^Ripper's Anime Page

Thank you, it solves everything then!

Anyway, forget I've asked.

We had a funny scene as well over here. In 1999, someone met a weapon-dealer and also stole 100.000 DM (ok, only 100.000, not 1 Bill.^^). Now, ten years later, this person is our finance minister. At the announcing press conference, no german media guy dared to ask our chancellor if this decision was correct, in fact it took a reporter from the netherlands to ask this total obvious question. He was bluntly ignored though and no german media insisted (here is a video with subtitles).
This is the situation in my country. To the world and to the people we try to be the good guys now, a model-democracy. But underneath, the media is very very loyal towards the government, germany is the largest weapon-seller in the EU and though we mustn't ever fight a war of aggression again, we did and doing exactly this in Kosovo, Afghanistan and in a way at the Horn of Africa.

eternal life: I think its a bad idea. It may look great from our perspective and it sure would be nice if the keenest minds would live longer to do more research. But what if every man and woman'd live forever? Not only would we some day start hunting babies just like in BAA, but the mental growth of humanity would come to an end. You always need new, fresh "souls" for fresh ideas.
If you were told for 50 years, that witches walk the earth and that all red-haired women are witches --- now make that 150 years because you can live that long. Now try to imagine: would you believe someone saying that there are no witches? Think of racist theories, the earth being the center of the universe and so on. Old people tend to be closed up for new things - not because their minds grew old, but because it would destroy the world in which they had lived and thought all their live.
Most people won't admit "I've lived a live with wrong conceptions and beliefs". Instead, most people would silently ignore this new knowlegde (e.g. the earth not being the center of the universe). And most dangerous: some people would fight hard for those old beliefs.
Long story short: humanity needs births and deaths to evolve. Eternal life is a selfish thought of the current generation.
Btw: it could be even worse, what if only the us-president and the people of the Forbes-list get this treatment. Or do you think that every slum dweller gets non-aging cells implanted? As a human lab-rat at most.

I'm 27, which is old in my opinion, it kinda depresses me that I'm nearly fucking 30. On the other hand, what about it, you can't change this fact . And Int, then I can assure you: things like disillusionment will only get worse ^^
I always tend to imagine the forum users to be around my age, simply because I never much think about your real age - and because we're all so intellectual anyway

Cailon wrote:We had a funny scene as well over here. In 1999, someone met a weapon-dealer and also stole 100.000 DM (ok, only 100.000, not 1 Bill.^^). Now, ten years later, this person is our finance minister.

Well, it is a question of interpretation. Here in Brazil, Lula government would say that he understands on econimics. (No, this is NOT a joke!)

Cailon wrote: eternal life: I think its a bad idea. It may look great from our perspective and it sure would be nice if the keenest minds would live longer to do more research. But what if every man and woman'd live forever? Not only would we some day start hunting babies just like in BAA, but the mental growth of humanity would come to an end. You always need new, fresh "souls" for fresh ideas.

The question is: Who selects the keenest minds?

Cailon wrote:people would silently ignore this new knowlegde (e.g. the earth not being the center of the universe).

Of course, it os from a different point of viwew, but I would ignere it. All stories about extraterrestrial life and UFOs, up to now, are fake or deliriums, so the only answer we have is: Earth is the center of the universe. I just do not know if that is good or bad.

Cailon wrote:Btw: it could be even worse, what if only the us-president and the people of the Forbes-list get this treatment. Or do you think that every slum dweller gets non-aging cells implanted? As a human lab-rat at most.

It's the first thought about it I've had, which is wrong. That's just not prudent.


Take a look:

This technology should be available for the wide masses, it would still cost a lot, but be generally affordable, I'll explain it further.

I think, it would be sold not as a product, but as a service - taken on a lease for about 10/25/50/any_number years.
You install nanobots once, but after the payed period passes, they simply turn themselves off and you start to age as usual, so you have to buy their activation again, if you don't want to age. Concept is the same as in a limited license software.

Let's assume, that the price is 2k$ for a year of life without aging.
So, 25 years will cost 50k$. It's a price of a good mainstream car, which is generally affordable. If you don't have enough money, you can just take a credit. I don't think that it's hard to make this sum in 25 years.


Ok, that was the beginning. Take a look at the consequences of such approach.

If a person has stashed some sum to buy a new car, he, most likely, will prefer to live another 25 years over buying a pile of useless junk. He will just buy years and a cheap low-end car.

Let's develop the thought further. Due to the huge number of customers, this industry will be as profitable, as a car industry. And the most juicy part of the story - it will be a monopoly then. Moreover, people will become bound to that company, it may even evolve into some sort of a worldwide-government.

Another interesting thought I'm having right now - criminals/dissidents will just be denied of ever acquiring this tech.
Simple as a pie - no repressions, they will just die by themselves when they will get old.

Sergio wrote:The question is: Who selects the keenest minds?

Hm indeed. Even more, it is somewhat inherent in being a genius to be ahead of your time and when people acknowledge the person, he/she is dead already...

Int 29Ah wrote:I think, it would be sold not as a product, but as a service - taken on a lease for about 10/25/50/any_number years.
You install nanobots once, but after the payed period passes, they simply turn themselves off and you start to age as usual, so you have to buy their activation again, if you don't want to age. Concept is the same as in a limited license software.

Let's assume, that the price is 2k$ for a year of life without aging.
So, 25 years will cost 50k$. It's a price of a good mainstream car, which is generally affordable. If you don't have enough money, you can just take a credit. I don't think that it's hard to make this sum in 25 years.


Ok, that was the beginning. Take a look at the consequences of such approach.

If a person has stashed some sum to buy a new car, he, most likely, will prefer to live another 25 years over buying a pile of useless junk. He will just buy years and a cheap low-end car.

Let's develop the thought further. Due to the huge number of customers, this industry will be as profitable, as a car industry. And the most juicy part of the story - it will be a monopoly then. Moreover, people will become bound to that company, it may even evolve into some sort of a worldwide-government.

Interesting thought but imo you think too good of humanity. In time the price may be affordable, maybe so. But who said that the "Nano Corp." (that has a monopoly like you said) will lower the price? If they can have a 100% margin, why only have a 10% margin? Even more because people are dying to pay (literary) every price in the world for those Nanos.
I mean look at the market for medicaments (for instance in Africa): big companies try to undermine the sales of cheap medicine just to put their stuff on the market. It has the same effect - only its much more expensive. They try to file patents on jungle-plants, cows and maize, just to max their profit. From what I've heard, normal us-americans can't even afford to catch a flu because of the expenses.
And those same greedy Pharma-people will then sell eternal life for 2000 a year? No...

But if you talk about limited license software, this brings in more components. Like add-ons, gold-membership (get even younger instead of staying 60 for all eternity), but also mods, cracks, dupes, malfunctions, open source tech maybe? Then the really rich guys can afford to own the real thing and others can only afford cheap dupes of this technology or a cracked version or to just keep their face and hands in shape.

It's simple economics, just a part of the university course.

It's just a price vs quantity - you can make a bigger profit out of a huge amount of customers, than from a small for a giant price. The point only will be in finding the max profitable balance by the company.

The bigger the price - less people will buy it, no matter what it is - immortality or just water not to die from the thirst. It's not reasonable to wind up prices - the loss will come from the lack of customers.

Why will this come? Just because the functions "decrement of customers per 1 dollar price increment" and "increment of profit per 1 dollar price increment" are not the same. There always is a point where it will be the most profitable, which is solved by a simple equasion, which is derived from a market research.


A little example - the metro, electricity, water, sewage, everything like these are natural monopolies, who don't wind up prices until they are unreachable. That just would be an idiotism.


What about flu and medicine - it just depends on a country heavily. Also it depends on a medicine you use - if it's an exclusive medicine for some rare disease the price will be high due to it's scarcity.


What about addons and everything else - yes, this is expectable. However, I don't really beleive that there will be such things as cracks or open-source for it, just due to the complexity and precision of the technology.

Why I think so - think about it: the current mainstream processors tech process is 32nm.
Simplifying, it can be called a "nanotechnology" even now, or, at least, it comes close to it (in 5 years surely). I have never heard of the home-made processors.
In fact, only the biggest corporations can AFFORD the tools to create them - a single UV lithography machine costs more than a 200 MILLION $.
Even medium companies can't produce advanced processors (there are some companies, which produce narrow-purpose processors [for military, for example], but it's tech process is more than 500nm, this level was outdated 15 years ago), what to talk about the homebrew.

So, I don't beleive that the nanotech will be available to the wide public as a technology, only as a proprietary product/service.

Excuse me good sirs, but can i puke here ? Thanks !

What was that post for?

I'm inclined to take the Kishiro standpoint on the agelessness tech, not to sound typical.
The oligarchy looks after itself, and it will abuse innovations and retard sensible actions of marketplace progress to take care of its own.
If the nanotech existed, in the name of population control its use would be HEAVILY restricted... and in short order we'd soon see mandatory birth control measures put in motion.

Here's an example:
In America abortion rights are ferociously defended as an inalienable right of a woman to control her destiny, control the use of her body. Why then can't this hypothetical woman commit suicide? Or smoke marijuana? Or drive without a seat belt?? Why do politicians whose religions flat-out forbid abortion fight so hard in its defense, even when they're threatened with excommunication?

It all comes down to population control. More people means more competition for all the wealth and resources a small group of privileged people hoard and have hoarded for generations. More people means a greater chance of a populist revolt. More people means louder cries for democracy.
That's why there are powerful interests who work to make sure that middle and lowerclass neighborhoods in American cities and suburbs, and poverty stricken nations in Africa and Asia will always have access to resources to prevent reproduction. They wouldn't want a modern-day equivalent to the Mars Kingdom Parliament, or the Scrapyard; too much chaos and upheaval, and freedom.
(Desty Nova is a total libertarian.)

[Oh, and lest this steer the discussion in the wrong direction -- I'm not trying to be pro-life or pro-choice here; I don't have an opinion on abortion either way. Aside from the conspiratorial element of it, I don't think it's really a pressing concern.]

Megan_Gale wrote an intelligent point of view.
I just have to applaud.
Thanks.

Int 29Ah wrote:What was that post for?

the future you see is one of those that must be avoided, life for money ? where the world is already on the verge of disrupting on itself because it's nearly what is it today already ?

Megan_Gale wrote:I'm inclined to take the Kishiro standpoint on the agelessness tech, not to sound typical.
The oligarchy looks after itself, and it will abuse innovations and retard sensible actions of marketplace progress to take care of its own.
If the nanotech existed, in the name of population control its use would be HEAVILY restricted... and in short order we'd soon see mandatory birth control measures put in motion.

Here's an example:
In America abortion rights are ferociously defended as an inalienable right of a woman to control her destiny, control the use of her body. Why then can't this hypothetical woman commit suicide? Or smoke marijuana? Or drive without a seat belt?? Why do politicians whose religions flat-out forbid abortion fight so hard in its defense, even when they're threatened with excommunication?

It all comes down to population control. More people means more competition for all the wealth and resources a small group of privileged people hoard and have hoarded for generations. More people means a greater chance of a populist revolt. More people means louder cries for democracy.
That's why there are powerful interests who work to make sure that middle and lowerclass neighborhoods in American cities and suburbs, and poverty stricken nations in Africa and Asia will always have access to resources to prevent reproduction. They wouldn't want a modern-day equivalent to the Mars Kingdom Parliament, or the Scrapyard; too much chaos and upheaval, and freedom.
(Desty Nova is a total libertarian.)

[Oh, and lest this steer the discussion in the wrong direction -- I'm not trying to be pro-life or pro-choice here; I don't have an opinion on abortion either way. Aside from the conspiratorial element of it, I don't think it's really a pressing concern.]

I can easily foresee a conundrum in the future if Methuselasation was ever invented.

"This Health Care bill will allow uninhibited access to Nano-Technology based health care to ALL (Insert Nationality Here)".

"Dangerous....Dangerous...Dangerous.." - Mass quote from Angry right-wing members.

It all comes down to population control. More people means more competition for all the wealth and resources a small group of privileged people hoard and have hoarded for generations. More people means a greater chance of a populist revolt. More people means louder cries for democracy.
That's why there are powerful interests who work to make sure that middle and lowerclass neighborhoods in American cities and suburbs, and poverty stricken nations in Africa and Asia will always have access to resources to prevent reproduction. They wouldn't want a modern-day equivalent to the Mars Kingdom Parliament, or the Scrapyard; too much chaos and upheaval, and freedom.
(Desty Nova is a total libertarian.)

But what is the benefit of having more people? You say it like having unfettered reproduction would be good for everyone except the upper class. We offer birth control to Africa because they can't see the long term consequences of their actions and are quite literally destroying their society with unchecked baby-making. The upper class barely reproduces above replacement rates to begin with, it's not like they're pushing birth control on the lower class while exempting themselves. I think that limiting population is probably the easiest way to improve the standard of living for everyone in the foreseeable future.

Basically, as long as our demand outpaces our resources, society will always be divided between "haves" and "have-nots". The only way to fix this is to either obtain unlimited resources (possible in a few thousand years, perhaps) or to reduce demand to the level where everyone can have everything they want (i.e. lower population). The third option is what blue-blooded socialists seem to advocate, which is to share the resources equally and not let anyone have everything they want.

Also, the wealthy are usually wealthy for a reason. I, for one, do not want to see a world overrun with the typical lower-class American consumer drone ala Idiocracy. There is no inherent worth in being a member of the proletariat. All it means is that you're uneducated and easily manipulated. Whether or not it's their fault and how we should deal with the problem of poverty is another question, but they sure as hell should not be the ones running things.

Int 29Ah wrote:

Sergio wrote:That makes me ask: in a word where Methuselyzation took place, how would people feel?

I think, the subjective time will freeze with the speed it had when one took MT, or just will be still accelerating, but a lot slower. I don't think it depends on experience or lifespan, it depends on how much you give it a thought.

If you look at it from a purely scientific perspective, you can view "time speeding up with age" as a symptom of ageing. To be more precise, it's the neural networks in your brain ageing. Consider:

• When you are young, your brain holds little memories, has little information to represent
  • Thus all information is relevant information. All information goes from short-term memory to some neural representation in your brain
• When you get older, your brain needs to start filtering out information
  • Not all information is relevant. I won't pretend I understand the mechanisms in detail, but less relevant input are prohibited from affecting the neural networks significantly.

This creates the perceived effect of time passing faster. Note that this is some guesswork from my side, I haven't read that much about neural networks

Now, to apply this information to the question of eternal life... You'd either have to filter more and more information, or you'd need to get an addition of more brain cells... or replace your brain with a brainchip?

I'm happy with a limited life span as things are now. It makes me feel like getting up in the morning and doing something with my life. Will I feel the same at eighty? I'll leave that as an open question

--
xim

But what is the benefit of having more people? You say it like having unfettered reproduction would be good for everyone except the upper class. We offer birth control to Africa because they can't see the long term consequences of their actions and are quite literally destroying their society with unchecked baby-making. The upper class barely reproduces above replacement rates to begin with, it's not like they're pushing birth control on the lower class while exempting themselves. I think that limiting population is probably the easiest way to improve the standard of living for everyone in the foreseeable future.

Basically, as long as our demand outpaces our resources, society will always be divided between "haves" and "have-nots". The only way to fix this is to either obtain unlimited resources (possible in a few thousand years, perhaps) or to reduce demand to the level where everyone can have everything they want (i.e. lower population). The third option is what blue-blooded socialists seem to advocate, which is to share the resources equally and not let anyone have everything they want.

Also, the wealthy are usually wealthy for a reason. I, for one, do not want to see a world overrun with the typical lower-class American consumer drone ala Idiocracy. There is no inherent worth in being a member of the proletariat. All it means is that you're uneducated and easily manipulated. Whether or not it's their fault and how we should deal with the problem of poverty is another question, but they sure as hell should not be the ones running things.

I can see how what I posted can easily be read as overly simplistic.

The presupposition that I make, that fails to come across, is my belief in the dissolution of modern meritocracy.

I'm biased, obviously, by an America-centric worldview, and it's one that considers the recent ascent of state-supported corporate wastefulness as an inevitable consequence of a calcified two-party system that favors candidates with wealth to back them from the get-go.

I don't disagree that a broader gene pool is most certainly not conducive to a higher quality of life for all. A drain on shared resources, difficulty making achieving consensus on important decisions in a timely fashion... In a socialism my statement is inapplicable.

However, if we are to assume that the society is a capitalistic, darwinistic one that will allow the most skillful exploiter of its weaknesses to rise, one must acknowledge that in an unstable or disfunctional climate (let's say the Scrapyard, for relevance's sake ) ANYONE regardless of lineage or certifications can potentially discern how best to get things done, and to do them, and the necessity of preserving their dominance would persuade them, like feudal rulers, to sate the governed peoples' needs/desires.

I observe this conundrum being played out in Battle Angel. If the original series is an exploration of the dysfunctional dog eat dog mess that is the surface of the earth, and how it works and doesn't work, then Last Order is serving as a counterpoint.
In space there is immortality, stability and mass consensus, and in exchange, humans have consigned themselves to the intellectual status of subhuman lapdogs. (In LADDER, at least. I'm not touching Venus and Jupiter in this discussion; not with a ten foot pole )
I percieve that Kishiro's standpoint is that neither social system is functional. The implication so far seems to be that in as much as hardship in a primitive brutish world that preserves natural life cycles allows a person to think and feel as freely as possible, it is the only world that can give rise to exemplary human beings, and thus, is preferrable. Nobody gets off easy though.


Hm, you wonder if there are paralells to be drawn between compulsory methuselyzation and individual mandate health care?
I'd like to see the bold pundit willing to address the matter in THOSE terms