Finally I will be able to become a loli before I die

Everyone form a queue. Single line, no pushing.

 

Point has been made.

 

I want trans-humanism so I can get chocolate bars attached to my arms, maximum security facilities placed inside my face, and go around the sunglasses stealing worlds from metal blades.

 

I want chocolate bars, so I can get trans-humanism attached to my metal blades, sunglasses attached to my maximum security facilities, and go around the metal blades stealing face.

[video=youtube;e3agYXoWYf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3agYXoWYf8[/video]

wat

 

I'm quite content with being human. :3

 

Get a load of this meatsack

 

Its in my nature - I like things that are natural. I like the natural beauty in things and people. Things that are seen as imperfections are part of that beauty. So folk that alter their looks and behaviour for the sake of vanity or because its how they are expected to look are quite ugly to me.

Put yourself in a computer and you'll be nothing more than a tool for people to use and alter. You'll lose everything that made you what you were, and there wouldn't be anything you could do about it. It sounds more like a prison than anything else.

 

Why do we need to force ourselves to advance our very core essence?
War will always happen, even insects wage war against each other. And in those new forms, we may be more destructive as these new beings then as humans.

Nature is not a trap, she supplies for us, it because of her that we evolve. Nature is to be embraced and to be worked with, not disregarded. If you forgo the base of what sustains us, then we will not survive in any form.

Not at all, really.
I am fine with technology that assists people or helps them deal with the needs of everyday life like advanced irrigation, faster communication.

What I am against is changing what we are or changing the world to suit the way we see it in such drastic ways. We do not deserve the power of Atom bombs, of cyber superiority, of designed viruses, we have no discipline over that kind of power as a species. We think we have justification for it now, but we do not. Maybe one day we will have the knowledge to properly use it, but for now, we are not ready.

I meant as a tool to use for surviving a an accident or for an operation, I am more lenient on that then doing it for vanity reasons. Like have cosmetic surgery, I can understand the need for a burns victim to need skin grafts and the such, but doing it to not have wrinkles and nubm your face, it is a want, a toy, not needed.

I mean it as that, it was 4 in the morning, I am not the best replier with lack of sleep.

 

I tried to explain before, but it has not sunk in.

It is impossible to disregard or forgo nature. Whatever man achieves is already within the limitations set forth by nature. The options that a man sees in his mind are decided by his or her nature, and the choice that that a particular person makes is decided by their nature, which is a part of all nature. Whatever man does, he is led to do by nature itself.

Nature led man to the atom bomb, and cyber superiority, and designed viruses.

And in time, it may lead us to immortality. This is not fighting nature because nature made us do it in the first place.

You are cherry picking certain aspects of nature and using them to build your model of what nature should be. Why do you do that?

 

Talk about a lack of responsibility. You make it sound like Nature is God that dictated our fate, humans had no choice but to come to this conclusion because nature supplied it. We created the situation to invent, to craft, nature supplied Uranium but it didn't design it into a bomb.
If you had a child and gave them a supply of raw materials, you are giving them the materials to build what they like. Not a gun, or a sword. You have also been given the supplies to build bridges or shelter logically.
It is the choice of how you use the materials then the 'because nature made us do it'.

And you do not?
Who makes their point in a discussion by noting the bad parts? That's for the opposition of the discussion to do.

 

I wouldn't call it god. I wouldn't even say it has a goal in mind, or a trend. It is a set of boundaries.

The choice you make is decided by boundaries that you did not create. Choice is logically impossible because both the options presented to you and your tendencies are not of your own design.

When you put a drop of water onto a mountain top, the movement that it takes from there is decided by nature. Let me explain.

If there were no boundaries, the water would first of all be everywhere at once and have no cohesiveness. The atoms themselves would not stick together. The individual particles would not stick together. The wall that separates atom and non atom, particle and non particle would be gone. There would be nothing.

Second of all, if you ignore that basic boundary, it would not move because all directions would be unbounded and it would not be moved in any direction especially. The water and the mountain would be static entities, unchanging.

Thirdly, if you ignore that one as well, time is a boundary, as is memory. If you take away time or the awareness of time, individual choice is impossible because your genetic predisposition will decide your reaction without fail. Genetic accident and repeated reactions to the same stimuli. The water drop will not move because time is not passing for it to change state.

Fourthly, ignoring the third, pain and pleasure are boundaries. If you took away the sensations of pain and pleasure, what would people base their choices on?

The drop of water is there because nature has decided that the boundary between physical presence and a lack thereof should exist. It goes down the mountain because of a boundary that says down is the preferred direction. The water goes around trees because nature has decided that two objects may not occupy the same space at the same time. The water gathers with other water or streams because nature has decided that water is cohesive to itself. The water evaporates after reaching the valley in heat because of the boundary dictating its reaction to heat. That reaction is comparable to burning. If the water could feel pain, it would.

Nature is this set of boundaries. It has no moralistic ideal and no good or bad trend. There are billions upon billions of other worlds that we can observe, but only on this one planet do we have evidence of ecosystems and of sustainable life on multiple levels. The same nature applies to all of the other worlds out there. At best, the way things are now is a one in many billions chance at existence. We are allowed to exist by the same laws that apply to all other worlds. You are trying to moralize this cycle on this lone planet and say that it is the way things should be. But statistically, we are an anomaly. We are unnatural, or certainly less natural than the absence of life.

Your view of the world is very small, and clouded by vague philosophy and ancient sayings repeated for generations. If this planet is to be destroyed, it will not be nature that is destroyed. It will be your small view of nature. There will be another earth, another instance allowed like ours has been. We are not burdened with such great purpose as you seem to think. What makes us so much better than all of those lifeless worlds we look on each night in the sky?

It is a logical standpoint that whatever happens is merely what is allowed to happen by nature. Whatever we as humans do is something that is allowed by nature because it is possible.

"Miracles by definition are meaningless."

Responsibility exists for the sole reason that the possibility exists that you influence nature. That you yourself are a type of god. What if you are dreaming, and all of nature is you binding yourself? But even then, the logic applies: your personal nature has determined the boundaries and you cannot validate that you have choice.

Furthermore, does it matter? My morality, if you wish to call it that, is based on what I prefer. If you have no convictions outside of responsibility to others then you have no responsibility, only insecurity. Your responsibility is to yourself, and that is as it should be. How can you even pretend to have choice and responsibility when that responsibility comes from something other than yourself?

 

Statistically there should be a large amount of life existing in the universe.
But carry on.

 

I ignored this thread because of "loli" in the title and I figured it wasn't right for me, now 13 pages later I'm not sure if that was wise, I seem to have missed fun.

 

Define "large". Comparative to the absence of life, or comparative to earth?