Biologically Modified Justice
Long time readers no doubt already know that I'm not much in favor of social justice as it is practiced and advocated these days. Just like Marxist communism or other forms of idealized socialism, the concepts sound great when presented in the philosophical abstract, detached from the process of actually running an implementation through the messy reality of human nature and human society. Unfortunately, in practice you wind up with things like the millions of deaths in the old Soviet Union, the sad state of Venezuela today, and in the wealthier and more successful parts of world, a substantial fraction of society who would read Harrison Bergeron as something other than satire. Charity is a wonderful thing. Forcing other people into your choice of charity with the threat of imprisonment and violence, less so. Similarly for dragging down the best and the brightest and the most entrepreneurial, those who are working to build the better tomorrow. If you press them into doing nothing more than supporting mediocrity and paying for the consequences of failure, then the future will be one of far more mediocrity and failure, not progress.
So that said, today I thought I'd point out Biologically Modified Justice, a book written by an academic who is very much in favor of both social justice and bringing an end to aging and age-related disease. I linked to his blog here and there back when he was writing regularly on the topic of longevity science; it was interesting to observe someone within a community traditionally hostile towards life extension - and to technological progress in general, for that matter - reconciling the urge to personal health and longevity with a doctrine that proclaims any such urge for self-improvement as somewhere between selfish and evil. A widespread view among many of the social justice community, insofar as we can put a single label on a very broad collection of diverse viewpoints, is that progress must start by raising up the weakest and poorest. Attempts to build new technologies always benefit the wealthy and the influential first of all, and are thus either viewed with suspicion or vetoed outright, even given the history of countless initially expensive technologies that rapidly became available for the masses at a low cost. Those who throw stones at the altar of inequality wish for a society more level, and often at any cost to progress.
Fortunately there are more sensible voices, such as the author of the book linked below, though I fear they often have little influence over what passes for the mainstream of thinking regarding social justice, and sensible or not, even their more polite views are still footsteps on the same road that led to the Soviet Union and Venezuela. Human nature and enforced equality are just not compatible housemates. Still, I think most of you would find Biologically Modified Justice an interesting read, regardless of your leanings on the optimal organization of human society. As the biotechnologies of human rejuvenation move closer to widespread availability in the clinic, we are going to see many new voices in favor of rejuvenation arise in communities that are at this time generally hostile towards progress and enhanced longevity. There will be numerous attempts to synthesize the urge to live longer, and the advent of the means to do so, with philosophies that presently reject that goal. These are interesting times.
Theories of distributive justice tend to focus on the issue of what constitutes a fair division of 'external' goods and opportunities; things like wealth and income, opportunities for education and basic liberties and rights. However, rapid advances in the biomedical sciences have ushered in a new era, one where the 'genetic lottery of life' can be directly influenced by humans in ways that would have been considered science fiction only a few decades ago. How should theories of justice be modified to take seriously the prospect of new biotechnologies, especially given the health challenges posed by global aging? Biologically Modified Justice addresses a host of topics, ranging from gene therapy and preimplantation genetic diagnosis, to an 'anti-aging' intervention and the creation and evolution of patriarchy. This book aims to foster the interdisciplinary dialogue needed to ensure we think rationally and cogently about science and science policy in the twenty-first century.
The idea that we could directly alter the biology of a person via genetic intervention, or develop an 'anti-aging drug', or utilize genetic tests for screening genetic diseases would have been considered pure science fiction just a few decades ago. And yet all of these prospects either have become, or might soon be, a reality. And as science progresses we may be able to promote the health prospects of the current generation (and all future generations) by improving our biological capacity to fend off infectious and chronic diseases. I began working on this book in the year 2000. That was the same year two rival teams were racing to sequence the human genome. As I began to follow the field of human genetics, and to think about the importance of science more generally, I realized that there was very little written by political theorists on these topics. Over the years the neglect of science, especially the biomedical sicences, began to trouble me more and more. It troubled me both as a teacher and as a scholar.
As a teacher I found it disturbing that my students learned about topics such as justice, freedom, and equality but did not really learn about the important role science and innovation play in helping humanity create more fair and humane societies. Current debates about distributive justice often give students the impression that justice only involves the distribution of wealth and income, or giving priority to basic liberties like free speech. But government decisions to stifle or promote basic and applied scientific research can also have profound impacts on our life prospects. What constitutes 'well-ordered' science? Would we know unjust science policies when we see them? Neglecting these issues comes with great peril, as many of the most pressing challenges humanity faces this century will require new knowledge and innovation.
Rather than simply extending existing theories of justice to encompass the new developments of the genetic revolution, I came to the conclusion that the genetic revolution that was unfolding around us required political theorists to re-think the basic premises of what the demands of justice are, as well as what we wanted or expected from our theories of justice. Can insights from evolutionary biology and genetics help the political theorist develop emancipatory knowledge about the kind of society, institutions, and culture we should aspire to realize in the world today? I decided to write this book because I believe the answer to this question is an emphatic 'Yes!'
Communism is not about forced equality, but about the state possesing the means of production.
And one of the movements leading to transhumanism (and life extension as part of it) was born in Russia/USSR in the early 20th century.
It's true that Venezuela's economy is a disaster, but it's also true that the biggest economic power today is a mixed communist-capitalist country.
To be fair, I think a big part of the Left in the Western World doesn't understand what communism is, thinking it's about giving subsidies and the like.
Reason,
I am a big fan of this blog. But I must be honest, I think you are committing a cognitive error with some of your logic. I will include my reasoning and I would be grateful if you would give me a fair hearing. I do very much like much of what you write and follow your blog frequently.
Can I ask what your understanding of confirmation bias is? Have you read much in this area? I think it may be clouding your judgment, as it does to every human. If you could do me the favour of looking in to it I would appreciate it. Simply, as humans, when we scan for data, we, (unconsciously) only pick up data points that marry up with our chosen decision, and disregard those that contradict it. This happens in every one of us. We are all infallible in our reasoning, because of evolved traits such as this. Understanding these biases will help anyone get closer to the truth. It reveal why everyone believes themselves to be correct, when clearly that is not possible!
I would agree with you that human nature precludes complete equality. I would agree that you need a large degree of competition and yet, also clearly, as societies, we operate with various degrees of hybrid model - between complete free market and freedom, and communism.
Sometimes it makes sense to pool resources, sometimes markets become perverted and develop damaging traits that need taming. Sometimes we can more effectively work together without a profit motive. Surely it doesn't have to be one or the other in some grand zero sum ideological game, where zealots on both side proclaim the one true way. You can have innovation and massive reward for innovation, while at the same time skimming some fraction off to create a social fabric, or feed starving people.
What is wrong with pragmatically approaching each issue without ideology, and using evidence to figure out the correct way forward?
Also, blaming the current situation in Venezuela on socialism, betrays another human bias alongside confirmation bias. The bias to reduce everything to simple A + B cause and effect. Truthfully, a major player in the current Venezuelan situation is the hugely reduced price of oil, regardless of the political proclivities of the current government. Though of course, taking the above bias in to account, the truth is more likely that factors A, B, C, and D, are responsible. Dont get me wrong, I am fully in agreement that full communism is a no go, and is often very dangerous (as in USSR etc), and works against human nature to compete, and exist in hierarchies etc. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water, and never help another human being.
As posters above mention, China is quite successful. Venezuala was until the oil price fell. Scandinavian countries are, with blended models pushing more toward social.
I would, truly, be interested in your response to this. I would be very grateful, as a reasoned and intelligent individual, if you would look in to the biases I mentioned, and consider them as part of your arsenal of understanding the world around us, and yourself.
To be clear, I agree that scientific advance should not be held back because there are starving people.
I'm more looking at your views on social justice in general.
Matthew, thank you for leaving this well argued comment. I hope you'll stay with us and continue supporting SENS and the rejuvenation cause, despite the social/political/ideological differences we may all have.
I agree with you that Reason may be too blunt in his assessment of communism, although I certainly agree with him that "social justice" as as it is conceived and practiced in the U.S.A. in 2017 is utterly repulsive and far from an actual "justice". It is more of a power struggle wherein one group tried to overcome another - but not for the benefit of all. The exact same goes for U.S.A.'s take on "feminism" ; what you witness isn't real feminism, it's feminazism seeking to wage a war against men rather than rightfully become their equal.
To link this all to today's book (thank you Reason for introducing it to us), I wonder what the author is proposing in terms of legal stance and advocacy. If he is recommending a strict state control over biological modifications, then this would go against the hopes of some people here who'd rather campaign for a biological deregulation.
How will the "biological justice" (a concept which I sympathise with) be carried out and upon whose standards ?
I think the criticism to these technologies will come in this order:
1) First of all they will say that is impossible
2) When they realize that is possible, they'll say that is undesirable (because is unnatural, ecological impact, etc)
3) When they realize that is desirable, they'll say that will be only for rich
4) When they realize that this will be just in the short term, maybe they'll become silent
As an Eastern European I agree with Reason. Socialism and communism are dangerous ideologies and carry very little in the way of positives.
Communism specifically has caused so much death and suffering in the last 100 years, I'd think most people would know it's not viable or in any way preferable by now. But I suppose the authoritarian "utopia" always holds allure to a specific type of person. That and the lack of education most Westerners receive on the subject - most can barely name 3 or 4 communist and socialist regimes out of the many that operated in Southern America, Eastern Europe, Africa and most of Asia. I suppose most don't even know the WW2 had the positive effect of avoiding civil wars in many Western European countries which had communist terrorist groups operating at large throughout the early 20th century.
I'm not a fan of communism (nor capitalism), but does really those communist countries were so bad because they were communist or because they were dictatorships? Here in Spain, during around half a century, we had much the same problems that the people critizise from communist regimes: lot of murders, not freedom of speech, secret police, people put in jail without judgement, etc., and it was an anti-communist regime!
OTOH, I think the automation of more and more jobs will soon kill capitalism (and probably money) and we will evolve to an economic system more akin to communism than capitalism (while continue being democratic in the political side).
They were still bad even after they stopped being dictatorships - after they killed all the dissidents and brainwashed the population.
There is a deep incompatibility with humans and "equality".
And I'm not sure any future transition to communism - if it is even possible because I severely doubt big industrial complexes will just give up their power and capital over to anyone else - will be less bloody than before.
If anything I can see it becoming a massacre and ending up exactly where it did last time just as easily.
Anonymoose, I am not arguing for pure Communism.
But I am not arguing for a wild west of pure capitalism either.
It seems Reason is effectively arguing for a complete abortion of taxation and a social safety net. True pure capatilasm, or communism, doesn't realy exist these days. We have blended models, and the argument is where on the spectrum we fall.
My argument is that you can take some fraction of wealth to ensure the education, basic health, security, and safety net of the population, without impacting the ability of people to innovate. If anything a healthy and educated population are more likely to be industrious and innovative. You can still have your reward and competition.
Also, he clearly views taxation as some kind of forced charity. I would argue that any wealth made by an individual is not created in a bubble, but is supported by the wider infrastructure of a society - legal framework, police security, transport networks etc etc, and it would be better to view such payments as a due on the use of that shared support, than forced robbery.
I just think turning this argument in to a simple black and white, left and right argument does it no justice, and is an oversimplification. The truth is surely somewhere in the middle, with many shades of grey and exceptional cases.The reason people do so I believe, is because of the biases we all operate under.
A good example of a market not functioning - the inability of pharmaceutical companies to research new antibiotics, because short courses are not profitable. Clearly in such a case, it makes sense to either regulate, or to step in with pooled resources and push the market in the correct direction.
To blindly argue that everything must be shared, or nothing, depending on your chosen ideology, is unwise.
Thanks Spede for your welcome. I will indeed stick around.
Anonymoose said: "And I'm not sure any future transition to communism - if it is even possible because I severely doubt big industrial complexes will just give up their power and capital over to anyone else - will be less bloody than before."
Capital is only colored papers. They have a meaning only because the state gives them a meaning.
If all work is done by machines, people will have no jobs. If people have no jobs, they have no money. If they have no money, they don't consume. If they don't consume, companies have no power and no reason to exist.
So what will happen when nobody has a job? They will simply starve and die? Nope, they will change the government and the entire economic system. Machines will continue working (because an old-fashioned, non-automated country could not compete with a modern, automated country), and people will use the goods the machines produce, even if they have no job.
There will not be a real need to link jobs with survival, like we do today. People will not need to have a job to earn a living anymore.
Antonio, I agree with you. The AI revolution is going to require a radical rethink.
"Capital is only colored papers."
Yes, companies will give up their privileges because the unwashed masses cannot afford their products... just like Intel did a decade ago ... oh. Wait. No. That's exactly what didn't happen.
The way I see it most big corporations are self sufficient at this point, especially megacorps like Google (who has been brain draining military industrial companies for the last 5 or 6 years. Put that into perspective).
Good luck with the peaceful transition to communism.
Don't be surprised if corp CEOs end up as our glorious leaders.
Hi there,
"There will not be a real need to link jobs with survival, like we do today. People will not need to have a job to earn a living anymore".
This.
Bang-on Antonio.
It really is our not-so-far future, automatization, autobotization, bioautomatization and bioautobotization (bioautonanobotization... Yeah that one makes a lot of points at a Scrabble game), etc... nanorobots, automated appliances taking the place of a human (whom once did this job) and simplifying the humans' life. Robo Cop ? Terminator ? I, Robot ?
A.I. ? Chappie ? Wall-e ? Ghost in the Shell ? As humans our responsability lies in making sure Ultra-Advanced Artificial Intelligence does not learn ''to feel'' and deconstruct human emotions (since they drive many of our ethical and, even, logical reasoning) : Steve Hawkins predicted not Rise of The Planet of The Apes, but rather, Rise of The Planet of The Robots.
Yes, full blown Terminator Wars.. Humans in direct conflict, competition and at the mercy of their Own Creation and Doing: 'Bots, Robots, 'Droids, Androids, Automatons, Clones, Facsimiles, Human-like robots that have the body of humans (automated human clones). Sci-fi ... much, but not So much anymore. Robots may decide to take-over if, by their A.I., they
Learn... learn to emulate human emotional and rational thinking. Their fake artificial conscience will make them ''self-aware' of their own existence and no need for a human : humans are disposable and robots should not be their slaves. Rather, robots will want to enslave them and dominate them like their slave puppets. The robots will thus make that Eureka moment of ''Self-Realization'' on their own. These advanced technobots will challenge anyone who defies them or challenges their Superiority and Authority. If you ''do not comply to Robot's Orders'' it could become a rebellious lethal game. To them humans are a Poor, Weak and Inferior version of themselves, an Old version even if it's the Creator : One that is Below them, just like a Conqueror Oppressing an ''inferior'' population. Needing Evolving to Robot Superiority : Upgraded or Wiped-out.
Much akin to Eugenics racism superiority ''purity'' WWII Nazis aryans extermination of Jews or Pocahontas getting raped by Colonial Virginia conquerors or Viking barbarians desacrating English abbeys in 9th century. Advanced AI Robots will question and doubt everything just like humans do (they will measure and calculate odds trillions of times better than us), their thinking will be unpredictable just like humans are, if much much worse if they Learn; Knowledge is Power and Control of the ignorant, fearing and uneducated low class masses..
Thankfully, we are still very far from that, and automatisation will have great positives; such as removing the damning and maddening curse that befalls everyone : that life is a race to ''make money'' ...to survive in misery paycheck to paycheck.
That ''you Must work'' as if it's a necessity to your very physical existence since without financial resources (an income) you're a Poor who can't even ''afford to live'' since you can't buy your food (most basic Need) for your subsistence; thus, you end death-starved on the street begging for bread crumbs and pennies.
It is the most liberating feeling on your conscience, free of the financial race bait ''prove yourself by earning '' shackles : that you Will survive With or Without a Job and that it makes no difference whatsoever anymore.
Savage Capitalism (put a price tag on everything and tax everything) with the advent of Middle-Ages Mercantilism is the downfall of humanity. Money Money money... Problems Problems problems...
No the future is this : automatisation meaning ''back to the roots'', just like before with the Aboriginal way of life. Aboriginals survived from the Land, mother Earth gave them their for subsistence that they hunted : they did not have to work to pay that 50 cents a carrot price at the super market - they picked that carrot from the cultivated ground and ate it free. That's how they survived, that is how we will too. So brush up on those woods' gathering and hunting skills, especially if the robots can't keep you comfy at home anymore.
CANanonymity:
Some say that self-driving cars will make 4 million people in the US lose their jobs.
Many real state agents lose their jobs in recent years due to housing-searching websites.
There are banks that don't have physical offices and only operate on Internet.
Amazon launched last year a cashier-less grocery store.
Etc. etc. etc.
These are current examples and none require AI nor nanotechnology.
Not working and not having money comes with it's own set of problems. It's a bit late for me here so I don't want to get too far into the problem but let me just paint you an easy to understand scenario:
You want to acquire a house to live in.
There's no money.
There's no real estate agencies.
Choosing it and getting it instead of all the other people who want that particular hosue will make all of them mad. We can't have that.
So it's drawn randomly by a computer.
And you're stuck with a shitty house in a shitty part of town in a shitty town because you got the bad draw.
Welcome to communism 2.0.
Granted in communism getting a house is hard because the government keeps the supply of everything low so once you actually get something you feel like a king. So most people won't feel too bad about living in the bad draw lot. After all. Humans are just sheep.
But eventually enough people get bad draws. Or the ruling class lives so much better even the good draws start looking lackluster. So that system falls and a 'fair' way of deciding who gets the good house is put in place instead.
Basically if there's no money something else will take it's place for the sake of convince. People don't want to rely on randomness. And they sure as hell don't want to wear the same pair of black pants. Unless it has a brand logo stamped in a visible place - but even then you can't be sure which brand logo this particular fool likes.
People are hard to please is what I'm saying.
@Antonio Communism cannot exist without coercion. Therefore dictatorship is a condition for communism. There are enough scholarly articles that clarify the inextricable link between communism and dictatorship.My grandparents and parents suffered greatly because of this forced "equalization" under the communist rule. It pains me to see so many people still mesmerized by "social justice"
@Antonio
Very true, your examples are the beggining, it's going to be a mess once Ultra-advanced AI is finally here, and among us.
@Anonymoose
Yes, you're right, in general, people are hard to please; because they are deeply set in their ways and standards of living. But you named the problem at the very core of capitalistic, socialistic, dictatorialistic, communistic, monarchistic, democratistic societies in one word : Money.
Money is thus the cancer that brings wars, bloodshed, competition ... Because life is one big competition, a capitalistic competition to get financial resources - to survive and subside - to cover your basic essential Needs : food and shelter.
People that complain they did not get the house they wished if people don't work anymore, real estate is dead, there is no money...they are in for a Rude Awakening ... some people don't even have a home (homeless people) and are death-starved - no food either ... just dying slowly ...
"There is no Money"... once more there-in lies the fundamental crux and cause of the problems - not the lack of money - but, Money, itself.
We continue to Price Everything... It's a Doomed system... Money = Cancer of societies. So called ''Wealth'' is financial resource bs, the more financial resources = more Wealth, utter bs. More financial resources = less Wealth and Richness and More Death (starvation). A big Race to see who makes the most financial resource at the expense of everyone. Soon, we will Tax your thoughts, the number of breaths you take in a day or the amount of ml you pee down the toilet bowl... Why ?
Because we can, and we will; since money makes the world go round and planet Earth is one big Capitalistic cesspool of hell.
This ''resource''...this ''currency''... is a bane and a scourge on humanity. Animals survive very well without ''money'', apparently, humans die of it.
"You want to acquire a house to live in.
There's no money.
There's no real estate agencies.
Choosing it and getting it instead of all the other people who want that particular hosue will make all of them mad. We can't have that.
So it's drawn randomly by a computer.
And you're stuck with a shitty house in a shitty part of town in a shitty town because you got the bad draw.
Welcome to communism 2.0."
Huh??
You want a house to live in.
There's no money.
You ask state owned robots to build you a house.
Robots build you a house.
Welcome to Star Trek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets#Economics
Gosh there's some bizarre paranoid arguments in here I don't know where to start!
It's interesting how the 'anti communist' rhetoric is so sensitive to the deaths under starlinism yet can always explain away the millions of deaths that came from the forming and maintaining of capitalism. I mean not even the suffering and death maintinging it, but I ask you has capitalism ever come into effect peacefully? Has any REAL social change come into effect peacefully? The origins of the modern world is based on slavery, my point being it's very easy to find a moral objection when you go looking for one!
It also strikes me as odd why any sort of break from capitalism would have to be like what's happened in the past, why? I mean the only way capitism has survived is by adopting elements of central planning, the only way it's not completely collapsed is because of China, a weird miss mash of central planning and the free market, and even that's beginning to fall a part pulling everything down with it. It all just seems a well rehearsed message when people say why can't we move past capitalism. 'Oh we can't possibly have a better, more sensibly planned system then capitalism, don't you dare try anything new! Look what will happen!'
The truth is capitalism doesn't work, the true utopia is thinking we can tinker a bit and make it work or return to some distant past when it did, which is of course nonsense, as we live in a different, larger, more complex and more connected world.
We are living on the edge of destroying our planet because of the unessary waste of capitalism caused by its chaos. We either collectively deal with these or the world of tomorrow will not be a nice one!
Capitalism will fail for the final time at some point whether the elites want it to or not, its whether we move to a better super obendant, technology driven sensibly planned system (fully automous luxery communism!) or one with lowering living standards that slowly crumbs away like we are doing at the moment...
"Animals survive very well without ''money'', apparently, humans die of it."
Animals rarely reach adulthood. And they have their own currency of sorts - physical strength. I doubt you want us to move back to that fiscal system.
As for the homeless, my country makes, or rather used to make a robust effort to house them. What they do is destroy the homes they've been provided with. Now you're going to say education yada yada - guess what - it's free and mandatory here. Yet some of the poorest poor refuse to go and the ones that do go rarely pay any attention to the curriculum.
People are not simple.
"Robots build you a house.Welcome to Star Trek."
And you're missing the point completely.
It could still be a shitty house. Built on a shitty location. In a town you don't want to live in. Even when everyone lives in the same buildings, dresses in the same clothes and is brainwashed to believe individuality is a sin, people still can plainly see a south facing apartment is better than a north facing one, shorts make more sense for sport than straight cut pants and your neighbors, and what is outside your window does fucking matter.
This is not a trait of human personality that can easily be weeded out. And one that can only be suppressed by an initial spectacular display of violence and then after that a constant threat of death.
"Capitalism will fail for the final time at some point whether the elites want it to or not"
Communism already failed. Central planning is a pipe dream. Open your eyes. China only became successful when it moved away from central planing if anything. Then again you're one of those "We are living on the edge of destroying our planet" ignoramus, so I doubt you'll ever rattle your brain for long enough to realize what nonsense you're spewing. If you're that worried about the environment go read a geology textbook in full and then decide if ecoalarmism makes even a tiny bit of sense. When a threat is blown out of proportions, the actions taken against it are more damaging than the threat itself.
"to the deaths under starlinism" - the deaths caused by communism didn't start or end with Stalin. Or with Gorbachov. People are to this day dying from the side effect of the communist idiocy.
All of you left leaning fools are missing the point. Communism isn't just bad as a financial system. It's bad as an ideology in general. It's counter intuitive to people and it only causes grief, what's more - it can only be kept working in an authoritarian model. Even successful communist regimes fell when the people were allowed to vote freely.
Robots don't make communism significantly more enjoyable than it was before. Not the robots we'll have in the next 50 years. And you quite possibly will not live beyond that point so you're setting yourselves up for disappointment.
I can't even imagine how much more the development of anti aging therapies could be slowed down if USA had as many socialist lobbies in their healthcare system as we do in Europe.
I'm from Norway and born in 85. Norway is the best country in world to live in. Many afro-americans have moved to my local place the last 10 years. Here they face no racism, the get government social money and are far more productive than they would be in US. I have grown up at a hospital as an organ transplant recipient are on social money and came up with the idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI), when I were around 5. I donate 2/17 of my income to Solving Organ Shortage (SOS) and Organ Preservation AIliance (OPA). Im sure that UBI is coming in every country. There are 2 reasons there will be UBI. No jobs because of automation and many people are not smart enough to become researchers. It is discovered that 1/6 of population have mosaicism T21 (a bit Down syndrom), it is in the human germline. Human got children with DS form before stone age to today. Its the worlds biggest problem.Only germline engineering will be able to get it out of the human germline. However in Norway we have a problem. 1/3 of government budget are to social pensions to many people that are in their best age and can work but doesn't want. In my place 40.000 of 200.000 persons receives this funding. And a whole "city" of 60.000 -80.000 nowegians are living in spain. It have become a major problem. The welfare system have become too lucrative.
Anonymoose said:
"It could still be a shitty house. Built on a shitty location. In a town you don't want to live in."
Why on hell should be that?
"Even when everyone lives in the same buildings, dresses in the same clothes and is brainwashed to believe individuality is a sin"
Your arguments are becoming pretty insane and totally unrelated to what I said. I already said in the very first post that communism is not about equality! I also said when I started to discuss automation that we would evolve to a system "akin to communism". I never said that we would evolve to communism, and much less to soviet communism!
BTW, I didn't completely reply to your previous post for the same reasons: it tries to argue against things opposite to what I said or repeat arguments that I already replied to.
And I'm not arguing your posts fully because they are based on technology we might not live to see.
And there is nothing insane about what I said. Even when you supposedly have the same everything as everyone else people will find ways of grading things, kids can even grade pavement stones and sticks, it is an inborn trait of the human mind.
'It could still be a shitty house. Built on a shitty location.'
I mean you're argument here, however odd it is, might carry some weight if in capitalism everyone gets to build their dream house in their dream location... but they don't, everyone can't have everything they want... that's just life, for now. in capitalism you are 'free' to do as you please but only if you can economically afford to do it, so in the real world, the vast majority have very little choice so already end up in a shitty house in a shitty location.... Freedom without any choices or effectively the same choices isn't much of a freedom is it?
'Communism already failed.'
Hmm not really, I mean it's quite interesting to look at what really happened with the fall of the soviet union, and what it became. I mean it was a fairly conscious effort on the part of the ruling layer in the Soviet Union to transition. Sure the people wanted change but they wanted to move to a more democratic socialism, certainly not capitalism. It was the ruling layers in the soviet union that wanted Capitalism so they could have more themselves and pass that down to their children which they couldn't under the soviet system. The soviet system could have carried on and took the West by surprise when they reached out. Russia and the eastern European countries transitioned to a very extreme version of capitalism, living standards regressed, life expectancy went down. But the ruling elites did pretty well, continue to, under capitalism... Whether the general population would be better off even under the deformed communist system Russia had to now, well we can't know that can we.
'Then again you're one of those "We are living on the edge of destroying our planet" ignoramus, so I doubt you'll ever rattle your brain for long enough to realize what nonsense you're spewing.'
Oh my I wasn't taking you very seriously before but now... I mean the overwhelming scientific consensus is man made climate change is having a negative effect on the planet, we can argue the extent (though most likly very bad and that argument would be a waste of time) but you're taking your love affair with the free market a bit far if facts get in the way of your augment...
'the deaths caused by communism didn't start or end with Stalin. Or with Gorbachov. People are to this day dying from the side effect of the communist idiocy.'
So after the soviet union fell and many decades after it's not capitalism's fault, ah thats convenient, and backed up by anything! Russia was a backwards feudal system transiting to capitalism when the Russian Revolution happened and within a couple of decades became a super power to rival the USA, something that took hundreds of years under capitalism (that's with the huge secret and not so secret war from the west), so you think Russia would have had less problems without the soviet union? Quiet on the violence and murder under capitalism though still...
'Open your eyes. China only became successful when it moved away from central planing if anything.'
Capitalism in the mid 20th century only dug itself out of the hole it was in when it adapted more central planning. It wasn't the free market per-say that helped china it was opening up to the global world. That's always been the problem with countries that have got rid of capitalism they have been isolated and capitalism has been able to suffocate them so they fail, or just out and out murder democratically elected socialist leaders like in Chile! You see it in Cuba, Venezuela, and many other south American countries over the years.
Anyway I think that's all I'm prepared to waste arguing with you...
"Russia was a backwards feudal system transiting to capitalism when the Russian Revolution happened and within a couple of decades became a super power to rival the USA,"
Russia was always a super power. It fought the Ottomans successfully - unlike most of Europe. It defeated Germany (however many reincarnations, dualities and trialities or whatever Germans want to call what they went through) many times. It defeated France at it's strongest. The British were always intelligent enough to steer clear.
"it wasn't the free market per-say that helped china it was opening up to the global world. That's always been the problem with countries that have got rid of capitalism they have been isolated and capitalism has been able to suffocate them"
The Eastern Block at it's highest point and with all it's side allies was as big and as populous as the West. It had very good trading relations with Africa and Southern Asia, not just Southern America. Saying it was suffocated on the market is delusional.
They were simply utterly incapable of properly utilizing the market they did have.
"Russia and the eastern European countries transitioned to a very extreme version of capitalism, living standards regressed, life expectancy went down."
Not true. I can't even get mad at you for thinking it, most Westerners don't care about Eastern Europe and Russia now and they scarcely know how bad we had it during the regimes. If there's any reason for lowered lifespans (although in my experience that is not the case) it's overindulgence rather than anything else.
Basically you're a victim of disinfo and that becomes clearer to me with every post you make.
Perhaps socio-political discourse is not helpful in advancing a means for providing the various solutions to the people that want them. The major issue as it relates to ageing solutions is that not enough people support the research to advance it to a stage where a sufficient number (if ever) will then be able to change their minds and invest/ consume it - thereby making it self-sustaining and even profitable. A kind of 'tragedy of the (investment) commons' in the view of some. Most socio-political 'naming' (e.g .capitalism, etc.,) provides little in the way of accurate forecast, prediction, policy-production, and public information - as entertaining as its episodes of conflict or discussion may be. Though I personally believe that the motivations underlying this blog and many of its followers is in their own personal gain rather than the benefit or alleviation of society - though that may indeed happen in the end goal or somewhere along the path. Of course, I would further argue that almost all major 'good' things (read epic or large-scale such as buildings, industrialization, cures, etc.,) were undertaken by selfish desires.
The question is whether there will be a time where there will be a 'natural' level of support without having to resort to having people invest in it against their will in the form of tax dollars - not that I am opposed to it. Many will point to the 'just causes' of history that investments were made against popular opinion that had significant benefit only realized years or generations later. Likely, many others will provide larger lists of ineffective or counter-productive uses of resources that were only fully realized much later. Many more will extemporize that thoughtful action/investment in an uncertain idea as a whole has had more benefit over the ages than inaction and status-quo. It is all navel-gazing and does little to further the 'fundamental good' that each person should receive what they want without significant effect (good or bad) on others -- surely, a post-scarcity idea. But not necessarily. The increasing emergence of the 'long tail' socio-economic notion means that more individuals produce/ consume items/ services that are more tailored to their desires and skills -- a type of 'niche-ification' of society - with 'gig' systems such as Uber, etc, furthering that. I believe that this idea transcends (makes obsolete) 'big picture' socio-economic principles and will continue to increase and disperse. This is furthered by the idea that much of the give/take comes from the 'want' side of human motivation rather than the self-less, communal, or charitable side (a less powerful, durable, and emotionally-sustainable force). The point is that individualized products and services fostered through the path of data-gathering, health-ageing-focussed prognosis, and store-front interaction is the path forward. Consumption and production is above politics (unless desperately restricted or noticeably made abundant) and its these individualized products/ services/ skills that will most attract people, their money, and their own diverse personal ideologies -- witness Health Nucleus and its increasing exposure. Seek the path that embraces what people already want not what they 'should' have as based on values proclaimed self-righteously (no matter how logical, rational or 'good for all).
"... Seek the path that embraces what people already want not what they 'should' have..."
- witness apps and smart-phone eco-systems such as health-kit that aspire to meet each individuals motivations (care for themselves, care for others, compete with others, find unique world-saving path, new hobby.. etc) while contributing to a dat-base, encourage consumption of products and services, list service-provider info...
- witness services providing genetic information and analysis, as primitive and inconclusive as it may be...
monetize the path by providing incremental benefit to the 'cause' through each individual's separate motivations
Just my 2 cents..
Yes, and the single most common link and causal problem behind all these socio-political arguments...
Money.
Money = Survival = Wealth = Rejuvenation Therapies = Everyone Happy.
Right ? ...No.
...
Money = Human Death.
@Anonymoose
I understand what you mean, there are some positives; but all an all far more negatives to money used as a resource and exchange currency ''work for money'', ''service/consumergoods in exchange for money''. This resource and its concept/use was deeply flawed a thousand years ago when first coins were minted/pounded into the nascent exchange market then. The whole 'buy goods with tokens, that you earn by something in exchange, work or a service', it made sense but later it became tied to your very survival and that's where it falters (taking everyone's Life hostage of this system).
Many animals don't reach adulthood.. True, but some do in their wild life habitat do (elephants reach 80 years old... sure they are huge and have no really serious predators hunting them (apart from poachers),, but they show us it's possible to make it, they got big size, but we got brains and we can make weapons to defend ourselves (we're also the ones who invented and have the guns who can kill any animal threat to us, plus we can hunt and scavenge game fowl with them, or we can just use fire, wood carved spears or bow&arrows from arched tree branches, ligaments and arrow heads from carved flint. The point I'm trying to say is, sure this is not the 4-star Rich resort hotel accommodation or everyone's cup of tea... but ancient prehistoric humans Had to survive someway, if that meant hunting or becoming more physical/sturdy, they adapted. We're humans too (we'll adapt), modern ones relying on mental desk jobs, perhaps for too long now and at the expense of our past physical prowesses. Money is a downward spiral, a vicious impoverish circle and keeping us in a hostage deadlock,
un Cul-de-sac (deadend).
'Russia was always a super power'
Russia was big, but not an industrial power in anywhere near the scale of Britain or France. And once the Germanic regions united Germany became far more dominate. Russia was big in size and numbers but techolgly compared to other powers was small potatoes. Nowhere shown more then during ww1 where they had the numbers but not the factories to build enough weapons or even shoes for soldiers! They were still using horses when most large powers had stopped using them! A big reason why Russia lost so many lives and why the incompatant zar got overthrown! Life for the common people was not good pre the revolution that's an insane statement! Technologically Russia advanced insanely post revolution.
'The Eastern Block at it's highest point and with all it's side allies was as big and as populous as the West. It had very good trading relations with Africa and Southern Asia, not just Southern America. Saying it was suffocated on the market is delusional.'
I was referring to social movements in South America... and talking about modern history as like your comments about Russia they seem to be cherry picking certain instances of history, things change empires fall. These revolutions didn't not happen because things were Rosie...
How is it delusional to think if one system is surrounded by another far larger one that wants to see it gone it wouldn't have an impact, it's what happened.... it's all factual on the record stuff what the CIA did in South America, overthrowing governments, the economic terrorism. I can link you if you really need me to?
Reason, did you considered not writing political thoughts on your posts and sticking to rejuvenation topics? :P
'Not true. I can't even get mad at you for thinking it, most Westerners don't care about Eastern Europe and Russia now and they scarcely know how bad we had it during the regimes. If there's any reason for lowered lifespans (although in my experience that is not the case) it's overindulgence rather than anything else.'
Again this is documented factual stuff. Alcoholism went up, violence up, prostitution up, life expectancy went down when the safety nets were taken away. Not sure what else to say these are the facts, again I can show you the evidence if needed, can you? You just seem to be rehashing the same old about the Soviet Union, bad things, very bad things happened but it's impossible to have a sensible conversation about it when it's exhagerated, lied about, not put into context and not compared to western history either! I mean how do you explain so many people preferring the old system to the current one in Russia and Eastern Europe? Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Interesting to hear you mention some politics into all this Reason. I understand why you try to stay away from it altogheter.