is done through it:
Resurrect in this life.
-Gospel of Philip

So, as we move away from identity politics and the courts examine what rights come with religious liberty, it begs the question. When is faith-based prejudice permissable? If we permit people the liberty to be themselves but also say we won't protect it, we essentially say it's okay for private individuals to discriminate. How does a country look when we permit restaurants to deny black people service? For hotels to deny two guys to reserve a honeymoon suite? For private hospitals to deny service to a transwoman? For a gym to deny service to a Muslim hijabi?

Do we permit discrimination for non-essential services only? Or can the hospital deny service that conflicts with thier faith based (ie Catholic) charter?

What about government officials? Can they discriminate based thier faith?

How about a small town with one grocer. Can she discriminate and deny service to the known Jew, denying her food? Or can they only discriminate with creative things like cakes but not "off the shelf" things?

I don't see the courts reversing previous precedent directly. What I see them doing is greatly expanding the right of religious freedoms and the right of states to regulate things that are nominally protected by precedent.

For example, marriage equality in the eyes of the Federal govt will remain a thing. But the rights of individuals to deny supporting a gay couple will be greatly expanded. That will open the Pandora's Box of religious exceptions to all antidiscrimination legislation.

Likewise Roe will remain intact but the rights of states under the 10th to regulate the practice of medicine will be emphasized. For example requiring so many support services be available that abortion in a state becomes impractical.

Abortion remains nominally legal in WV, for example, but the regulatory burden on it is such that in practice it's not possible.

>begs the question
>not a circular argument
Pls

Also how many businesses do you think would survive discriminating in a free association system?

Depends on where it is

We've had cases of restaurants denying service to blacks

Yes but how long ago was that?

I can't remember. Maybe three years.

And those businesses would have survived on that basis without legal intervention?

I'm just truly wondering how it will work. I'm accepting it will happen and am looking more now to prepare for it.

Oh I think they'll try to block free association as long as they can

I think local businesses will survive just fine discriminating.

But in the modern age of internet based businesses, motorized vehicles and drone delivery I think the issue is probably overblown

We're seeing it already with GLBT people. That said those gay bastards in CO were asking for a court whipping. :-(

I would also suggest that if you live in a community where everyone has decided to discriminate against you, you're probably better off leaving as it is, even if protected by law

I can imagine how the religious right would respond to christians being "run out of town". The hypocrisy on the right is not less than on the left.

Republicans are starting to get run out

And there are situations where Christians are shit on and or alienated

I'd agree that it's a pointless lose-lose situation when a lone individual tries to impose his will by attacking other people's freedom of association.

I don't buy into all the narratives, but there have been scenarios where that has happened

And that is wrong in my opinion. But I'm preparing for it to be the norm as we seek to make our IRL lives mimic our internet lives. An echo chamber.

tbh I think pulling everyone into the same space was a mistake

you can make an argument for integration humanizing people, for sure, but that's in non hostile contexts

which are basically nonexistent on twitter et al

I think Tim already talked about the right's effort to find a complex response to the left's ostracism of wrongthinkers. The right is still pretty reluctant to isolate and drive out its political opponents.

It's an own goal

the left is pulling an Atheism+ and will eventually be left with too few members to get shit done, so long as everyone keeps challenging the orthodoxy honestly

the difference here is that there's now the threat of violence and job loss, so if everyone who isnt a fucking socialist wants a counter strat, target those issues

Enforcing a cult mindset is definitely a political own goal for the left.

they dont work well as a cult tbh, that's the primary issue

>these people claim to love Star Wars
>ANH sums up the issue with their plan
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wntX-a3jSY>

I think the right's best response to the left's tactic of trying to deplatform and financially ruin non-leftists is for the the right to create parallel institutions from the ground up.

not feasible in all cases, and could just cause pillarization

I dont think isolating power to a singular political tribe is the solution