Can't say I agree more

I look at the (possible) open road of indefinate life and the continual evolution and refinement of my physical/mental wetware to be the greatest adventure possible.

First off before I begin, in case you haven't seen I AM in support of immortality for all humanity.

Man…not to down the zealousness, but come on…

Rather than argue the validity of the religous retoric. I will just move on to the couple of logical statements you make.

As it has been pointed out several times before, Overpopulation is NOT the only problem with the increase of population. In fact, I personally don't see it as a problem, as other technological advances(including the related and supporting technologies of increasing our own physical effeciency and resilience) that occuur as we progress will make it much easier to colonize space, and the solar system, as well as our own oceans. There ARE other problems though. As ANY change to our own bodies will be HIGHLY resisted by much of the population. Though I do aggree that the changes are necessary. Blindly thinking that they will all thank you afterwards is bordering on delusional.

Also assuming that you do accomplish the nigh impossible and spread this "genetic nano-virus" to everyone in the world that makes us all eunichs, it won't last. The same devices you infest the rest of us with could be reprogrammed by us(those of us that like our testicles) to rebuild us as WE see fit.

In short while I do support the human-controlled, human evolution I support it on the principle that I, AND everyone else, will have the freedom to govern my own evolotution.

Just cause you, and whatever cult fed you that drivel, think you know better than me about my needs and desires; that doesn't make it true. I will run my own life thank you very much. And if you want to become an everlasting eunich, that's all you man.

I would just like a couple modifications and maybe a few hundred years.

This is a valid point, but try the following analogy. When I was 6 years old and playing in the woods with my friends, I could not imagine what it would be like as an adult, say a trial lawyer, being immersed in the complex interpersonal relationships (like love and business relationships) that adults are in. Today, as an adult, I have experienced many of the ups and downs of what passes for adult life (love relationships, business start-ups, international travel). To ask an adult such as myself what I will be like 1000 years from now is like asking me as a six-year old what kind of life I will be living as a 35 years old adult. Immortality to us today is like adulthood to that six-year old. There is no way to answer this question, but to use it as an argument against immortality is like killing a six-year old kid because he doesn't know what he will do as an adult.

Assuming that I make it, I don't know what I will be like or what I will be doing, say, 500 or 1000 years from now. Whatever I am then, I will have evolved into that state just the same way that I have evolved from a child (playing in the woods) into an adult (doing international sales and marketing). The point is that whatever we become, we will slowly develop into whatever we become based on our experiences and desires, which are constantly changing.

This is definitely to become the new psychotherapy. Also, all of extropian types who think that they can just "upgrade" their wetware into somethink much bigger than they are now are going to be in for a surprise. Changes in our psyche are going to be slow, with much trial and error. I believe that we can upgrade ourselves, but that such changes are going to be incremental in nature, not abrupt. This is one of the reasons why I do not believe in the "singularity" or the spike. I think that changes in the future, both technical as well as social, are going to be incremental in nature, just like in the past.

As an immortalist, I look apon my open-ended future as "The Undiscovered Country", much like adulthood was to me when I was six-years old. I know that it will not be all rosy. That there will be bad times as well as good time, but I believe that it will be mostly good, and better than what I have now. The issue for today is that we have the opportunity to move into and explore the "Undiscovered Country". That is all I ask for. What the "Undiscovered Country" results in is a whole other matter.

I think the only reason why radical life-extension lacks mass appeal right now is simply because most people think it an impossible dream. They think of the ageing process as a part of "who they are" as they get older, rather than as "something that they have", like a disease. Most people simply cannot imagine a person 70-80 years old, yet being physiologically and looking like a typical 25 year old. Imagine seeing someone who looks like Brad Pitt, but who is 125 years old. Most people cannot imagine this. Once people start to accept this as a possibility, mass appeal will start to grow.

In the same vein, I failed to predict the emergence of the internet because I always considered computers and the internet, a "geek" thing, and I did not expect that society at large would adopt the internet. Like myself, I bought my first computer in '95 (a laptop) so that I could get on the internet and find myself a new job. Before that time, I always considered computers a "work tool" and would never consider having one at home.

I believe once the idea of being young indefinitely gets into the public consciousness, that attitudes will change dramatically in a very short time (like the same time period that the internet was adopted). As far as "immortality" (my definition of "immortality" is multiple-century lifespans where you never age) is concerned, most people may well decide to "check out" after 100 years or so. The immortalists will then become a sub-culture, like the gay, transgender, or hip-hop subcultures today.

During my time in Asia, I often thought about writing a novel where "immortality" is an option, but most people don't choose it. The people who do choose it exist as a sub-culture, similiar to the way we Gaijin (westerners) live in Japan. The novel would culminate where the "gaijin" (immortalists) aquire the necessary financial backing to create thier own city-state on the Pacific Ocean. This city-state, called Prometheus, would be grown by electo-accreation, powered by OTECs, and would be a Hong Kong-like freeport. The characters would be made up from all of the off-the-wall people I have known during my time in SoCal as well as thoughout Asia.

I believe that one of the biggest social effects resulting from "immortality" will be an explosive growth in the number of people pursuing free-lance and alternative life-styles. The work environment will move away from career ladder-climbing to a more project oriented, free agent nation. The socio-economic changes that have been occuring in the U.S. for the past 30 years have encouraged and re-inforced the self-reliance and individual freedom that, in my opinion, will necessitate the development of immortality in the next 20 years, if such socio-economic trends are to continue.

The reason why I do not expect immortality to be socially disruptive (at least in North America, North-east Asia, and Europe) is because in many ways these societies have already evolved towards the root-less, atomistic, free-lance social structure that I believe will be the hallmark of an ageless society. In otherwords, the social changes demanded of an ageless society have ALREADY occured or are occuring in these societies. The development of immortality will simply be the culmination of socio-economic trends that began in the U.S. in the '60s and in East Asia in the late '80s.

EDIT: Severe case of run-on sentence structure

Try this again…
I believe that the TREATMENT is just as likely to originate in east asia as in america
I believe this because of the differences in directions the two "medical models" have grown.
For the most part in asia the majority of medical treatments rely on homeopathic methods to get results. While western medicine focuses on outer tools to get the same results. The end result being that I would trust an Asian doctor to cure my cold(or cancer, Have you seen some of China's treatments? They're amazing!), but would prefer an american hospital for a bullet wound(or any severe trauma). Since I consider aging to be a disease rather than an injury I would prefer them to be the ones with the TREATMENT(sorry i can't resist adding melodrama, its a lemmings thing)

Now that being said since a discovery of this magnitude IS so amazingly huge(even if the first stage only adds 10 years of healthy life that's still a big hot damn) I doubt even the Chinese wouldn't charge outrageously for it. And since about 80% of the world's wealth is in america, I doubt the first recipients will be from anywhere else(with the exception of any test subjects).

I hate the FDA by the way. Of course I hate beauracracy and greed in all forms.

Ah sorry bout not using Html on last post didn't realize it was necessary

To take another tack, which I have mentioned before, do you advocate the immediate breaking of patent on AIDS drugs so that millions of people in developing countries stand a chance? To do any less, regardless of the economic consequences to the pharmaceutical companies, would be by your definition murder.

I personally do feal that withholding medicine due to concern for profit is murder. But then again I have extremely emotional views about the subject. Too many people I know have died from cancer for me not too. As the majority of cancer research is spent on finding further treatments, and not a cure upsets me to say the least.

I personally see this as protecting the companies bottom line over doing the morally right thing.

It does not have to mean mass unrest or chaos; it can simply mean that the people rule themselves peacefully without leaders. This is the meaning that most political anarchists adhere to. there is a difference between societal anarchism and nihilism, which is what you are propounding.

I agree with this statement – I, too, envision a world where people rule themselves in peace, and at the same time, respect and love all life – in fact, that's the goal I'm aiming for. However, you're wrong about there not being any chaos or unrest; during the 'transition phase' there will be a massive uproar, due to people not willing to let go of past belief systems and restraints. The slaves in the 19th century are a perfect example…what happened to them when they were finally given their so called freedom? They couldn't handle it, so most of them begged for their 'S&M' status back – the same thing would happen if the plug were pulled on all of the governments in our world today. But, eventually, the chaos will subside and there will literally be a heaven on earth where man and beast live side by side in harmony.

There is a large body of work by theorists who have examined the implications and possible implementation methods of anarchy.

Yes, the implications are enormous. With anarchy, there is the potential of mass murder, stealing, rape etc etc and no consequences to go with it. This is because most humans never evolved correctly due to their environment. They literally grow up thinking that money is more important than anything else, and thus, literally thirst for it. This is the reason why governments still exist today – simply because people can't seem to get passed this barrier of territorialism and selfishness – this is why anarchy, just like communism, has never existed. But what if you were to come up with a technology that could not only satisfy people's basic needs in unlimited quantities (housing, food, entertainment), but could also destroy the money system overnight? You would then have an environment encased in true anarchy; the people who would be causing the chaos and the destruction would be those who would want their power back (the corporations, the politicans, and the military).

But you should try to accept that there are millions of people around the world (including myself) who use the word in a more positive way to indicate peaceful, cooperative self rule.

You don't think a heaven on earth is a positive way of thinking? Haven't you ever heard the saying, "there can be no new creation, without destroying the old?" My definition of anarchy may seem barbaric, but you have to realize something of this magnitude can't happen in a peaceful way overnight; EVERYONE has to work together to obtain a paradise where everyone and everything can live in harmony; without everyone's cooperation, of course there is going to be blood spilt somewhere. But what may seem negative to you, is actually very positive when everything is said and done. In such a scenario, people would then realize that they are their own masters and create their own realities. Isn't this what you desire, as well?

If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that you have read (from cover to cover, no precis or crib notes) thought about the implications, and provided some form of commentary on Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and Anarchism: Its Philosophy and ldeal (they are both fairly short books, available online at the above link), then I will read one of Sitchin's and give you commentary.

That's sounds fine, I've been kind of looking around for another book to read anyway. Do I have a certain time frame to complete this book? Oh, and you're seriously depriving yourself of wonderful material if you're going to wait for me to read Kropotkin's work – Sitchin provides the remaining pieces to the puzzle about our existence. Once you get done reading Sitchin, read Breaking the Godspell and God Games by Neil Freer – he's a researcher who has read and corroborated Sitchin's work and is also an advent believer in the promises of Nanotech. It's good stuff – it would definitely broaden your mindset if anything else.

I would also like to know how you square being an anarchist with your plan to forcibly sterilise the entire world. That would constitute the ultimate act of authority. No glib justifications, please; if you use phrases like 'for their own good', 'they are not competent to make their own decisions', 'I know better than them, they will thank me when I'm through', 'I don't care what they think, I'll do what I want regardless of who it hurts' and so on, then you are demonstrating your true colours: a petulant toddler upset that the world does not exist to pamper him.

Actually, that would be just an act of my own 'free will'. I have no desire to rule the world or to become exalted in some strange way. I want none of that. I simply want a heaven on earth; a utopia where everyone loves each other, including all animals. The idea of sterilizing the entire world would only be a temporary thing 'in a sense' – as I said before, what man makes…man can break. Sterilizing the human populace will give the much needed time to correct the errors in our genetic code. Once those errors are fixed, it would then be possible to 'artificially' create a new human being 'by the use of our hands and minds'; one that is perfect in every way, and yet still unable to reproduce on its own – it would be a hybrid, just like us. We are not mere animals, and we should stop acting like it – it's time to move past the mindset of 'reprodution'. The whole point in sterilizing the human race would be so that people would stop thinking that, "our children are our future", and would finally take action into their own hands and create their own futures. Right now, mankind is stuck in an endless, destructive loop – sterilizing them will free them of this cycle and they can move on to new and better things, possibly even in higher dimensions, as well.

I don't hate children – hell, I was one too not very long ago. But I do hate the endless cycle of being born, growing up, getting married, 'having children', growing old, and then dying – and if you believe in reincarnation, repeating the process over and over again. My 'goal' simply breaks that cycle…not just for me, but for everyone.

If you didn't look at that idea as if it were so negative, then you would see that the postive outweighs anything else. You know I'm right – you just don't want to admit it.

I promised that I had made my last post to this thread, and promises mean something, so I'm irritated that you have provoked me enough to break one. But I couldn't let that go unchallenged.

The word derives its origin from the ancient Greek anarkhos, meaning 'without rulers'. It does not have to mean mass unrest or chaos; it can simply mean that the people rule themselves peacefully without leaders. This is the meaning that most political anarchists adhere to. there is a difference between societal anarchism and nihilism, which is what you are propounding.

A dictionary definition, particularly a poor one like you have used, does not get anywhere near close to describing the full extent of anarchist theory. It is also common for those in authority to define anarchy as disorder, becuase it is in their interests (or simply all their mindset can accept) to present anarchy as being the selfish rioting of an incoherent mob. But compassionate, inclusive societal anarchy can exhibit a high degree of consensus-based self-emergent order, the difference to authoritarian structures being that the order is voluntary and unenforced.

There is a large body of work by theorists who have examined the implications and possible implementation methods of anarchy. These writings in no way constitute a canonical body, as that would defeat the whole purpose. The intention is to make people think for themselves, so that they in turn can themselves question, suggest, experiment and make a positive contribution.

You can hold whatever opinions about the meaning of the word anarchy that you like, Travis. It would seem that you have bought wholesale into the authoritarian definition, which is funny but not unexpected. But you should try to accept that there are millions of people around the world (including myself) who use the word in a more positive way to indicate peaceful, cooperative self rule.

There is a good collection of anarchist writings online here. Kropotkin and Proudhon are particularly interesting. I tell you what, Travis: If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that you have read (from cover to cover, no precis or crib notes) thought about the implications, and provided some form of commentary on Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and Anarchism:
Its Philosophy and ldeal (they are both fairly short books, available online at the above link), then I will read one of Sitchin's and give you commentary (not in this forum, though. A little too off topic.)

I would also like to know how you square being an anarchist with your plan to forcibly sterilise the entire world. That would constitute the ultimate act of authority. No glib justifications, please; if you use phrases like 'for their own good', 'they are not competent to make their own decisions', 'I know better than them, they will thank me when I'm through', 'I don't care what they think, I'll do what I want regardless of who it hurts' and so on, then you are demonstrating your true colours: a petulant toddler upset that the world does not exist to pamper him.

A poem from the preface to Philosophy and Ideal sums it all up nicely:

Ever reviled, accursed,-n'er understood,
Thou art the grisly terror of our age.
"Wreck of all order," cry the multitude,
"Art thou, and war and murder's endless rage."
O, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven,
The truth that lies behind a word to find,
To them the word's right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind.
But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure,
That sayest all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! -Thine secure
When each at last unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill?
I cannot tell……but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!

-John Henry Mackay.

Wrong – there are two types of anarchy:

1) Temporal Anarchy – temporary chaos used to overthrow and replace a government; a class action.

2) Permanent Anarchy – Chaos without order; true free will.

Number 2 is true anarchy – I'll quote from the dictionary now:

Anarchy – "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose" Hmm. Even the dictionary agrees with me. I don't know what kind of anarchy you have in mind, but it's obviously not true anarchy and therefore you have no right to call yourself an 'anarchist'.

It's obviously you who have no idea what true anarchy is – it's not an idea, religion, or a belief that you can read in a book. Anarchy is something that everyone has, but no one uses…it's called free will.