Advertisement
by NabMex » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:08 pm
by The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:09 pm
Kyrinasaj wrote:The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
I mean, in the post you quoted (The one on assimilation), I was exaggerating my views for comedic effect. You don't go full Borg, for one should never go full Borg.
Genetic engineering and ai-control is already crossing a pretty big line for me. There's nothing democratic about it either, not that I am one to praise democracy
by Aleckandor » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:19 pm
The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:As with regard to the notion of growing the citizenry in vats, what are you to propose as an alternative? I find the... traditional method of reproduction to be haphazard and fickle and uncontrollable. And that simply won't do in a proper civilization, you know?
by Kyrinasaj » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:19 pm
The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:Kyrinasaj wrote:Genetic engineering and ai-control is already crossing a pretty big line for me. There's nothing democratic about it either, not that I am one to praise democracy
Then again, you don’t seem to be one to praise civilization, given your previous posts.
by The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:39 pm
Aleckandor wrote:The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:As with regard to the notion of growing the citizenry in vats, what are you to propose as an alternative? I find the... traditional method of reproduction to be haphazard and fickle and uncontrollable. And that simply won't do in a proper civilization, you know?
*snip*
Actually, now that I think about it, your technocracy + democracy thing makes a lot more sense now when the mandatory test-tube babies are factored in. When the state controls the means of REproduction, they can control what happens to whatever or whoever comes off the conveyor belt. Be ideal for creating a mega under-caste of bipedal drones that are perpetually docile and have no moral agency, huh?
by Aleckandor » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:43 pm
The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:Why would I seek an under-caste of drones? This is one of the ways in which I differ from Huxley's "utopia". While the removal of humanity's psychological/neurological tendencies toward cruelty and malevolence and egoism and such is an essential part of "re-engineering the human soul", I nevertheless disagree with the caste system presented in Brave New World. Everyone will be mentally, physically, and most of all morally enhanced within the system I'm proposing. Not to mention that the very purpose of the world-state is be a force of enlightened benevolence, so as to ensure the well-being for all sapient beings (both digital and organic) within its domain.
EDIT: I mean, I consider such enhancements another aspect of the medical field, in that said enhancements are a part of improving quality-of-life/well-being. Why stop at arbitrary limits simply because it's "unnatural"? After all, it's natural that children die of polio, so thus the polio vaccine is immoral. (/s) Nature is neither good, nor bad. Nature is indifferent. Indeed, much as how I see it as a moral duty to improve access to medicine/healthcare across the world, so too do I view it as a moral duty to ensure that, in the near-future, access to genetic/cybernetic augmentation is conducted so as to be of benefit to my fellow persons.
EDIT II: I see it in my mind's eye, a world at peace and in prosperity, like a beautiful chorus in perfect and nigh-eternal harmony. Taking this analogy a tad further, our current world is like billions of dissonant and despairing voices shrieking and wailing and screaming out in suffering, crying out for salvation and a better world, you know?
EDIT III: As usual, I apologize if I've been impolite in any way.
EDIT IV: First paragraph edited slightly for clarity.
by Havenburghe » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:46 pm
by The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:12 pm
Aleckandor wrote:The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:Why would I seek an under-caste of drones? This is one of the ways in which I differ from Huxley's "utopia". While the removal of humanity's psychological/neurological tendencies toward cruelty and malevolence and egoism and such is an essential part of "re-engineering the human soul", I nevertheless disagree with the caste system presented in Brave New World. Everyone will be mentally, physically, and most of all morally enhanced within the system I'm proposing. Not to mention that the very purpose of the world-state is be a force of enlightened benevolence, so as to ensure the well-being for all sapient beings (both digital and organic) within its domain.
EDIT: I mean, I consider such enhancements another aspect of the medical field, in that said enhancements are a part of improving quality-of-life/well-being. Why stop at arbitrary limits simply because it's "unnatural"? After all, it's natural that children die of polio, so thus the polio vaccine is immoral. (/s) Nature is neither good, nor bad. Nature is indifferent. Indeed, much as how I see it as a moral duty to improve access to medicine/healthcare across the world, so too do I view it as a moral duty to ensure that, in the near-future, access to genetic/cybernetic augmentation is conducted so as to be of benefit to my fellow persons.
EDIT II: I see it in my mind's eye, a world at peace and in prosperity, like a beautiful chorus in perfect and nigh-eternal harmony. Taking this analogy a tad further, our current world is like billions of dissonant and despairing voices shrieking and wailing and screaming out in suffering, crying out for salvation and a better world, you know?
EDIT III: As usual, I apologize if I've been impolite in any way.
EDIT IV: First paragraph edited slightly for clarity.
Hey man, don't apologize for defending your point! It's a good response. But allow me to respond to said response:
See, the main difference between the development of the polio vaccine and your proposed artificial reproduction method is that the former is designed expressly to protect and prolong life rather than the latter's consequence of radically altering it far beyond a base somatic level. And of course nature is indifferent, I don't think or a[proposal=][/proposal]utomatically assume that what is natural is good; however, with that said, since approaching the issue from a normative stance understandably bears little relevance to you, I can at least say that if it isn't fundamentally broken and/or inherently inefficient, I don't really see the point of abandoning the normal reproductive process. At the very least, though I would still have my personal reservations about it, your ideal world-state can have a policy that allows both the normal and artificial processes to coexist — the former being the voluntary choice of monogamous parents (licensed, preferably) wishing to start a family of their own (with some assistance from the state until the pregnancy is carried to term, I'm assuming), with the latter method continuing to be within the world-state's discretion like as originally proposed. On the issue of genetic/cybernetic augmentation, I can't really comment too much on it; I mean, it'd be kinda cool...but as with a lot of things I would find cool to speculate upon, it'd be only cool up until a certain point.
And moving away from that and on to your bigger-picture addendum about a world in eternal peace and harmony? A lofty goal, but I would only justify the unification of world into one continuous collective as opposed to having separate, smaller, more culturally/ideologically unique collectives we call the nations of today if there was some looming cataclysmic threat intruded into our context and put the survival of all our collectives together in jeopardy. We can do our best to alleviate objective suffering and oppose deliberate villainy that happens in our time as it has in all other points in time before, but until the outside context problem arrives, I don't think we have to do this at the expense of the independent destinies of all the competing national communities that have risen and fallen over the ages. Perhaps, in theory, you can confederate different, disparate peoples into a system that defines them according to their corresponding unique bloc and probably start cooperating as a unit from there (i.e. a consociationalist system), but a true one-world government is off the table until an event comes along that really forces us to make one, otherwise we lose everything.
Who knows? Maybe you can argue that something current like climate change or nuclear proliferation or whatever is a grave enough threat to justify the world-state’s emergence or something.
by Tigrexia » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:12 pm
by Kubumba Tribe » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:35 pm
Tigrexia wrote:Fascist-Communist
Farnhamia wrote:A word of advice from your friendly neighborhood Mod, be careful how you use "kafir." It's derogatory usage by some people can get you in trouble unless you are very careful in setting the context for it's use.
by Misthas » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:37 pm
They're on completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
COMF NEWS: The 5th Armored Division, 76th Paratrooper Regiment "Henrich Weibel" and 4th Airborne Division are being transported to the southern Magyarijan border to combat the imperialist aggressors.
by Havenburghe » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:39 pm
Tigrexia wrote:Fascist-Communist
by Hatterleigh » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:42 pm
XY Inc wrote:I'm an Alt-right, Anarcho-capitalist, Neo-Confederate with anarcho-transhumanist leanings. So I'm basically a Far-right libertarian, Southern Nationalist with libertarian transhumanist leanings.
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Aleckandor » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:43 pm
by Dark Socialism » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:59 pm
by Lanoraie II » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:07 pm
by Major-Tom » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:33 pm
Lanoraie II wrote:I'm all over the place, in general, but especially in politics. If there's a such thing as a nationalist liberal, I guess that's me. Very keen on conservation of the ecosystem as well as conservation of the white race/conservation of countries and their people (regardless of race) in general. But not the death of other races. I have to stress this because otherwise I start getting private messages from self-identified nazis. Lately though I've been less into identity politics because I sway between "white people deserve to be protected" and "but does it really matter?" My nationalism is also not fully based on race--mostly is, but, say, immigrants who came to Denmark before the Euro migrant crisis and have lived there for a long time also deserve protection. It's a tricky line that changes depending on the country being discussed. I also am aware that asking people to go back to their war torn country and fix it themselves is not a good idea. I just wish they didn't have to flee from war, and didn't bring their....incompatible religion with them.
by New Anderia » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:35 pm
by Dark Socialism » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:35 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lanoraie II wrote:I'm all over the place, in general, but especially in politics. If there's a such thing as a nationalist liberal, I guess that's me. Very keen on conservation of the ecosystem as well as conservation of the white race/conservation of countries and their people (regardless of race) in general. But not the death of other races. I have to stress this because otherwise I start getting private messages from self-identified nazis. Lately though I've been less into identity politics because I sway between "white people deserve to be protected" and "but does it really matter?" My nationalism is also not fully based on race--mostly is, but, say, immigrants who came to Denmark before the Euro migrant crisis and have lived there for a long time also deserve protection. It's a tricky line that changes depending on the country being discussed. I also am aware that asking people to go back to their war torn country and fix it themselves is not a good idea. I just wish they didn't have to flee from war, and didn't bring their....incompatible religion with them.
"Very keen on the ecosystem."
Ok, yeah, cheers.
"Very keen on the conservation of the white race."
Okay, fuck that monstrosity of an idea.
by Major-Tom » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:36 pm
by Major-Tom » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:37 pm
by Dark Socialism » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:39 pm
by The South Falls » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:40 pm
Lanoraie II wrote:I'm all over the place, in general, but especially in politics. If there's a such thing as a nationalist liberal, I guess that's me. Very keen on conservation of the ecosystem as well as conservation of the white race/conservation of countries and their people (regardless of race) in general. But not the death of other races. I have to stress this because otherwise I start getting private messages from self-identified nazis. Lately though I've been less into identity politics because I sway between "white people deserve to be protected" and "but does it really matter?" My nationalism is also not fully based on race--mostly is, but, say, immigrants who came to Denmark before the Euro migrant crisis and have lived there for a long time also deserve protection. It's a tricky line that changes depending on the country being discussed. I also am aware that asking people to go back to their war torn country and fix it themselves is not a good idea. I just wish they didn't have to flee from war, and didn't bring their....incompatible religion with them.
by The South Falls » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:41 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cessarea, Cruzes Unidas de Frioborsarmarto, Duvniask, Forsher, Ifreann, Juristonia, Likhinia, Port Carverton, The Jamesian Republic, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement