What's better: allowing people to die from preventable diseases to allow us to evolve beyond susceptibility to them Or Preventing them and counting on technological means to be constantly available to artificially prevent them?
-
-
We've figured out everything else, I'm confident with the correct motivation we can also go here safely. This is a zero sum game, there's no backing out now. We need to play to win so we can call the shots
-
We have absolutely not figured everything else out. There are several looming human generated biological consequences of immense magnitude that have the potential for extreme chaos and death. Were this not the case I night agree with you.
-
Didn't this happen because we let foreign doctors use our tech? Also, what's plan B? You assume this isn't a zero sum game where we are undoubtedly the best candidates to win. Should we opt out do you think the Indians or Chinese will do better?
-
This happens because these types of consequences are built into the nature of Humanity under technocapital, it's intensified at a rate our evolution couldn't match. Better people arguably get less of this.
-
I've approached this problem with likely the same disgust as you, however I see no way to detach while other lesser Nations continue.. We should strive to achieve absolute technological dominance and then subject others to it while respecting our environment
-
It's a tall order
-
Yes, yes it is. Should we fail or quit the consequences are catastrophic for both us and the planet
-
It's probably going to be catastrophic no matter what.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.