NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs. This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom. Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body. Alcohol is included, it is completely unnecessary and only causes death and destruction. So does everyone deserve freedom or only a few people? 1984 is starting to seem like a better world, today at least. Tomorrow I could be completely against all this.

I would argue that freedom is a 'higher need', vital to the long term health of the human organism; and so statements about deservedness are moot. Much like asking 'do we deserve food'.

Well, it is self evidently an inalienable right.

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs.

Oh, hi.;) I want people to have kids because they want them, not because our economic machine requires us to breed. That's a rather dehumanized viewpoint; frankly, it treats them like a commodity.

But really, I do believe freedom is deserved. We should have the freedom to be ourselves, to determine what lives we live and what we do with them, and we should have the freedom to freely express our opinions and ideas and to be treated equally before the law and government. Anything else leads to stagnation and repression, and allows the creation of an artificial elite that forces their own opinions on everyone else.

Humanity must be free in order to develop itself to its fullest potential. Each of us has something meaningful to us, and we need to have the freedom to pursue our individual meaning (unless, of course, it's directly harmful to someone else like theft) in order to be happy and fulfilled as human beings.

Freedom is absolutely deserved.

There is no cost too great to pay for it. There is nothing more important.

Oh, hi. ;)

But really, I do believe freedom is deserved. We should have the freedom to be ourselves, to determine what lives we live and what we do with them, and we should have the freedom to freely express our opinions and ideas and to be treated equally before the law and government. Anything else leads to stagnation and repression, and allows the creation of an artificial elite that forces their own opinions on everyone else.

Humanity must be free in order to develop itself to its fullest potential. Each of us has something meaningful to us, and we need to have the freedom to pursue our individual meaning (unless, of course, it's directly harmful to someone else like theft) in order to be happy and fulfilled as human beings.

But what you say contradicts itself. If we can be free to kill ourselves then we aren't really free.

......because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs.

My understanding of Vetalia's plans for immortality was that it was going to take hundreds of years and considerable amounts of money. And something about freezing himself and leaving his future self all his possessions in his will, much to the disappointment of his family(who want his stuff).

But what you say contradicts itself. If we can be free to kill ourselves then we aren't really free.

How does the freedom to kill one's self invalidate all other freedoms?

Depends on the amount of freedom.

Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all.

pleasure ain't a purpose?

Freedom is deserved. All of it.

This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom. Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body.Simply because somebody makes a stupid decision doesn't mean that they don't deserve the right to do so.

Depends on the amount of freedom.

Yeah, if people are too free than that is simply the government being irresponsible. :rolleyes:

My understanding of Vetalia's plans for immortality was that it was going to take hundreds of years and considerable amounts of money. And something about freezing himself and leaving his future self all his possessions in his will, much to the disappointment of his family(who want his stuff).

I think he said in 25 years it will be possible.

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs.

I don't think Vetalia's schemes are going to come to fruition any time soon. If they happen in the next five hundred years I'd be surprised, to be honest. But still, what problem do you have with people not breeding? It's not like humanity is a beautiful flower, withering and dying, is it? Look at this page (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html); does that look like a species in terminal decline to you? Or a species desperately trying to eat itself out of house and home?

The population of the planet has doubled in the last forty years, and over nine billion people are forecast to be knocking around by 2050.

Seriously, we need less breeding, not more.

I think he said in 25 years it will be possible.

Not quite. More accurately, we will be capable of slowing aging in a quarter century along with treating degenerative diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and cancer. During the next quarter century, bioenhancement will become commercially available and artificial organs will make a completely artificial human possible. However, since the brain is not yet capable of being truly rejuvenated or artificially simulated (this will take at least until the 2040's if Moore's Law remains on its current pace).

True "immortality" (I prefer indefinite lifespan since you can die if you want, but only when you want...being unable to die would be a hellish punishment) will take at least another 25-50 years after that if technological progress continues to accelerate. Otherwise, it may take longer although it will inevitably happen barring a complete disaster that destroys our civilization.

Deserved.... thats just too subjective a word to use in meta-ethical discussions like this. Infact meta-ethics is a pain because pretty much everything is subjective. Infact, i'm not sure if i exist right now. Is this message real? Is there a god? Can you really not believe it's not butter? Can Fass really speak better english then a lot of the USians and UKians here?

*runs away*

But what you say contradicts itself. If we can be free to kill ourselves then we aren't really free.

Why? Life and death is the ultimate decision, and the only freedom we can have is if we are the ones who make that decision for ourselves. Anything less makes us a slave to nature or to others.

My understanding of Vetalia's plans for immortality was that it was going to take hundreds of years and considerable amounts of money. And something about freezing himself and leaving his future self all his possessions in his will, much to the disappointment of his family(who want his stuff).

It will take a lot of money, and a lot of time. Generally, my goal is to live long enough to achieve it, and if not I will die and be cryonically preserved. Given the progress in cryonics in recent years, I would say that by the 2060's or 2070's, if (highly unlikely) the technologies aren't available to achieve total body replacement, cryonic procedures will be able to successfully freeze me and revive me at a later time.

And I won't sell all of my posessions; instead, I'll create a fund that will grow until I can be revived, and when that happens I will use it to reestablish myself.

But what you say contradicts itself. If we can be free to kill ourselves then we aren't really free.

Liberty, by its very nature stops where the liberty of another begins. My right to kill myslef stops where I hurt other people in the process (such as, for example, the guy who parked his SUV on the train tracks (the train derailed, and tipped into an oncoming train)). -But by the same standard, your liberty stops where you begin to decide whether or not I can live or die. That far esceeds liberty. It enters dictatorship.

Have you ever taken the political compass test (I think you can find it at politicalcompass.org or something like that)? Something tells me you'd end up in the very upper sections of the second quadrant (top left).

-But what, in this question of who deserves liberty, makes you believe that you should be the only one with rights- no less, the right to control when others are allowed to die? What gave you that power? In this system of only the responsable having freedom, I would deem one person attempting to take power over another an irresponsible act at best. In order for liberty to truely exist, it must be equal for all.

But what you say contradicts itself. If we can be free to kill ourselves then we aren't really free.

Why? Life and death is the ultimate decision, and the only freedom we can have is if we are the ones who make that decision for ourselves. Anything less makes us a slave to nature or to others.

In fact, it is that very lack of control that drives some people to suicide.

I don't think Vetalia's schemes are going to come to fruition any time soon. If they happen in the next five hundred years I'd be surprised, to be honest.

It ultimately hinges on two things, really: computing power and developments in artificial intelligence. Ultimately, the mechanisms needed to achieve the goal of indefinite lifespan will require raw computation power and machine cognition in order to sift through the data. I mean, molecular dynamics simulations require massive amounts of processing power to achieve, and even present-day supercomputers balk at the possibility of crunching through more complex molecules.

The fact that progress in supercomputing has consistently outpaced or placed in the high range of the trendline of Moore's Law in recent years is a very good sign, as is the close-to-commercial progress in alternative methods computing, but if that Law were to slow or decelerate in the future it would have a corresponding effect on these technologies.

The population of the planet has doubled in the last forty years, and over nine billion people are forecast to be knocking around by 2050.

Seriously, we need less breeding, not more.

Population growth slows as people get wealthier and technology reduces the amount of man-hours required to get a task done. Really, the only way to slow population growth in the developing world is to develop it.

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs. This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom. Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body. Alcohol is included, it is completely unnecessary and only causes death and destruction. So does everyone deserve freedom or only a few people? 1984 is starting to seem like a better world, today at least. Tomorrow I could be completely against all this.

Oh and, report back when your not stoned.

It will take a lot of money, and a lot of time. Generally, my goal is to live long enough to achieve it, and if not I will die and be cryonically preserved. Given the progress in cryonics in recent years, I would say that by the 2060's or 2070's, if (highly unlikely) the technologies aren't available to achieve total body replacement, cryonic procedures will be able to successfully freeze me and revive me at a later time.

I'm sure the cost of this service will be so horrifically expensive that only the fabulously wealthy will be able to benefit. The rest of us mortals will have to simply accept our coming dirtnap.

I'm sure the cost of this service will be so horrifically expensive that only the fabulously wealthy will be able to benefit. The rest of us mortals will have to simply accept their coming dirtnap.

Well, I wouldn't say that. Remember that the first personal computers were massively expensive, and now a machine that is many times more powerful can be bought with less money in both nominal and real terms. Same is true with telecommunications; these things have gotten cheaper and cheaper even though they've gotten more powerful. I don't want to make an optimistic error like "electricity too cheap to meter", but I am confident that the majority of people will be able to afford it soon after it hits the market.

But then again, I want to try to become wealthy just in case. Of course, I'd also support government funding and start my own charity to make these technologies affordable to as many people as possible, since there is no reason to deny people something they might want for monetary reasons. A human life is worth far more than those pieces of paper with numbers on them.

Well, I wouldn't say that. Remember that the first personal computers were massively expensive, and now a machine that is many times more powerful can be bought with less money in both nominal and real terms. Same is true with telecommunications; these things have gotten cheaper and cheaper even though they've gotten more powerful. I don't want to make an optimistic error like "electricity too cheap to meter", but I am confident that the majority of people will be able to afford it soon after it hits the market.

But then again, I want to try to become wealthy just in case. Of course, I'd also support government funding and start my own charity to make these technologies affordable to as many people as possible, since there is no reason to deny people something they might want for monetary reasons. A human life is worth far more than those pieces of paper with numbers on them.

I can't imagine how it would be possible to write a program that can think, it sounds impossible to me. And I don't mean make decisions based on factors. I mean something that can have thought, imagination and free will. But most of all, emotion. I would hate to be transformed into ai without emotion. Something tells me that it will take more then a few super computers with a very well written code to acheive this.

In fact, it is that very lack of control that drives some people to suicide.

Yes. Having that freedom would not only assuage our fear of death and mortality (after all, it would not have to be a permanent state anymore) but would give us the ability to decide if and when we are ready to die. Obviously, this is still speculative, but a person could live their life the way they want, achieve everything they desire, and then die happy knowing that they are free to remain in that state or return later to pursue new desires, maybe even living a new life.

I do think that ultimate freedom would also mean the potential to unlock ultimate happiness, and we have a moral responsibility to allow all mankind to achieve that goal. It really is the right thing to do.

I can't imagine how it would be possible to write a program that can think, it sounds impossible to me. And I don't mean make decisions based on factors. I mean something that can have thought, imagination and free will.

Well, a program that would think would not only require human-level computational abilities (which are still several orders of magnitude above even the most powerful computers today) but also replicating the massively parallel structures of the brain. Neural networks and other fields will definitely lead in to machine intelligence, but they too are still far from that goal. Ultimately, strong AI will be born from a combination of computer science/engineering, biochemistry and the "reverse engineering" of the human brain through simulations such as the Blue Brain project.

A truly free, sentient machine would have to have these aspects in order to truly be considered a sapient being, and to test it you would have to likely directly interface with it to examine its conscious processes. And, most importantly of all, it would have to have a conscience to prevent us from creating a superintelligent sociopath.

But most of all, emotion. I would hate to be transformed into ai without emotion. Something tells me that it will take more then a few super computers with a very well written code to acheive this.

But you wouldn't be; indeed, I would say that brain uploading is the most distant and speculative of all of these technologies. Removing emotion would be so utterly cruel and inhuman, I really can't even think of a person who could condone that. Honestly, that would truly be the definition of hell; immortality without feeling would isolate you and truly leave you alone.

Instead, you would use the knowledge of mind and body discovered by computer-aided scientific research to rejuvenate or repair damage, replace biological parts with artificial or newly grown biological ones, repair damage to your brain and rejuvenate its synapses, or replace the biological aspects of the brain with artificial ones for added durability and increased potential. For example, the artificial hippocampus currently in testing is identical to the biological hippocampus in function; you would be converting those biological structures in to more durable artificial ones, or you would simply repair and maintain your biological structures to the same effects.

Human beings are all beautifully unique programs, consisting of billions of lines of ancient code in our genes and the massive complexity of our brains' hardware producing what we are. Our emotions, our free will, our senses and our cognition must be preserved in any case. Every human being is unique, and we have to keep that in mind when they face the choices that technological advancement will bring.

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs. This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom. Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body. Alcohol is included, it is completely unnecessary and only causes death and destruction. So does everyone deserve freedom or only a few people? 1984 is starting to seem like a better world, today at least. Tomorrow I could be completely against all this.

Hardcore meritocracy man. Only those who deserve freedom would get it. :)

some people are smart enough to use their freedom properly. Most aren't. Its not their fault, of course; we human beings evolved to live in tribal groups of about 20-30 people, hunting and gathering all our food with our most sophisticated piece of technology being a piece of flint. Living in the technological civilizations that we now have quite literally doesn't come naturally to us. So for functioning societies to continue, the masses have to be forced to act properly by the lucky few who can see beyond the immediate instincts of our evolutionary past. Any society that does not acknowledge this is doomed from the start.

I'm sure the cost of this service will be so horrifically expensive that only the fabulously wealthy will be able to benefit. The rest of us mortals will have to simply accept our coming dirtnap.

Cryogenic freezing is available now. Don't know how expensive it is though. And I think you might have to be alive or very recently(as in only minutes ago) dead going into it.

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs. This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom. Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body. Alcohol is included, it is completely unnecessary and only causes death and destruction. So does everyone deserve freedom or only a few people? 1984 is starting to seem like a better world, today at least. Tomorrow I could be completely against all this.

There's some things people do well by themselves, and others they don't. That's where authority comes in to tell them what is right and what isn't. Unfortunately people are either on one extreme or the other, so they either want total freedom or total control, they see it as all black and white. So, limited freedoms for everyone's the best choice.

It ultimately hinges on two things, really: computing power and developments in artificial intelligence. [snip]

Computing power isn't the problem; some problems are simply impractically time-consuming to brute force. No matter how fast your computer, without fast algorithms to solve these problems it'll simply grind to a halt on non-trivial data. And there's the rub; we don't know if it's even possible to solve some of these problems in a sensible time, so we have to wait for human mathematicians to solve them, if they can. Of course, if they should solve any np-complete problem in polynomial time, huzzah! We win. But your bank account will be emptied the next day as all their encryption is immediately cracked, because it almost certainly relies on these problems being hard. That'll be fun, eh? ;)
And, of course, some problems are provably impossible; writing a program that'll tell you if any other program will complete successfully (without executing it) is an example. You just can't do it. I forget the name of this problem, however :s

Apologies that that's not a very deep paragraph, it's been a long time since my complexity and computability lectures, and I'm quite sleepy...

Population growth slows as people get wealthier and technology reduces the amount of man-hours required to get a task done. Really, the only way to slow population growth in the developing world is to develop it.

And, even more importantly; available, reliable birth control and education. But I don't think that'll be enough. I really think we need to start limiting our reproduction; no matter the efficiency of resource gathering, there will only ever be a finite number of resources available, and the more people there are the more thinly they will be spread.

Cryogenic freezing is available now. Don't know how expensive it is though. And I think you might have to be alive or very recently(as in only minutes ago) dead going into it.
I think the defrost cycle leaves something to be desired... ¬_¬

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs. This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom. Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body. Alcohol is included, it is completely unnecessary and only causes death and destruction. So does everyone deserve freedom or only a few people? 1984 is starting to seem like a better world, today at least. Tomorrow I could be completely against all this.

I hope so, because this is just moronic. "Heathenous?" I am insulted that you would group we heathens with cretins.

The world would be better if we reproduced a bit less... I think everything would be better if we weren't so damn overpopulated.

Immortal cyborgs is just silly talk. Are you sure they weren't yanking your chain?

-snip-

Wow, I never realised how much you had thought this out.

Freedom is deserved only by those that can prove that they will be able to handle freedom. If someone is given freedom, and then manage to kill themselves by destroying their body with drugs or alcohol, they should never have been given freedom in the first place.

Wow, I never realised how much you had thought this out.

Futures studies and scientific breakthroughs are two of my major hobbies...so I've thought this out quite a bit.

Plus, I want to be well informed so I know what to do when the time comes, and so that I am well informed on the risks of these advances as well as their benefits. Knowledge is power, after all.

Immortal cyborgs is just silly talk. Are you sure they weren't yanking your chain?

Nah, it's a misinterpretation of the term "indefinite lifespan". Huge difference between the two.

Nah, it's a misinterpretation of the term "indefinite lifespan". Huge difference between the two.

Sush, let people think you want to be an immortal cyborg, it sounds way cooler.

Computing power isn't the problem; some problems are simply impractically time-consuming to brute force. No matter how fast your computer, without fast algorithms to solve these problems it'll simply grind to a halt on non-trivial data. And there's the rub; we don't know if it's even possible to solve some of these problems in a sensible time, so we have to wait for human mathematicians to solve them, if they can. Of course, if they should solve any np-complete problem in polynomial time, huzzah! We win. But your bank account will be emptied the next day as all their encryption is immediately cracked, because it almost certainly relies on these problems being hard. That'll be fun, eh? ;)

Really, the only way to realistically solve NP-complete problems at present is going to be using quantum computers. Conventional ones simply can't do the calculations in any reasonable time and quantum-computing methods are the only ones known that can possibly solve these NP-complete problems in polynomial time using known method. That is, of course, barring a proof that P=NP; there aren't

Even so, that's hardly helpful right now since we don't know exactly what problems quantum computers can solve. One good thing, however, is that they are perfect for molecular dynamics simulations and they will enable us to do real-time calculations and simulations of these properties. They're also good for some nasty scaling problems, and other things in various fields, but they still hit a wall when it comes to NP problems.

And, of course, some problems are provably impossible; writing a program that'll tell you if any other program will complete successfully (without executing it) is an example. You just can't do it. I forget the name of this problem, however :s

Sounds familiar, but the name escapes me.

And, even more importantly; available, reliable birth control and education. But I don't think that'll be enough. I really think we need to start limiting our reproduction; no matter the efficiency of resource gathering, there will only ever be a finite number of resources available, and the more people there are the more thinly they will be spread.

Oh, absolutely. We will need stronger limits on reproduction as the death rate falls (if it doesn't decline naturally to a low enough level) since that will have an effective upward push on population growth.

Of course, if birthrates fall to the level of Russia (the lowest in the world), even with a death rate of 0 we would only be growing 0.9% per year in population terms. That's still a little high (doubling every 80 years or so), but in that case we would also benefit from higher standards of living, more productive agriculture and better environmental management which would provide more carrying capacity until we could expand to new environs when necessary.

I think the defrost cycle leaves something to be desired... ¬_¬

We can freeze you, we just can't unfreeze you right now...

I imagine if you can be frozen without severe tissue damage, and you stay frozen, it wouldn't be too big a deal just to wait until they actually can do it. If you're dead, your money's in the bank, and everything is taken care in regard to freezing you can just kick back and enjoy whatever happens after death (if possible) for however long it takes. Not too bad a deal, IMO.

I mean, you've got unlimited time to wait.

Sush, let people think you want to be an immortal cyborg, it sounds way cooler.

It does sound pretty cool, come to think of it.

Plus, it advertises my nerdiness even more than my subscription to PCWorld, the robot chick on my desktop wallpaper and the bookmarks to Wired and Folding@Home.

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs.So what? You suggesting we breed people against their will?This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom.What is freedom, if not the right to do things others think is stupid?Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body. Alcohol is included, it is completely unnecessary and only causes death and destruction.Unless those people begged you for permission to be alive and healthy, what's it to you?So does everyone deserve freedom or only a few people? 1984 is starting to seem like a better world, today at least. Tomorrow I could be completely against all this.So.. You might not be a fascist tomorrow? Guess there's some sort of hope for you yet.

Of course freedom isn't deserved. Autonomy, to the extent it doesn't infringe on the autonomy of others, is a given for any sentient being. Or do you perhaps want me to decide to what degree you're capable of excercising your own free will? Or do you want a neo-Nazi to do it?

I think freedom should be given to all who obey the law and act remotely like a human being (which at this point less and less people are deserving). Criminals should be excluded from freedom. Other than that everyone else deserves it.

Vetalia, you've probably spent far too much time researching all that, you know? :p

I still think you're being hopelessly optimistic about timescales, but if all this is possible it'll get done eventually, barring some cataclysm. And I don't see why quite a lot of it shouldn't be... Even if the human brain is the most "intelligent" thing possible (and that would make me really quite sad) I don't see why we couldn't build a replica; it is a computer, just made of goo rather than sand. I don't see why, eventually, human brains and electronic (or otherwise) computers couldn't interface properly (that's starting to see some very gradual progress already), and so on. I just doubt (unfortunately) that I'll live to see it; no great ambitions for the tech, I'd just like to see a few of the trivial things they could be used for ;)

But so long as the cryogenic chamber doesn't have a power cut in the meantime, eh?

My own hope is that soon - the next hundred or so years, maybe - we start replacing all the necessary but boring human work with self-servicing automated machinery, leaving us to get on with important stuff like playing games, inventing, and claiming a giant model penis made from skateboards is art. I think that's well within the bounds of possibility, but I just don't think it's in the Powers that Be's self-interest to let it happen. Ho, hum...

Freedom is earned. You earn it by taking responsibility for your actions. Sometimes, though, unless you're careful, opportunistic politicians and various governments will steal it from you.

Vetalia, you've probably spent far too much time researching all that, you know? :p

Well, I've got to have something to do during all those boring lectures...

I still think you're being hopelessly optimistic about timescales, but if all this is possible it'll get done eventually, barring some cataclysm. And I don't see why quite a lot of it shouldn't be... Even if the human brain is the most "intelligent" thing possible (and that would make me really quite sad) I don't see why we couldn't build a replica; it is a computer, just made of goo rather than sand. I don't see why, eventually, human brains and electronic (or otherwise) computers couldn't interface properly (that's starting to see some very gradual progress already), and so on. I just doubt (unfortunately) that I'll live to see it; no great ambitions for the tech, I'd just like to see a few of the trivial things they could be used for ;)

I've got a long time ahead of me even without any advances (at least 2060-2070) in any kind of technology, so I'm quite optimistic on the whole mess. But we shall see; it will happen, and it will likely happen before I'm 50, but either way I can be confident that it will. If not me then my descendants will be able to take advantage of it.

But so long as the cryogenic chamber doesn't have a power cut in the meantime, eh?

Yeah, I might want to get a brain scan as well and have it stored somewhere safe. It wouldn't exactly be me, but a simulated version of myself would be close enough. Far better than being that rotting corpse, and I definitely don't want to burden anyone with cleaningthat up.

My own hope is that soon - the next hundred or so years, maybe - we start replacing all the necessary but boring human work with self-servicing automated machinery, leaving us to get on with important stuff like playing games, inventing, and claiming a giant model penis made from skateboards is art. I think that's well within the bounds of possibility, but I just don't think it's in the Powers that Be's self-interest to let it happen. Ho, hum...

If there's one thing for sure, people in power don't hold on to it forever. I have a feeling we'll be doing that (presumably along with the sapient robots who share our desire to be free from work) sooner than you may think. Really, people only work because we haven't yet developed ways to circumvent it. I mean, I'd probably still work if it were something I enjoyed, but not otherwise.

Um, are you trying to say everyone should be forced to reproduce? If you're going to take control of people's bodies against their will, you'd at least do a better job by banning them from doing so...

Don't ruin my plan to create Cybermen, err ... oops.

Don't ruin my plan to create Cybermen, err ... oops.

Hey, that's my plan!

Oh well, I guess we could just merge or something.

Freedom is deserved only by those that can prove that they will be able to handle freedom. If someone is given freedom, and then manage to kill themselves by destroying their body with drugs or alcohol, they should never have been given freedom in the first place.

See there you go contradicting yourself......freedom is about making your own choices...if you decide who and who does not deserve it then it is not freedom.....if someone wants to destroy themselves with drugs or alchohol then that is their freedom of choice as long as what they do does not harm any others then they should be allowed to do it. once you try deciding who deserves it and who does not you take freedom away.

As a soldier I help insure people have freedom....do I say "because you do not agree with what i do you do not deserve it"? No because I bleed so you have the right and freedom to put me down if you so choose. That is what freedom is about. Some times freedom is a much sweeter fruit to those who truly put all on the line for that freedom...but it does not mean that others who do not do the same deserve any less. It just means that those who do the most for freedom will probably enjoy and relish it more then all the others.

See there you go contradicting yourself......freedom is about making your own choices...if you decide who and who does not deserve it then it is not freedom.....if someone wants to destroy themselves with drugs or alchohol then that is their freedom of choice as long as what they do does not harm any others then they should be allowed to do it. once you try deciding who deserves it and who does not you take freedom away.

Isn't there such a thing as negative freedom? In that, an addict does not 'freely' choose

Isn't there such a thing as negative freedom? In that, an addict does not 'freely' choose

Not really because they made the choice in the first place and it is up to them how they let it affect their life.....I drink on occasion but I choose when and if I do.....I have given it up for months and years at a time have a few again and then go long periods without. It can only control and affect our lives if we allow it.

Not really because they made the choice in the first place and it is up to them how they let it affect their life.....I drink on occasion but I choose when and if I do.....I have given it up for months and years at a time have a few again and then go long periods without. It can only control and affect our lives if we allow it.

What's the name of the experiment with rats and sexual pleasure - if they press the button and every time it gives them...ammm....pleasure, they tend to stop after a while, but if it's random they'll continue to do it unto death.

No one starts taking drugs choosing to be an addict. It can be a combination of many things, it can be exciting to take drugs other than simply pleasurable - one may not realise the true implications of what one does.

Hardcore meritocracy man. Only those who deserve freedom would get it. :)And how would you determine who deserves freedom? Lemme guess...only people who would make the same decisions as you deserve it?

Freedom under responsibility. As long as you don't use your freedom to harm someone else, you are entitled to it and your freedom should be protected by any means neccesary.

Yes to all personal freedoms, no to some inter-personal freedoms.

Freedom to all to the greatest extent possible without interfering with the rights of others.

Well, it is self evidently an inalienable right.
Yes exactly, one has the right to submit themselves fully to the will of God, acheiving true freedom by escaping the petty, short-term fancies and tyrannies that rule this world.
Or maybe one is owed the freedom to anything you want to buy (provided that you have the money to buy it)? Damn all else.
Or maybe one is owed the freedom to have an equal vote with the rest of their community in order to determine what will happen to their property. After all, any other scenario requires man to be a slave to others, but one can't be a slave to himself.

"Freedom" is just a platitude that everyone claims to offer like "Safety" or "Justice." One only has a right to those things he can grab, and only possesses that right as long as he can hold them.

I'll declare today a more pessimistic day because a certain group of heathenous cretins think that we don't really need to reproduce because soon we'll be immortal cyborgs. This and the general stupidity of the vast majority of humans makes me wonder if all of us deserve freedom. Drugs come to mind. They serve no purpose at all. and only destroy your body. Alcohol is included, it is completely unnecessary and only causes death and destruction. So does everyone deserve freedom or only a few people? 1984 is starting to seem like a better world, today at least. Tomorrow I could be completely against all this.

Although I haven't read the book (I've read parts), I like the concept of 1984. That's somewhat how my nation works... except the citizens are unaware of the government watching. =\

Um, but in non-role-playing... I think we do deserve freedoms, but even more we deserve to be aware of what choices are considered right, and which are wrong, which will be harmful, which will be appreciated. This could be through media, the local/state community, in the home, education, etc. etc. I think awareness is equally important as having freedoms, along with understood consequences for the wrong choices.

And there is probably a lot more to this I'm not mentioning!