An American's plea to the world

WHAT DOES THE WORLD NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS? If no one has noticed, let me say it: borders are generally meaningless with the massive amounts of communications going on through basic daily correspondence, online gaming, and various other activities that have brought the world together. If the USA is spying on its citizens, IT IS SPYING ON THE ENTIRE WORLD. EU, Africa, CHINA, INDIA, and even the Aussies. None of you are safe from BIG BROTHER'S(re: The US Government's) all seeing eye unless THE ENTIRE PLANET HELPS THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY STOP THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT FROM SPYING. The world knows this is not right, even obscene in some cases, but our own government does not. Since they obviously do not listen to the citizens of their own country, WILL THE REST OF THE WORLD HELP US OUT A BIT? Maybe sanctions? Anything?

I posted this comment to an article in the Huffington post about the EU getting their panties in a bunch over the USA spying on them.  Strange how the world so soon forgets what happens to a country that believes its ego over reality.  It happened to Britain("The Sun never sets on the British Empire"), Germany(The Third Reich), all the way back to Pax Romana.  Except none of them had the planet's communication grid in such a tight grip.  The United States presents an unprecedented threat to the entire planet, at least those countries that refuse to bend to the will of the United Soviet States of America.  "The Greatest Country in the World."

And before you idiots say, "Well, hm-hm, we aint no soviets.  We don't live in Russia," soviet is Russian for council, and this country is without a doubt ruled by its councils- namely the Senate and the House- and our country is no less hell bent on a form of world domination than the former USSR, decimated Nazi Germany or the decaying British Empire.  In our country, "politically correct" is code for newspeak.  "NSA" is code for Big Brother.  
So, remember this, the indoctrination that millions of children in the USA are forced to say every morning: pledge of allegience.  Children are being brainwashed into believing that being watched, tracked, and corralled by the government is freedom.  They are being brainwashed that a fairy-tale being called "god" is watching over our nation.  They are being forced to believe that what is happening to our people is just.  To the rest of the world, THIS IS WHAT FUTURE PRESIDENTS, OBAMA, BUSH, CLINTON, the other BUSH, (well, you get the drift) HAVE PLANNED FOR YOU UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.  Our populace has entered that area of historical significance where our opinion no longer matters, indeed, is no longer allowed unless it is in line with what the government has decreed is correct and true.  Help us.  You all know what's coming.  If you don't, read 1984, by George Orwell.

He-heh, someone just remarked on my opinion that I am earning a trip to Gitmo.  Cuba, here I come.

My views on Mashable's Nov 2011 "Next 40 years of Technology" comment/essay winner.

I realize it is a bit late, but this popped up on my twitter feed the other day, so I had to read it.  I was dumbfounded, which is not really that hard since I am of mean intelligence at best.  However, the winner's(and I cannot fathom how this was chosen as winner) comment was all tech-kittens and rainbows.  I hate kittens and rainbows.  It's true, I hated my cat for the first 14 months of its life, and I live in New Mexico, where it never rains, so the possibility of a rainbow is dismally, and thankfully, low.


http://mashable.com/2011/11/15/next-40-years-in-tech-winner/


My reply to the whole Mashable thing, and his comment, is as below, just in case they decide not to allow it:

 While Kyle's vision of the future is filled with hope and good will, one cannot deny the unfortunate fact his comment is somewhat... Rose colored.  Yes, to remain on par with what will inevitably become known as the "top line" of humanity, one will need to upgrade one's self both mentally and physically, taking evolution by the hand and gently guiding it.  However, where does he get the idea that this advancement will in any way, shape, or form "enable us to overcome worldwide problems"?  We must first define worldwide problem, and  in order to even begin addressing any definition of the term worldwide problem, one must consider the perspective from which the term is viewed: common human, or the wealthy power-base.  Worldwide problems: (a-common man) hunger, poverty, inequality, violence based on color, creed or ethnicity, abuses at the hands of the powerful; (b-powerful) common man, disturbance of the balance of power, uncontrolled change.

From the perspective of the common human, technology will not help in any way to alleviate worldwide problems.  It may well serve to exacerbate a large number of current issues, ending in even worse living conditions for many.  Unless, of course, the people who control the flow of technology to and among the populace display some previously hidden reservoir of kindness.  How likely do you, the reader of this comment, think that will be?

So, when considering the solving of worldwide problems, in order for emerging technologies to overcome those problems, one is forced to consider the term from the perspective of the powerful.  Let's not mince words or continue under proven false pretenses: the majority of powerful people in the world have shown, in the past decade, the tendency to view the common human as a herd of cattle at worst, chattel property at best.  The advancing technologies will be previewed by those in power first, then more modest versions will be fed to the populace as though these were the creme' de la creme'.  The world will continue much the way it has, with a shrinking middle class, and growing poverty covered in the patina of human advancement.  Those whom wish to remain in the increasingly privileged middle-class will be forced to concede to the regulations of  whichever powerful figure they are working for, be that figure CEO, Imam, Pastor, or Politician, while maintaining proscribed enhancement levels and acquiescing to what I can only imagine will be mandatory monitoring of those who can afford enhancements.  

Solar energy, or any more efficient energy source, will be no less expensive for the common man.  Period.  It will, however, be significantly less expensive for the powerful, leading to increased profit margin per watt produced, making it easier for utilities to control what they charge for their product.  Our ability to pay will only come into consideration when considering the maximum amount they can charge while maintaining the largest number of customers in order to maintain the highest level of income.  Pretty much how they do it now, Wall St. speculators aside.  This same formula will be applied to food production, fresh-water supply, home-building materials, anything considered essential for survival.  Since monetary value is inevitably pegged to these things, and the prices for these needs rise every year, average inflation will remain near the same levels it has seen for the last hundred years or so, not counting wartime or recessions, which tend to create anomalous changes in inflation rates.  Technology will change none of that.

To deny that this is the most probable outcome for the future forty years from now is to deny the last ten, no, two hundred... Let's be realistic, the entirety of human history.  Cynicism aside, human nature will lead the powerful to do anything to remain in power, and the oppressed to suffer under that power until a boiling point is reached, and the newly minted "rebels" achieve a momentary equality that is essentially the foundation for the next ruling class that will inevitably repeat the actions of past powerful people.  From the ashes, beside the newer powers, the powerful families of the past will rise to pretend the climb to their former lofty position, and the cycle will once again repeat.  Technology or not.

Now, to say what I was too polite to say in Mashable's comments:

Where do we, as a society, get our friggin opinions of the future? 

 I can understand the Conservative Right's "The world is flat and a magical white guy with a beard created everything so the left can go suck it.  Oh, the Easter bunny... Well the Easter bunny is fake..." point of view.  What it boils down to is the years of inbreeding and hatred of the written word have led to an irrational fear of even the smallest changes in human understanding.  

Now, those who have an understanding of science, and use, or claim to use, logic and responsibility in living their daily lives, where do we get the gall to "believe" that the future will be beautiful and clean, where people are ageless and our brains are soooooo powerful?  That is almost as irresponsible as being religious.

The best that humanity at large can hope for should technology advance as fast and powerfully as people like Ray Kurzweill, Aubrey DeGrey, and even the people responsible for the gritty Deus Ex video game series, would like is an Adam Jensen who will throw a wrench into the gears of the powerful.  But, sorry, it'll never happen.

SO, I guess I am just miffed that people are so blind to their current reality that they think the future is just as blind to that reality.  Just because someone who actually knows what they are talking about says we will be able to do something does not mean that we will be allowed to do that thing.  Do you honestly think the powers that be will allow us to be as strong, beautiful, and long-lived as we wish unless there is something substantial to be gained?  Forty years aside, it will be at least a century before technologies dealing with the foundations of humanity will be allowed to circulate freely in society, be they centered on age, our intellectual power, or exo-terrestrial colonization.  But that's if the CEO's and religious leaders of the world have their way.  So, let's compromise and say that within seventy years, we will be able to advance ourselves in great ways, because wrenches tend to jam the best protected gears.  Until then, no matter how many future-tech-rainbows some leftist hippy-dreamer feeds you, and despite how many eternities in a swimming pool filled with bullets and burning coals some child-molesting, right-wing, preacher threatens you with, invest in some asstroglyde and get ready for what's coming.  The CEO of your favorite food company is going to sell you more unbelievable bullshit then that hippy can imagine and then fuck you harder than every-single super-natural being dreamed up by some old man with psychological problems who ate some middle-eastern peyote, even if every single "god" is actually standing in line with a number for the universe's most forgiving gang-bang.

Fly Smart.

Christians and Anal-Animal SEX!

pic.twitter.com/uZG4HHgt

Hit up the link, I dare ya.  Then, answer me this:  Why do Christians like having sex with animals SO much that they are hoping Liberals legalize it?

The whole argument that gay marriage is the same as say, fucking a duck in the ass, is facile at best.  The two are no where near the same thing, as intraspecific marriage has been going on since men began making it acceptable to enslave and sell women by claiming they are property. Read the Bible, especially the OT.  Women, you are nothing to Christian, Jewish, or Muslim men other than property.  They want to keep it that way, why else would they endorse marriage between two people they consider unequal when two people who are equal in station could marry just as well?  Because they would consider it unethical to enslave a man they were in love with, probably?  Because a man literally cannot be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

Sheesh, let the LGBT community experience marriage in all it's glory.  I mean, putting up with the same crap from someone for years on end, that's AWESOME, right?  Divorce, you Christians are pretty experienced with that(even though Jesus Christ specifically said it was wrong, and gave very few, if any, mitigating circumstances) right?  Why deny Gays that?  And what happens when a child raised in a Gay home decides to be straight?  Oh, wait, an LGBT household would be okay with it because they are less prone to be judgmental ass-hats.

Bottom line is this:  Once again Conservatives and Bible-thumpers are attempting to completely stem the social and, vicariously, technological advancement of our species.  Over the last hundred years or so, we have experienced an unprecedented amount of advancement as a species, and the religious powers that be are attempting to quell the flood of people leaning away from their control.  Again.

Can we, the more logical members of society, survive the persecution of the religious?  Even as they attempt to pull the "we are so picked upon" card?

I hope that liberals legalize gay marriage so the Religious Right can start having sex with animals.

P.S. If you Religious assholes would just worry about yourselves and let everyone else live their own lives, maybe the world would give a shit about the tens-of-thousands of Christians killed yearly around the world for being Christian.  I know it is hypocritical for me to say so, but when you start giving a shit about everyone else's views, maybe we will give a shit about you.  And why do you guys(Christians in the USA) automatically imagine having sex with animals when the question of equality for everyone comes up, anyway?  That's just fucking sick.

Oh, yeah, btw, Spartans, and Greece as a whole, were very open sexually.  Any of you pussy-assed Bible thumpers feel like asking god for a time machine so you can call a Spartan a fag?

I Loved Prometheus and am amused by all the poeple who hate it but can't stop talking about it.

Prometheus.

Great Movie, in my opinion.  Prometheus is an exciting romp in the minds of Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof that leaves the casual and well-read audience member both looking forward to a sequel.  Even the skeptics are waiting, rubbing their sweaty palms together in anticipation, to enjoy the next installment then spend the following week railing about how much it sucked and why.  Awesome film which, in usual Ridley Scott fashion, did way too much-goo mutating the geologist and it attacking the ship's crew-, had way too many unimportant characters given speaking roles-Cherlize Theron’s character, the biologist, the geologist-  but had one thing his imagination needed; the technology to make what he saw come to life.

 Script could have used a bit more attention, along with people in the bit parts who know how to act.  With Theron’s character running the show, can Scott rationalize having a weenie tree-hugger biologist on the trip instead of the cold and calculating biologist who is there to take samples and… study the flora and fauna?  Something tells me she would have known if this guy was there to do his job or was missing his room full of reptile-filled terrariums just a bit too much.

I do, however, agree with a growing number of people that Scott and Lindelof overreached a bit by appearing to incorporate so many themes, many controversial, into the film.  Now, most people aren’t intelligent enough to even question or realize what they are looking at in this film, and a WHOLE lot more of us have such a high opinion of our own intelligence that we read way too much into the film, me included.  For those in the latter group, we are spending so much time and energy and emotion talking about the film that, no matter what our words are saying, we loved the film and will undoubtedly go see a sequel.

There is only one true theme, “Where did we come from and now that where is trying to kill us.“  I think the whole “Space Jesus” thing is too obtuse and too insignificant a reason for them to kill us.   I think something more along the lines of the fact that we poison and kill everything we touch, and will eventually attempt the same with them is more reasonable and likely to be the truth.  Instead of creating the Intergalactic Best Friends they always wanted, they made soul-sucking leaches that will devour everything in their path so long as it allows them to keep up on the Jersey Shore.  They created a race that will, no matter what, attempt to kill them in the future due to a huge fraction of that creation’s population being so self-centered and bigoted that they will literally kill anyone and anything that can destroy their personal belief system. <<< It can’t be anything as tawdry and simple as that.  C’mon, it’s from Ridley Scott’s Imagination, right?  Some may argue that the Space Jesus thing is simply an indicator of what I said, as far as the scope of the film is concerned, but, meh, who cares?

But, that is a point.  This film can be ruined by only one thing; asking too many questions.  Most of those questions are only questions to people who find themselves questioning any- and everything.  Life is too short for that.  

Ooh, we killed Jesus and they want to kill us for that… I don’t buy it.  Too simple a reason, put out there by Ridley Scott for the sole purpose of distracting the simple.  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”  I can play the scripture thing along with the fanatic followers and detractors of the film.  People are looking past the most simple fact of the matter- we keep trying to put the God of this world into the world where only Ridley Scott can ever be God. 

PS: Holy Crap, it's a new POST!

Why Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the most ridiculous movie of the Year

I'm a transhumanist, first and foremost, ok.

The Rise of the Planet of the Apes, currently unreleased, looks like it will be the worst movie of the year, if not the worst ever made.

First, the very premise of the movie is retarded. And yes, I am describing the very basic idea of the movie( Super smart apes rise up against and begin to supplant humans as the apex species on Earth, I guess) as the mentally deficient spawn of an incestuous union between closely related family members.

A geneticist could engineer a chimp with the charisma of Che Guevarra, the intelligence of Stephen Hawking, and the tactile mind of Sun Tzu, release it into the wild, and what would you end up with? A pissed off Ape who realizes he(or she) would have to breed with EVERY OTHER CHIMPANZEE IN EXISTENCE until the day they died to even make a bump in the genetic pool of the species. Even then, if you round up every single member of the great ape family, negating humans, you might end up with the average population of a city in Arkansas.

Next, let's just assume this army of a hundred thousand chimps gets loose in any American city. Let's say New York City, to be fun. What would happen then? Assuming a group of poorly trained National Guard didn't simply mow down the throng with their M-16's, ALL THE REDNECKS IN THE COUNTRY WOULD BEGIN TO GUFFAW simultaneously as PETA and every tree-hugger group gets their heads smashed in by the very animals they had so recently championed("But chim-chim, I love y-"cru-unch of a cracked skull).

After that, you would witness a demographic shift not seen since the carpet-bagger migration to the South following the Civil War, as all those hunters that "high society" looks down their noses at converge upon the besieged city and display why we- h. Sapiens Sapien- are king of the hill, and even super smart chimps are just that, super smart chimps. Let's see a monkey dodge the bullet fired from a 30-.06 half a mile away. And, oh, wait, the monkey saw the trip wire connected to that claymore? Press a button and you still have orangutan-marmalade.

The originals aren't even that entertaining, and even the new one with that awesome actor, Mark Walberg(excuse me as I vomit into a paper sack), sucked. This film will take its place among the numerous expensive failures released this year, and be forgotten completely except by those guys who have home-made PotA costumes at home.

That's not the worst thing. Movies like this cast genetic engineering, medical advancement, and, vicariously, transhumanism, in a terrible light. Yes, there may be those who have ethical disagreements with some methods associated with the aforementioned advancements, but BIG PHARMA, the U.S. Government, and many other organizations don't tell you that they capitalized from the research done by Nazi scientists. But they did. I don't hear anyone griping about the ethics of that.

Back on subject: If you're an H+, you should boycott this movie due to it's degradation of the view of the pursuit of advancement. Everyone else should just ignore the film altogether, cuz I don't wanna hear your moanin and groanin as you regret spending the money seeing/buying/renting this piece of cinematic garbage. Anyway, Hollywood, you should be ashamed of yourself. If the world REALLY wanted to watch vomit from the past, I have this brown bag right here. Sell it to ya for a million dollars.

Transhuman Expansion, Let's Make Noise

As I stated in my last post, Transhumanism is being introduced gradually, quietly, unobtrusively.  Supposedly, their methods seek to "Solicit offensive and counterproductive portrayals of longevity, human enhancement and emerging technologies, and encourage our membership, chapters and allies to dialogue with the authors, producers and distributors."(humanityplus.org/projects/goals/)  Does this seem counterproductive to anyone?  That's like trying to argue with a Republican Christian  about funding for stem cell research.  In church.
Detractors of Transhumanism will tend to be some of the most vociferous and close minded people in our country.  As our greatest number of constituents will be Democrats, who are now touting themselves as Progressives, the country will be somewhat against accepting many, if not most, of the ideas presented by transhumanists.  Since a building block of Progressivism is the raising up of logic over irrational decision-making, science is indelibly associated with the movement.
In our country, T.H. will be associated with eugenics due to a wanna-be demagogue on FOX.  This blowhard dedicated multiple episodes to the Progressive movement, or against it, in this case.  Since Transhumanism will definitely be identified with the Progressive movement, and as good ole Glenn Beck tied Progressives to everything from Fascism to Communism(If I remember correctly, the world's most important fascist and the world's biggest communist didn't even get along all too well), Transhumannism WILL be demonized, no matter how we present it, or how hard we try to get people to understand what it is all about.
Since the very people that will need to be convinced about the promising advances of TH are the same ones that misinterpret their own beliefs, we face a grave challenge.  These people follow the things that are thrust in their face, and in fact, practice a creed that demanded you be killed or ostracized if one did not follow their way of belief.  It was that way for fifteen hundred years.
We will have to realize the fact that the only way to communicate effectively in today's world is SHOCK FACTOR.  If we can make everyone hate us for an hour, they will remember us forever.  We then sulk into the shadows to lick our wounds, and go about business as usual.  Then, when we figure out that the only true way to "cure" cancer lies in genetic manipulation, or we are attacked by extraterrestrials(unlikely as that seems) as great minds from Stephen Hawking to Enrico Fermi agree is increasingly likely as the days go by,  we roll out our answers to the dilemma at hand.  Sorry, but prayer and rhetoric do not have noticeable effects on the outcomes of either war or medical issues.
We are currently the guy at the back of the class.  The quiet one that no one pays much attention to.  Time to make some noise.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Homo Sapiens Versatility as a species

The Cheetah evolved perfectly for the savannah-and nowhere else.

Versatility: The property of being versatile or having many different abilities; flexibility.(en.wiktionary.org/wiki/versatility)

Now, when one looks at nature, one may see many different examples of specialized species: praying mantis, penguin, cheetah, orca, the list goes on and on. Each animal in the animal kingdom has admirable qualities. Yet, nearly every animal in the biosphere, when taken out of their environment, is done for.

However, there is one animal that has avoided this pitfall. This animal has survival instincts so versatile, its survival is not tied to any one climate or environment type. The Homo Sapiens.

However, H. Sapiens has hit the evolutionary doldrums. Overall, our environment no longer provides factors to force large evolutionary advances. So, many of us now seek to decide where we should go as a species.

Now, science is advancing very rapidly. As science advances, so does our ability to manipulate ourselves, down to the genetic level. We are even approaching the ability to integrate mechanical advances into our bodies. Neither of these areas will stop development, as research is, overall, in the best interests of humanity. The problem here is the possibility that we will paint ourselves into a corner, so to speak.

We must monitor genetics research, as well as bio-mechanic development, in order to prevent ourselves from becoming over-specialized. If we do not, the distinct possibility arises that we may create several subspecies within H. Sapiens. This would be disastrous, as Race, a functionally dead concept, would come to the forefront once again, this time with actual basis in genetic or bio-mechanic fact. Also, every species that has become overspecialized has either succumbed to extinction, or is on the way.

We must seek to upgrade ourselves realistically, so we do not downgrade ourselves in reality.