Humans, unlike most animals on Earth, are in a position to radically change their own bodies and minds.
Some of the first concepts of cyborgs (including the 1960 paper that coined the term) imagined them as humans enhanced for space travel.
Nowadays we still don't have the advanced cyborgs that have been imagined in the past (yet), but we do have a lot of people with implants and/or prosthetics for medical and cosmetic purposes.
Is anybody looking forward to having more implants? How about information-based implants that connect to your brain? How about prosthetics that you don't _need_, but you _want_ for the extra capabilities they would give you?
There is no such thing as morals or ethics and politics is a waste of time. Morals and ethics are man made fallacies. What is morally or ethically acceptable to some or not to others. You fail to see my point because you are stuck on this global warming scare so hard that it clouds your judgment.
You also fail to see that there is nothing you can do about a climate change. If indeed there is a terrible climate change happening it is caused by polar switch which has happened countless times in the past. No machine or safe living will stop this shift in the poles. Ice will melt and the climate will change but not so drastic that in 30 years we wont have plant life anymore. The 95% accuracy you claim this government funded science have isn't so accurate. The climate change in which you talk about is more around 60% accurate and thats giving it maybe to much credit. For every paper written about climate change there is data that doesn't support it. Again take a look back to the 70's until today and let me know what you find about climate science and how accurate it is. There is always talk of gloom and doom but it never seems to pan out does it. in th 70's there was talk of a mini ice-age on the front. Never happened. In the late 80's and early 90's this same global warming scam said by now the earth would be heated up so much that everywhere on the planet temperatures would be in the high 120's, guess what it's not. By now they claimed that the ozone layer would be completely gone, it's not.
Your thought on politics may be true if you continue to think that your government is gonna save you. It's not these government officials that that have your best interest at heart. You lack of knowledge on how science works in beginning to sound astonishing.
"No amount of scientific knowledge, research, or development will remedy that."
Bullshit my friend. Who do you think will come up with alternate sources of energy. Who do you think works on was to make the earth a safer place to live. Not your senators or presidents. The government listens to scientist more then they do any other people in the world. Everything isn't ultimately politics, it's thinking like that which has given the government to much power to continue to make the wrong choices. It's thinking hey lets just throw money at it and see what we can do. It's thinking the worst is coming without looking at all the facts, just a few. If climate change was so real and upon our door then why is half the information falsified. And yes there is documentation from actual climate scientist who say the numbers are greatly exaggerated. But again there is nothing you can do, if in 30 years we are screwed what makes you think you can reverse it now. The damage would already be done. There is just no proof that things are getting much worse. They can and will but not for a few hundred years. We have plenty of time to change but we need to research better ways of doing things before we can take steps to change anything. This is were science comes into play. Creating better reactors, cleaner burning fuels sources, or capitalizing on electric and solar power, finding alternate sources for oil and gas, finding a better way to dispose of trash and toxic waste or finding a better use for the waste.
You say i think to highly of science well you use science to argue that it's the government that needs to do the job. Of course scientist are no better then you or me, they are you and me and people just like us. Politicians on the other hand while human like you and me don't share the same goals in life.
But i am curious as to why you did not comment on what you would change or what a priorities really is for you. It must be the climate change because that seems to be the only thing that's it on your mind. Well if it is maybe you should enlighten me on what steps we can take to reverse it and how long would that take compared to how long you say we have.
As far as the government and major corporation funding all science that just isn't true. Scientist get grants from companies, the government and private investors based on their work. Who pays the government, hmmm we do, and who pays the corporations, hmmm we do. But better yet who pays us, again we do. It's a vicious cycle that causes much grief and makes my head hurt to think about it.
So again what would you do to change the current situation?
"Humans are by nature value driven, social animals."
This statement is similar to what religion teaches about the human condition. Everything I said is what human beings truly are, not what we practice. You are arguing just to argue your ideas of climate change. I have plenty of experience in the corporate world. I worked for years for Shell Oil. I think in my time I learned a thing or two about greed and government deals. We don't disagree on large government or large corporations. I have said that about three times. We disagree complete on the cause, if any , of climate change. You think it's man made, I think it's more then likely a polar change. The Earth's magnetic field reverses every 300,000 years but the last one was 780,00 years and with the increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity I think we are seeing signs. With more earthquakes it is possible that however small the change to the axis it could cause slight changes in climate which can melt large sections of the polar icecaps. Now I'm not saying that things will happen like in 2012 the movie but it can cause bigger earthquakes, which in turn could cause major fault line shifts an dramatically change a few continents. Scientist from NASA, Germany, Russia, England, China who actually study the Earth from a perspective few get to see, space, I think have a better view of our worlds dangers. Which brings up your argument that scientist are all on government payroll because the use grants to fund their research. That is ridiculous. First of all America isn't the only country in the game. Second many scientist would argue the fact that they are in science for the money. Many of them make nothing and only desire is to make living on Earth better. So you might have to hand over a few ideas to the government to get funding to do real research. Third, because American scientist are not the only scientist in the world, lets not rule out all the scientist who are rich enough to do their own research.
My life experiences are quite sufficient to anyones life. I shouldn't have to give my life story to prove a point and i certainly wont in this instance. But i will say i am married and while i enjoy video games as much as anyone who likes to have fun does, I often dont get a chance too. I haven't played anything of significance since The new Super Mario for Wii. So you can throw that theory out the window.
I never said we dont affect the earth, we clearly do. I just dont believe in the next thirty years we will be screwed like you do.
You have a very small opinion of what humans can do. Looking toward governments wont help anyone. while we again agree on local governments being more effective, personally i dont see the need in electing leaders at all. people are subject to corruption and this can be seen greatly by politicians. Especially at the local level, but worse at a president level. I dont think I need to name names, would be to many to name.
I think everyone should be able to agree that the people, you and i everyone needs to finally have a word. People are not as helpless as everyone of a slightly hire intellect believes. Given the chance people can change the world in a matter of minutes.
But maybe you dont think i have enough life experience to possibly know this. I guess I have never talked to anyone from another country or possibly been to another country. I'm sorry i dont conform to the bullshit conservative and liberal professors crap out their mouth. Sorry for having a imagination and knowing what i truly am. Maybe because you married someone from another country that gives you a better outlook on life. i couldn't have possibly dated someone at some time like that, or had a good friend. Sorry i have faith in technology and a positive outlook on the future, regardless of what disaster happens.
Now on to the billions of dollars to build domes. You are thinking of domes as in circular, that just ridiculous and out of the fifties science-fiction novels. Have you ever been to Tokyo or even new York. There are entire structures completely sealed off from the outside elements. The look just like modern cities but are encased in glass around the parks and stores. People live there year round and never have to go outside because everything is right at their fingers. Now this isn't a way i would want to live but if your calculations of the future are correct then that seems like the most possible course of action the governments of the world would take. Now lets look at greenhouses and water purification plants. Human being are quite crafty at coming up with inventive ideas to cure problems. even before this idea of climate change caught on people started research into greenhouses or bio-domes to study the effects of living in a society cut off from natural elements. Would you believe it they work just fine. You can take out the sun and replace it with ultraviolet bulbs and plants still grown. You can re-filter oxygen given off by the plants for air to breath. Sounds a little futuristic but according to you we may be headed there. But what about our oceans, well since we have never seen the affects of climate change first hand on the ocean it's hard to tell what the real affects will be. But lets say for argument that you are right. Interestingly enough aquariums all through out the world are great models for much larger aquariums we could construct to sustain marine life until we can balance the earth out again. But what about fresh water rivers and lakes. there will still be plenty of fish in many of the unaffected areas of the world.
Now for the term sweetheart, I truly hate this term. People that use language like that for others makes me quite angry. Shows a extreme lack of respect for others. Not respect as in showing respect to elders but in a general term for respecting humankind.
Do you wish to be a politician yourself. You speak so highly of politics like you want to be i it. I would suggest staying away from it an focus on more important things.
Please one final time tell me what could we do to stop this immediate threat of global plant decay and devastation of our oceans that will occur in thirty years time. A real possibility not some idea of holding hands and singing. And no bullshit about spending trillions of dollars, there is no more money left.
I hold firm that the only way to truly change the world is to change society, if you believe the same then why continue this discussion and just agree to disagree. There is no way to stop a climate change that you describe damage is done. the only chance we have is to somehow get ride of money, which will eliminate greed and cut back governments so that power and the ability to become corrupt is taken away. If you dont agree with that then there truly is no hope for mankind in your world. Your just apart of the continuing problem.
That problems seems to be arrogance and this idea that the human race is the supreme being in all the universe.
What if life after death wasn't thought of as being on a different plane of existence? What if death was merely your consciousness, if you will, being released from one organic body in search of another?
What if and lets throw a wild one out there, after sometime of being without a body you are able to reconstitute yourself, possibly by reincarnation, or discovering how to materialize a form different from your human body? Now lets say this takes about 10,000 years or less. Would you be pissed if all that time you where away everything stayed the same?
It's not about having other sources. It's your view on science as a whole. You use it where it fits your argument. Science and consciousness don't really go hand in hand. The reason being is that consciousness is a personal occurrence. Only you know if you are self-aware. There are no machines that can test this. What happens when you die can not be based on scientific facts or theories. Unfortunately it is up to us to make these decisions as to what beliefs or ideas we cling to. I personally can not fathom not existing in some way shape or form. Can you?
"Since we still don't know what human "consciousness" is, precisely, and no one has ever demonstrated consciousness apart from a body, the idea that consciousness as an entity somehow apart from matter and energy does not appear to have much merit."
The last sentence just doesn't make sense. Nothing is apart from energy, everything is energy and matter. I could go on for days about this topic but in the end it is my own personal speculation. Which that is all that matters in the grand scheme of life. Or at least my life.
Your thinking to small. I happen to own the Tibetan book of the dead having just read a great deal of it. The 49 days account is looking at it from a standard mode of thought. Time and space does not exist after death to buddist and it is not always a practice to prepare for reincarnation. If one wishes to be reincarnated then in a physical sense 49 days to a hundred years is plausible for this to occur. But not all people can achieve this as stated in the book of the dead. It says in the book that most people will take longer to achieve reincarnation if able to do this at all, in terms of finding your way back here. Some teaching of Buddha claim that you are able to choose a time and a place completely different from what we know. In saying this it explains that time and space are often not a factor in the Buddhist afterlife.
Furthermore to think of time and space one has to throw out all logic of physical life, something that can not be done by the rational mind until death occurs and one finds for themselves what is true.
But we agree that this philosophy of life and death can not be proven. But what i pondered above has nothing to do with Buddhist teaching so this argument is worthless to the discussion.
Well then good look with life. it it was all over after this then why not kill yourself now so you don't have to starve to death. small minds like yours is why so many are turned of by atheism. Your semi intelligence is only about what you can physically see in front of you. The idea that you dont wish to explore your inner thoughts shows what kind of person you are. You are disconnected from your own mind with the worthless knowledge of others to fill it. Have a little imagination in life. It may astonish you once in awhile. You talked about me not having life experiences I think it is you who have been sheltered in life. Get out have some fun life isn't all that bad.
Sign me up. However I think a body composed of nano-robots, each slowly replicating and replacing every individual cell and structure in my body would be the way to go. Each neuron in the brain would eventually be replaced by a copy that looked and acted exactly like its original. At the end of the process I'd still be be me, but in a new infrastructure. Once that bit is done, then we get to play with our physicality and mind in a way previously impossible. Transhuman at last.