Economic Totalitarianism

[TPTB_need_war]

americanpegasus

Sigh. I have refuted that many times in the past. Do I have to do again!

Read the debate between CoinCube and myself in the Economic Devastation thread.

Indeed, people will believe what ever they want to. And it is not my job to change their minds.

[TPTB_need_war]

You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.

Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process.

Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution.

Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail.

The point of what I wrote remains.

No I think the point entirely fails if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness.

In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite.

And none of that is contrary what I wrote except the bolded accusation which is in error.

On the second bolded part, there is no way I could force someone to not participate in a collective with technological innovation that enabled others to choose not to. Duh.

The non-aggression of individual choice is one fundamental principles that makes it so fair.

[smooth]

If you're going to go there, then show your work. Make an actual mathematically grounded case for it (based on any branch of mathematics), or don't throw names of mathematical theories around as rhetorical flourishes. That's a cheap trick.

WTF? Why has this thread turned into "each comment has to be a white paper"?

Are you trying to filibuster me?

The simple point has already been sufficiently explained. If you can't figure it out (about chaos theory), that is not my problem. If I have incentive to write a white paper I assume I will.

I don't know why you can't understand what I wrote:

If someone is into symbolism and then someone else can demonstrate their symbols form another pattern, that sort of makes the initial symbolism a joke. It was a point about serendipity and the futility of control. Someone was so serious about the alignment of the stars to their structure and the orientation, etc.. And that seriousness falls to random chance. haha.

The alignment of the stars in a particular structure is not the point. Various forms of astrology have been around since people have been around.

The interpretation of the geographies of things like pyramids and airports is more out there, and demands a stronger support if that is possible (which I seriously doubt).

Granted something like the Guidestones which may be somewhat arbitrarily placed could have been placed by their originator to aline with other objects of occult significance, for whatever astrological or similar reasons (see above). The airport (which was built after the Guidestones) I'm much, much more skeptical about being anything other than overfitting.

[TPTB_need_war]

If you're going to go there, then show your work. Make an actual mathematically grounded case for it (based on any branch of mathematics), or don't throw names of mathematical theories around as rhetorical flourishes. That's a cheap trick.

WTF? Why has this thread turned into "each comment has to be a white paper"?

Are you trying to filibuster me?

The simple point has already been sufficiently explained. If you can't figure it out (about chaos theory), that is not my problem. If I have incentive to write a white paper I assume I will.

I don't know why you can't understand what I wrote:

If someone is into symbolism and then someone else can demonstrate their symbols form another pattern, that sort of makes the initial symbolism a joke. It was a point about serendipity and the futility of control. Someone was so serious about the alignment of the stars to their structure and the orientation, etc.. And that seriousness falls to random chance. haha.

The alignment of the stars in a particular structure is not the point. Various forms of astrology have been around since people have been around.

The interpretation of the geographies of things like pyramids and airports is more out there, and demands a stronger support if that is possible (which I seriously doubt).

Granted something like the Guidestones which may be somewhat arbitrarily placed could have been placed by their originator to aline with other objects of occult significance, for whatever astrological or similar reasons (see above). The airport (which was built after the Guidestones) I'm much, much more skeptical about being anything other than overfitting.

What? My god I hit on a dumb nerve today (and it isn't in my body). I don't know how it happened.

[smooth]

You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.

Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process.

Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution.

Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail.

The point of what I wrote remains.

No I think the point entirely fails if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness.

In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite.

And none of that is contrary what I wrote except the bolded accusation which is in error.

On the second bolded part, there is no way I could force someone to not participate in a collective with technological innovation that enabled others to choose not to. Duh.

The non-aggression of individual choice is one fundamental principles that makes it so fair.

However, viewing individual choice as such a fundamental principle is relative to your own individual makeup. If other humans have a different (possibly genetic) makeup that elevates, for example, fairness over individual choice, then there is nothing to say that your way is right and theirs is wrong. What are you going to do, wipe them off the face of the earth? Wish them out of existence? Convince them that their genetics are defective? RMA under warranty?

You have to acknowledge the subjectivity of your own values relative to others'. Well, you don't, but it's clearly there anyway.

I guess one reasonable answer is just wait for them to self destruct and the possibly pick up the pieces the best we are able. We probably don't disagree on that, given your comments about finding a place to hole up (south america or whatever) and try ones best to live life.

[americanpegasus]

americanpegasus

Sigh. I have refuted that many times in the past. Do I have to do again!

Read the debate between CoinCube and myself in the Economic Devastation thread.

Indeed, people will believe what ever they want to. And it is not my job to change their minds.

 
  
I heard your arguments that the analogy to a body is flawed.  
  
However, it should be obvious that the future of humanity (intelligence) on this planet is to coalescence into a higher form.  Since the beginning of sentience that is what intelligence has done: from the individual to families to tribes to nations to continents.  The future (enabled by the progress of technology) is to form into one planet of singular purpose.  
  
That purpose will be decided by those who hold the "tokens".  We face a future with free energy, labor, and increasingly free AI 'creative intelligence'.  Jobs and wealth will become increasingly unnecessary as all humans are lifted up to a minimum survival standard of food, shelter, and medicine with no effort on their part whatsoever.  Their life may not be glamorous, but it will be bearable.  Those intelligences (and I will include AI in there because 'robot rights' will become an increasingly prevailant issue in the 2030's and 2040's) that show promise can seek employment or innovate in order to earn the "tokens" of the day.  With most luxury happening in virtual space, those tokens can only serve one of two purposes if we are still depending on consumerism: as costly signalling for mating (debatable whether this will be an issue in the future) or as a vote where humanity places its 'focus'.  
  
Therefore if humans *do* cede control to AI it will be an organic economic process as we trade our tokens to AI who provide us with value.  This likely won't be as scary as it seems though, because by this point we will be integrating human consciousness directly with robotics and computers.  
  
Point is, there will be one world government; it is inevitable.  I would even argue there already is, and it forms the young 'consciousness' of our species that seems to move in mysterious ways sometimes (and ends up hurting itself).  At the moment (subject to change) America proports to be the immune system due to our military, China the muscle, and Europe houses most of the 'creative brains'.  Russia is having a crisis of existence, but will figure itself out soon enough (though isolationism will not be an option or they will crumble into a third world nation for real).  
  
Whether through the growing power of corporations or a cabal of the wealthy, global government is inevitable.
  

[TPTB_need_war]

You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.

Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process.

Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution.

Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail.

The point of what I wrote remains.

No I think the point entirely fails if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness.

In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite.

And none of that is contrary what I wrote except the bolded accusation which is in error.

On the second bolded part, there is no way I could force someone to not participate in a collective with technological innovation that enabled others to choose not to. Duh.

The non-aggression of individual choice is one fundamental principles that makes it so fair.

However, viewing individual choice as such a fundamental principle is relative to your own individual makeup. If other humans have a different (possibly genetic) makeup that elevates, for example, fairness over individual choice, then there is nothing to say that your way is right and theirs is wrong. What are you going to do, wipe them off the face of the earth? Wish them out of existence? Convince them that their genetics are defective? RMA under warranty?

You have to acknowledge the subjectivity of your own values relative to others'. Well, you don't, but it's clearly there anyway.

What part of "individual empowerment via technological innovation so that those who want to opt out can" did you misconstrue as " wipe them off the face of the earth"?

Smooth you are just babbling nonsense today. What happened to you.

[smooth]

You are still approaching this from thinking about what to do as fair, but there is no chance of that. The system is rigged. For as long as you waste time in that direction, you are just feeding the problem. The Europeans who are still confused about fairness are being raped by the system. You will sold that the world government will be more fair. And most of those who have been indoctrinated with using collectivism to achieve fairness will follow this outcome. They simply don't ever think that maybe there is another way (e.g. individual empowerment via technological innovation and destroying the collective economically so humans can be free). In my opinion, the problem is you (and most others) don't see all governments as evil.

Let me offer another interpretation, and this is coming from someone who is no fan of governments or top down control. It may not be entirely indoctrination and people may just differ, perhaps even genetically, in how they weigh fairness considerations in their decision making process.

Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution.

Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail.

The point of what I wrote remains.

No I think the point entirely fails if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness.

In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite.

And none of that is contrary what I wrote except the bolded accusation which is in error.

On the second bolded part, there is no way I could force someone to not participate in a collective with technological innovation that enabled others to choose not to. Duh.

The non-aggression of individual choice is one fundamental principles that makes it so fair.

However, viewing individual choice as such a fundamental principle is relative to your own individual makeup. If other humans have a different (possibly genetic) makeup that elevates, for example, fairness over individual choice, then there is nothing to say that your way is right and theirs is wrong. What are you going to do, wipe them off the face of the earth? Wish them out of existence? Convince them that their genetics are defective? RMA under warranty?

You have to acknowledge the subjectivity of your own values relative to others'. Well, you don't, but it's clearly there anyway.

What part of "individual empowerment via technological innovation so that those who want to opt out can" did you misconstrue as " wipe them off the face of the earth"?

Smooth you are just babbling nonsense today. What happened to you.

I was in the process of writing an edit along similar lines when you wrote that. See above.

But the key point you are missing is that people are not necessarily "confused" about fairness as you wrote above, nor are they even necessarily being "raped" by the system, they may simply attach a different value to perceived fairness (and therefore be willing to accept greater costs in pursuit of even an imperfect version of it). The NHS in the UK for example is apparently enormously popular, even among people who do pay for it (net taxpayers). They are not being raped, they are living within a partially collectivist system largely of their own making and largely aligned with their own values.

[BitcoinForumator]

OROBTC, I told you already in the past that the Russian oligarches were put into power by Larry Summers. Antony Sutton documented how the banksters controlled all that has occurred in Russian history since the Bolsheviks. Why do you still have this fantasy that Russia is doing anything for any other reason than a pre-planned world war designed to bring about the coming world government.

The multiculturalism is being forced by design so as to bring about the politics for the world government.

Everything that is happening is totally scripted. The banksters create all the wars. They always have.

It is all so obvious. Why are people so willfully blind to it?

We are transitioning now into the rapid acceleration of their plans. Talk is cheap.

This is what I fear also, that the Russian leadership was compromised by the jewish force (bolsheviks). But, then there is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m04GVvbWMes

Watch the whole thing, you will see why. He argues that the opposition to westerners might not be a fake opposition. It's a very interesting presentation...

[TPTB_need_war]

But the key point you are missing is that people are not necessarily "confused" about fairness as you wrote above, nor are they even necessarily being "raped" by the system...

In a relativistic system that is our Universe, objectivity is relative to the perspective of the beholder.

From my perspective, they are confused and being raped. From their perspective, they are not.

The non-aggression principle of choice means I don't need them to wrong in order for me to correct. They may not be able to adhere to the same principle since they need to extract some of my productivity to fund their morass.

[TPTB_need_war]

In this forum, do not write anything. Just write platitudes. Otherwise you will fall in a tarpit of non-productivity.

The weather is dandy today isn't it.

[americanpegasus]

In this forum, do not write anything. Just write platitudes. Otherwise you will fall in a tarpit of non-productivity.

 
  
The fact that I have to clean my house is a pit of non-productivity.  I'm at the point in my life where I should be paying someone to do this for me, because my time is more valuable than that... and yet here I am unpacking and cleaning up.  
  
Humans are irrational and do stupid things sometimes.  Also, time spent creating something, even stupidity, is not wasted.  Time spent enjoying the stupidity that others have created is wasted, unless it inspires you to also create your own stupidity.  
  
A long time ago, a man scratched a stupid picture of the sun on a wall.  One thing led to another, and a few years later we wrote a few stupid books about prophets and burning bushes.  Then, a few years after that we used cryptographic ring signatures to create the first stupid private digital decentralized token of value.  Also, we made this really cool movie named Back to the Future Part 2.  All of it stupidity inspired by previous stupidity.  
  
Or was any of it really wasted effort?  Sometimes things have a larger purpose, even if its not clear at the time of their creation.

[smooth]

But the key point you are missing is that people are not necessarily "confused" about fairness as you wrote above, nor are they even necessarily being "raped" by the system...

In a relativistic system that is our Universe, objectivity is relative to the perspective of the beholder.

From my perspective, they are confused and being raped. From their perspective, they are not.

The non-aggression principle of choice means I don't need them to wrong in order for me to correct. They may not be able to adhere to the same principle since they need to extract some of my productivity to fund their morass.

Yes, but this is your higher-prioritized principle, not theirs. People who value (a degree of) collectivism see your adherence to extreme individual non-agression as evil (as in selfish, anti-social, etc.). There is a symmetry, not in the principles themselves, but in how people value them. At least acknowledge it.

It isn't impossible people are in fact being brainwashed, confused, raped, oppressed, exploited, etc. and that has certainly happened in history. I actually doubt this in the case of most of Europe today.

Maybe, as we discussed earlier, the people who left for various other parts of the world (and I suppose are still leaving) have influenced the mix of people left behind. A large portion of the people living in Europe today, even intelligent and well informed ones, hold sincere values more compatible with a (fairly significant) degree of collectivism than strict individual non-aggression and find the latter distasteful at best, evil at worst. This is somewhat less true in the US, but still true to an extent.

It is clear as you have pointed out in the past that we have mostly run out of frontiers, which have generally been the mechanism by which uncompromisable incompatibilities between value systems have been resolved, outside of genocide (people with one set of values leave). That may turn ugly. I guess it already is.

[TPTB_need_war]

At least acknowledge it.

I have not denied it. Even mentioned it numerous times myself.

The weather is dandy isn't it. I'm watching paint dry. Mary jane came over to bring me some fig juice and fried rabbit's toes. How is your gall bladder doing?

[americanpegasus]

But the key point you are missing is that people are not necessarily "confused" about fairness as you wrote above, nor are they even necessarily being "raped" by the system...

In a relativistic system that is our Universe, objectivity is relative to the perspective of the beholder.

From my perspective, they are confused and being raped. From their perspective, they are not.

The non-aggression principle of choice means I don't need them to wrong in order for me to correct. They may not be able to adhere to the same principle since they need to extract some of my productivity to fund their morass.

Maintaining a non-aggression principle is a luxury afforded by stable society and government.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a member of a jungle tribe 5,000 years ago.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle on the border of Germany in the late 1930's.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a pleb thug takes your life from you.  
  
Try to maintain non-aggression principles in the game of http://agar.io or poker.  You may have a brilliant end game in mind - a cooperative endeavor that allows the players to become something vastly more significant than they could hope to achieve while in-fighting... but if you're not the biggest fish you'll never get a chance to implement it.  
  
All intelligence should be afforded a chance at cooperation, peace, and productivity.  If an intelligence chooses to be a non-participant in society (yet cause no damage) it is immoral to exterminate them or prevent them from experiencing a basic existence: indeed they may yet produce value down the line and you always have to consider that perhaps you are wrong about their value.  But, if an intelligence chooses to destroy and damage its surroundings (especially a demonstrably less complex intelligence) then it must be stopped with minimal effective force.  
  
Where one human may be happy to live his/her life in an artificial reality wonderland, exploring the depths of knowledge and creativity, another believes that it is their 'purpose' to destroy the first.  The "why" isn't important (cells in the body, and humans by extension, go awry all the time).  If possible we should strive to educate and prevent the latter from disrupting productive society... but if all else fails, the productive member of society must be preserved above the destructive one at all costs.  
  
Chaos and entropy on a grand cosmic scale already appear to be an inevitability.  Those who seek to hasten this are of no value to sentience.  Remember, the universe is a living thing, and we are that thing.  Anything which seeks to return the universe to non-sentience is literally a cancerous threat and must be stopped.  
  
It took us a long time to grow to a 'network' of humans 7 billion strong.  Population is a good thing as long as they are properly supported; we're working on that part with cryptocurrency and global commerce.  I hope to see 25 billion humans, all living happy and productive lives, in coming decades.  But things like violent crime, terrorism, nuclear war, collapse of the food chain, and cosmic disasters are threats which must not be allowed to happen, lest we do massive/irreparable damage to our fledgling global consciousness.  We are excruciatingly close to the vertical part of our exponential progress curve, and it must not be interrupted by petty and base problems.  

[TPTB_need_war]

Maintaining a non-aggression principle is a luxury afforded by stable society and government.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a member of a jungle tribe 5,000 years ago.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle on the border of Germany in the late 1930's.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a pleb thug takes your life from you.

We were talking about forcing others to do something against their choice. We were not talking about self-defense.

When will the ontological failures in reading comprehension stop?

When I write about the weather only. The weather is might fine don't you think?

[americanpegasus]

Maintaining a non-aggression principle is a luxury afforded by stable society and government.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a member of a jungle tribe 5,000 years ago.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle on the border of Germany in the late 1930's.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a pleb thug takes your life from you.

We were talking about forcing others to do something against their choice. We were not talking about self-defense.

When will the ontological failures in reading comprehension stop?

When I write about the weather only. The weather is might fine don't you think?

 
  
Sorry, I'm a pretty unreliable intelligence.  I say 99 stupid things, and then say 1 insightful and revolutionary one.  So forgive me 99% of the time.  
  
I agree that we should not force "nodes" (humans) into the future singular consciousness.  I think that many future minded individuals will end up accepting it willingly as it will be the path to immortality.  Those who want to live a natural life, free from the global "hive-mind" and die a natural death should be permitted to do this.  They may not get to take part in the big decisions and projects, but they can live the life they want as long as they don't try to disturb others.  
  
The real ethical question is that of the matrix: in a world where humanity has been surpassed in every way by AI, and where you ethically (as the AI overlord/hive-mind) have decided not to interrupt their existence, how do you allow humans to live a natural life while also making allowances for those who desire to advance to the next state of being?  If technology has progressed to the point where artificial reality is identical in every way to the actual reality those 'natural' humans would live in, and indeed is preferable, is it moral to let humans be born into a 'matrix' and live out their entire lives there not even knowing the truth?  It would seem this would benefit both society, the ruling class, and the individual human (who gets to live in advantageous conditions better than the real world) but still it smacks as immoral to a certain part of us.  
  
Take away the concessions necessary to create a compelling plot in the Matrix; were the humans naive fools?  Wouldn't the Matrix have been the best choice for the majority of them, so long as the AI allowed sufficient opportunity for any given human to educate themselves to the point where they were ready to leave?  Perhaps this is what the "truce" at the end hinted at after all.

[altcoinUK]

...

Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and certainly that's the case with regards to your situation.

I really hope your health issues will be resolved, and I believe it will be. This community need your knowledge and intellect, I hope it gives you strength in solving out the health problems.

Take care and speak soon.

[americanpegasus]

...

Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and certainly that's the case with regards to your situation.

I really hope your health issues will be resolved, and I believe it will be. This community need your knowledge and intellect, I hope it gives you strength in solving out the health problems.

Take care and speak soon.

 
  
I hope everyone reading this today survives long enough to participate in the coming immortality.  It might not be here until the 2030's or 2040's, so try to hang on a little longer.  Do whatever you have to do to keep your biological body healthy and alive: for the time being *that* is your hard drive.  If it fails, there's no backup of you.  
  
If you are wealthy (or at least have a few hundred thousand dollars) and don't think you have much time left, consider looking into an organization I have worked with in the past: Alcor.org which does cryo-preservations on humans (and who is currently preserving the frozen body of Hal Finney).  
  
I promise that as soon as the technology is financially feasible, if I am still around (in my 30's and have a solid chance at shooting the "immortality gap") I will ensure that all humans that can be brought back, will be brought back.
  

[macsga]

Apart from the ranting comments I've been reading (for about an hour now - gosh! You doods type TOO much!) from TPTB_need_war & generalizethis and vice versa there's a pretty good conversation here regarding the semantics one sees in his life. I pose the question then. Is there a chance that you're both right?

I mean look at it rationally, not by the optics of whose opinion is better. Just the essence of it. Here, let me help you a bit:



@AmericanPegasus: always a joy to my eyes reading your comments.