Invil,

how are your kids?

Read the 1st post, mankind has always been able to adapt to things, and change things the way he seen ft. The problem with this came when we knew this and started abusing it.

~ Cloud

> Justinian I wrote:

> Invil,

how are your kids?"

Incredible.  3 boys, 1 girl.  3 different mothers.

Sounds bad, but I'm actually a pretty good father.

V.kemp wrote: If I was any more direct I'd be talking to you like you were 5.

You know, I just realized what I was doing wrong this whole time.

If you learn to read, it'll be great to have you here. Keep us updated.

I feel really sorry for you."

...................................................................

Awww, is that how you admit defeat, kemp?  Did I crush your fragile little ego?

I gave you a perfect opportunity to in detail criticize what I said, and the responses I have made to various criticisms.  I have explained every point I've made and defended it.

All you have is insults.   Maybe you're the illiterate one here?  That would explain a lot.  You don't really have the intelligence to grasp anything I say, so instead you post the equivalent to "You're a dumby dumb dumb poop head"

Being passive aggressive is adorable though.   You actually remind me of my 4 yr old daughter when I turn off the disney channel.

Actually,  I think she may have better debating skills than you.

Maybe one day she'll play IC and rip you a new in the forums like her father

If you'd actually like to talk philosophy kemp, let me know.

"Why can't we use our intelligence to decide the right course for humanity?   and emotions are merely chemical reactions in our brains,   they all are rooted in instinct.  Maybe crack open a science text book?  Study up a bit on neuroscience,  it will do you wonders.

We are merely biological machines.  What makes us human is our dna.  Emotions all spawn from instinct.   To argue that would be to argue against all of modern neuroscience.

...what?  Do you believe the human being has some silly little magical soul?   Nope.  All just brain chemistry.   

You seem to be in the habit of making baseless assertions.   Back up what you say.   Why can't intelligence be used to mold the human being at not just a social level, but a biological level as well?

Social philosophies are all well and good.  However they will all be destined for failure if you don't radically alter the human being to co-exist with that given political philosophy or theory.

Our ability to adapt is amazing.   We now have the chance of using technology to adapt our species to meet the demands of a radically different world.  A world created mostly by the success of the human animal..

We have the ability to become our own gods.    Design our own children.   Change what it means to be "human".

I'm going for a PhD in biochemistry and I plan on working in the field of biotechnology.   Believe me,  within 20 years the option for designing your own offspring will be a very real thing.   Not just science fiction.   It sounds crazy now but do some research,  we are rapidly moving in that direction.

As a father,  I love my children.  However if I had the chance to be involved with their creation at the very base DNA level,  I'd without a doubt do it.

Mankind has the chance to become the gods that we've always created."

we cant use chemistry to decide the right coarse, because immediately when we do so, "right" loses all meaning.

if we are merely biological machines, we are no different then other life and life is no different then death, and indifference occurs and any advancment that you may want is defeated.

no, i dont beleive humans are special because we have a soul, i think we are special because the race is lucky enough to have me as one of its members

intellect cant control our biological senses, because if it does, we are nothing but machines programed to do what the master programmed us to do. we loose free will. we are no longer beings, we're puppets. and because we're no longer beings, we cant be human beings.

why would you want to take away from your children the abillity to feel what they want to feel? why would you want to take away their free will; you're not talking about the chance to become Gods; you're talking about your chance to gain power over individuals, your greed and lust for power; you're talking about tyranny.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Defeat? Sorry, I'm not interested in listening to a little kid whine.

yeah, his personal philosophy could of been invented by a 10 year old... pretty weak.

I post for discussion. Exchange of ideas and responses to those ideas. Even when I'm overly an asshole (which I often am, because most of the time on these boards it's some ignorant, cocky, arrogant kid posting who doesn't know or care about the truth), it's usually because something's really disgusting and I have no intention of actually continuing an exchange with someone who will never actually respond to the CONTENT of my post. And I always respond very specifically and explain myself at whatever length it takes to explain how I arrived at whatever conclusions I make clear. Inviltrist is one of these people who gets a harsh response and then I don't bother to keep responding. Because he never touches the content. Often someone responds to the content and I'll even apologize for my coarse initial post(s), if appropriate, as we break things down and see exactly where we disagree. We have a perfectly respectable discussion of things we disagree on. Some of them are even humorous.

But inviltrist isn't funny. He won't touch the content here with a 10 foot pole. Because  I was specific. And that's the last thing he'll be.

To have a dialogical communication, you have to be willing to let those you are communicating with take the discussion to ever increasing levels of abstractness or concreteness. That's why I like to start with the specifics of what people post. It's easy. It's hands-on. I keep the quotations short and respond concisely. If a person wants to actually discuss their statements, this lets us break down specifically where we disagree on the evidence and logic that leads to their conclusions. Then if there's more to talk about more theoretically we know on what we're basing this more abstract discussion. We actually understand fully where we each stand and disagree.

So, in keeping with my overly harsh posts to arrogant, ignorant children, I will say that everything here only gives me the impression Inviltrist is a child or an adult severely underdeveloped. In addition to my asshole comments here I ALWAYS post content. My asshole comments are always DIRECTLY drawn from the content. If someone wants to respond to the content, I'll gain respect for them and discuss. If someone responds like Inviltrist does and ignores the comment to cry that I was too mean to them, that's EXACTLY the kind of kid on here that I post asshole comments for and then stop posting about whatever it is they're crying about.

A ten year old?   Riiiiight.

I'm still waiting for ANY of my points to be countered with opposing fact or scientific evidence.

I started this thread hoping someone would challenge what I was saying by using the rules of logic, providing scientific and other concrete evidence to prove my assertions false.

However, keep in mind I don't believe the state I lay out in this thread will be achieved. I don't have that much faith in humanity.  It's all theoretical.

I can understand why some of the things I say may seem wrong to you.   That is the entire reason I made this thread.  However, as I expected,  politics is filled with a bunch of scientific laymen.

The technology I talk about may seem like science fiction,  however...  do some research.  It's not that far off.

Once we get that technology, our society will be left with the choice of what to do with it.     It'll be the biggest "culture war" we've ever seen.

I could suggest some highly regarded modern scientific literature to back up the claims I make about technology,  if you happen to be interested in understanding things a little further?

Maybe once you understand the science behind what I'm talking about you'll be capable of actually making a decent argument against it.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> I post for discussion. Exchange of ideas and responses to those ideas. Even when I'm overly an asshole (which I often am, because most of the time on these boards it's some ignorant, cocky, arrogant kid posting who doesn't know or care about the truth), it's usually because something's really disgusting and I have no intention of actually continuing an exchange with someone who will never actually respond to the CONTENT of my post. And I always respond very specifically and explain myself at whatever length it takes to explain how I arrived at whatever conclusions I make clear. Inviltrist is one of these people who gets a harsh response and then I don't bother to keep responding. Because he never touches the content. Often someone responds to the content and I'll even apologize for my coarse initial post(s), if appropriate, as we break things down and see exactly where we disagree. We have a perfectly respectable discussion of things we disagree on. Some of them are even humorous.

But inviltrist isn't funny. He won't touch the content here with a 10 foot pole. Because  I was specific. And that's the last thing he'll be.

To have a dialogical communication, you have to be willing to let those you are communicating with take the discussion to ever increasing levels of abstractness or concreteness. That's why I like to start with the specifics of what people post. It's easy. It's hands-on. I keep the quotations short and respond concisely. If a person wants to actually discuss their statements, this lets us break down specifically where we disagree on the evidence and logic that leads to their conclusions. Then if there's more to talk about more theoretically we know on what we're basing this more abstract discussion. We actually understand fully where we each stand and disagree.

So, in keeping with my overly harsh posts to arrogant, ignorant children, I will say that everything here only gives me the impression Inviltrist is a child or an adult severely underdeveloped. In addition to my asshole comments here I ALWAYS post content. My asshole comments are always DIRECTLY drawn from the content. If someone wants to respond to the content, I'll gain respect for them and discuss. If someone responds like Inviltrist does and ignores the comment to cry that I was too mean to them, that's EXACTLY the kind of kid on here that I post asshole comments for and then stop posting about whatever it is they're crying about.

Who was whining?  I enjoy your intellectual empty dribble.  It's pretty amusing.   I take it as a sign of defeat on your part because not ONCE have you countered anything I was saying with sound logic or any evidence to the contrary.

I was hoping to raise a deep philosophical discussion.  What I say may seem crazy to a lot of you,  but as nano and biotechnology rapidly develops the human being will be forced to think about many of the points I have raised.

Genetic engineering?  Designer children?  Cloning?

Biotechnology is going to be a rapidly growing industry.    Do some research and you'll be fascinated at how truly close we are to all of the above.

In the end,  reality is a very grim, cold, apathetic thing.   We all have various personal experiences and reasons why we believe what we do.    I've laid out my reasoning, and I've countered all criticism raised against it.

We all have the same reality to face.  How we deal with it will determine our fate. 

On a side note, Does anyone, or has anyone attended MSU? Or even live near Lansing, MI?  There is going to be a big debate in a few weeks on morals and technology.  I'll be there,  and I'd love nothing more than to discuss these issues in person.

> avogadro wrote:

> it is all subjective, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. right and wrong is in the eyes of the beholder.

and human beings are more special then other species. why? because im a member of them.

you are talking about forcing all humans to believe in the goal that you believe in. plus your goal is pretty gay. existence for the sake of existence is pretty pathetic; your argument is pathetic.

yes, it seems horrible because of my instincts and if i didnt have instincts, i would be indifferent to everything including your stupid idea.

why should the human animal want to avoid extinction? the only reason you see human extinction as horrible is because of your emotions

your whole argument is that your emotions are more valid then everyone else's so you should be able to force everyone to beleive in your goal. you're no different then a tyrant, other then you're weak and pathetic and have to resort to posting on forums instead of attempting to achieve your goal.

......................................................................................................................

Again, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about me.

I go to MSU, a college with one of the highest regarded biology departments in the country,  I'm going to get my doctorite in biochemistry, and I intend to directly work in the biotechnologies industry.  Which, if you'd do your research, is projected to be one of the most rapidly growing industries in the world.

So I do more than just "talk" about it on this piece of sh*t forum,  my entire career and a great portion of my life will be invested into making these technologies available.

You keep thinking you one-up me by bringing up the fact that my philosophy and idea's are based on emotion.  It's funny because I never said all emotions were bad,  nor did I say they all need to be destroyed.   I just firmly believe they need to be altered.

I'm not alone in my thinking.    Transhumanist and post-humanist philosophy and beliefs are gaining popularity as technology keeps rapidly advancing.

Do I need to educate you all on what transhumanism/post-humanism is?

Am I the only person here who actually has taken a class beyond philosophy 101?

I've studied Communicatoin, Catholic Studies, Integrated Marketing, Philosophy, and Theology at two ranked universities in the United States. My opening statement about basing statements on facts was because man, I looooooved my grad courses! Please note sarcasm.

Who cares what I seem like to you? Refer to 2 posts ago. You're here to stroke your own ego. Your bullshit doesn't concern me. I just wanted to give you some of the education information you asked for because I would hate for you to think I might only have a 9th grade education like yourself.

I'll try to be ONLY specific content orientied--without the asshole quality I usually use in high doses.

I still say you've been terrible in your responses. You've got to qualify your statements. When people question them, the least you can do is explain why you believe/stated what you stated. That gives us more understanding of your posted statements and something to work with. Maybe only having a biochemistry education and engaging and bringing in so many other fields of study has you ill-prepared. In any case, this is why, if I ever engage you in here in the future (god knows I'm staying out of this quack thread, lol), I'll keep it specific only content questions (to start, that is). You'll have no excuses.

I'm sure your field will bring you much reward. I doubt there will be a better time to be in your field than our lifetimes. (just in case I don't use them enough, )