Thought I’d move this up here from the comment section. Spur of the moment type of thing.
Lew Rockwell Blog comments:
“Manufacturing more Bush supporters,” writes Tom DiLorenzo. “What will the neocons think of next?”
2007.03.28 by paulie
Thought I’d move this up here from the comment section. Spur of the moment type of thing.
Lew Rockwell Blog comments:
“Manufacturing more Bush supporters,” writes Tom DiLorenzo. “What will the neocons think of next?”
Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments
Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp
Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
| << prev | next >> |
| list | random | join |


Does this mean they’re “sheeple”?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I don’t know, what do you think?
http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/03/26/warn-your-kids/#comment-3915
Actually, the concept itself is fairly ingenious; adult stem-cells injected into animal feti to create animal organs that won’t be rejected by the patient. This is exactly the sort of thing that President Bush has stated he would veto in the US though — it’s British research.
I see a few major problems; First, cost-per-organ. Second, tissue rejection remains a large problem. Third, ethical considerations (Yeah, they’re only sheep and we slaughter sheep all the time… and since they’re only semipotent stem cells there’s a high factor of control over what organs they become).
All in all it seems it would be far more cost-effective to put the research money into tissue substrate assemblies for organ manufacturing. (For example; did you know that a common ink-jet printer can be used to create specific tissues? And if given a 3-d map & arms, this could result in the ability to “print” living tissues & organs.)
… did I mention that I’m a transhumanist by default? Those people are rabid liberals by and large but I still can’t help but want the “2.0″.
Love it! I find transhumanism to be interesting and bizarre. Cryogenics is some strange booty.
Personally I’m far more interested in neural augmentation or “BMI.” There’s a lot of misconceptions out there but I can’t help but think, honestly, that viable BMI is *NECESSARY* to a truly free, truly democratic society. Cryogenics is more of a bust game right now — while progress has been made regarding crystallization damage, there is as yet no prospect for a solution to protein denaturing. (“Freezer-burn.”) … I could rant about this for hours but I’ll spare the gory & detailed.
… I have *REALLY* got to get better about double-posting.
For those who don’t know, “BMI” is an acronym for “Brain/Machine Interface”. The implications of a fully In/Out BMI technology would require more space than this forum permits, to discuss.
“truly free, truly democratic society”? Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Democratic = a political system in which the people rule. It doesn’t mean mob rule. A limited constitutional republic is a form of democracy.
Yes, but a constitutional republic differs from “direct democracy”, which is basically legally codified mob rule.
Robert Mayer — with how things are now? Yes, yes it is. And no, a democratic society needn’t actually be a democracy. I didn’t suggest that direct democracy would be a good idea — I frequently opine exactly the opposite, though I haven’t done so as much on LFV as I had on HoT.
For a society to be ‘truly democratic’ would require that when the people-at-large get a say in the government, this say actually, well, exist and be unrestrained by such things as “Well, your vote doesn’t count because that candidate wasn’t on the ballot.” There’s also the GIGO principle, for which I blame the existence and dominance of the two major parties; a society in which people can process information at vastly accelerated rates, and retain vastly greater amounts of information is necessary to handle the complexity of making sound decisions. As it stands, voting has become a popularity contest. As in-depth materials become more and more readily available and more and more readily processed, this will change somewhat.
That’s a rather vague definition. If the people rule over each other, which is how democracies seem to always be, then it is essentially mob rule. But, if you meant that people rule themselves as individuals only, i.e. anarchy, then *that* would be truly free.
But, if I had the slightest clue about the BMI stuff you were talking about, maybe I would have understood your comment.
No anarchy will be a viably free society. That’s just how it is.
Oh, come on — everyone knows Bush supporters are much more than 15 percent sheep…Of course, that still beats the neocons who seem to be 90+ percent ass…