So Americans... I'm curious...

The presidential election campaign-circus is in full swing. What is your general impression of the candidates? Will you vote in the election? If so, for who, and why? If you won't vote, why?

(I hesitated before posting the topic, because I'm fully aware that political subjects can easily turn into flame-wars. But if we treat it like a poll and keep it civil, I think it could be interesting to hear people's views on this.)

I don't discuss politics on sites I visit for enjoyment/relaxation/escapism.

As I said, I thought of it more as a poll than a debate thread.

Anyone?

I have some fairly antimainstream opinions, so the candidates all look like (and sound like) idiots to me.

If I were a politician, then my primary objective would be to address serious problems. First and foremost, we die. That is a serious problem and needs to be tackled. I keep reading articles that claim that aging is merely a disease. Science fiction has numerous stories about immortal humans. It's going to be very hard for me to be a taxpayer if I'm dead.

We need teleporters that can handle objects beyond the mesoscale. I'm really getting tired of spending 20 minutes going to work and then another 20 minutes coming home. Transportation costs me valuable time. Another advantage of the teleporter is it essentially copies (not to be confused with clones) things. So, I could send my copy to work everyday, destroy it after every shift, and spend all of my time doing whatever I want. It would be the happiest workforce in existence.

Sure his original intention might have been to CONFRONT Obama, but that Joe-the-Plumber guy should thank him now for giving him the best damn free advertising for his business he could have ever gotten.

Personally, I'd put my money on this candidate.  Fellow Americans, I urge you to do the same.

^

This Angela Liu person has my vote...

I don't think death itself is a serious problem; I honestly wouldn't want to live forever - that would be boring. In fact, one could say the lack of death - or how people are living to be older these days - puts stress on serveral things within the structure of society but I find looking at things that way be cold and heartless.

The "ways" in which some people die are serious problems yes - but not death in general. To quote Death from Family Guy: "Imagine a world where Hitler was still alive."

I call BS. If you were immortal, do you really think that in sixty years you'd be saying to yourself, "You know what? This blows. I'm going to find a way to end it all?" The desirability of death is a pretty lie that people tell themselves when they've accepted its inevitability. Living kicks ass, and ten lifetimes would not be enough for me. Death is an outrage.

What puts a strain on society is not longer lifespans, but the simple failure to adjust the age of eligibility for government benefits to account for this increase in lifespan. Increase the retirement age, and the problem goes away. Curing aging would further reduce the burden on society by eliminating retirement altogether (although of course one could always save up money for a long vacation).

In a world without death, Hitler wouldn't be much of a threat. Besides, he'd be locked up, or at least out of power.

Of course, actually eliminating death altogether could well be an intractable problem--more likely we would just cure aging and most other diseases, while still leaving the door open to death by accident and violence.

In death a member of Project Mayhem has a name, his name was Robert Paulson.

His name is Robert Paulson...
His name is Robert Paulson...
His name is Robert Paulson...

Concerning the original topic of the thread: alright, I get the picture. No one wants to talk about it. I posted it because I hear a lot of things in the media about this, but not very often what ordinary Americans think about the candidates and their proposed policies. I know some Americans outside of the internet, but since they don't live in the country anymore, they can hardly be called "typical" (which is why I thought I should ask here). But if no one feels comfortable discussing it here, so be it. It didn't hurt to ask.

Meanwhile, the thread has taken an interesting turn. My take on the "death" thing... (A bit long as always, sorry for that).

So you're using a B-class genre of fiction as an argument that immortality can be attained? Very amusing. The key word in the quoted sentence is, of course, fiction.

Politicians have never had a problem with taxpayers dying: there will always be more taxpayers to replace them.

I call BS. No human has been "immortal" yet, thus we do not know what an immortal person's subjective life-reality would be like. Ashley's guess is as good as yours.

Personally, I highly doubt that eternal (or extended) life, if it is even possible (which I highly doubt), would be a good thing. Its not that I'm in any hurry to meet death or particularly look forward to old age. Its more that I doubt that, even if you could prolong the purely physical aspects of a functioning body, it would probably be a lot harder to constantly uphold the more subjective dimensions that ultimately make life worth living. What most people live for is passion and love, and the worth of life lies not in just "being alive" at any cost but rather in actually "living". In many ways, life is made so fantastic by the fact that we only have limited time to use it. I'm not going to fall into the "death is romantic"-trap, but, really, the fact that we know that we're one day going to die is what puts pressure on us to love and live life to its fullest. The central place religion has had in much of human history bears witness to this: religions always center around death, trying to explain it, put it in context. Death in a sense gives life meaning because it makes it precious.  None of us knows how humanity would react if that great exit was somehow removed. Call me a pessimist, but I have a feeling most peoples' lives would grow increasingly more trivial and mundane if they were extended into the infinite.

There is also the fact that our lives as humans are determined by the physical frame of our bodies. We have evolved to blossom and wither like all living things do, and even if a technology develops that could actually lengthen our lives, people make the highly dubious assumption that that would mean an eternal youth or something like that. There is no telling what kind of maintenance is needed or what procedures might be involved in artificially upholding a state that has evolved for only being around a limited amount of time: it might prove so repulsive and disgusting and just flat-out absurd that in the end a normally lived lifespan is to be preferred. The wish for eternal life is often disguised in "scientific" terms nowadays, but when you look at it more closely, its just residual Christianity, the wish for "an eternal world, were the birds always sing and nothing ever dies" (<- I stole that one from Robert Smith).

I certainly agree that its a horrible thing, and when it happens to oneself or a loved one, its the worst thing in the world. But calling it an "outrage" seems a little off. Its an inescapable part of existence. Even if you were able to prolong life "indefinitely", you wouldn't get rid of death. As long as we live in a physical frame (such as a body), its always going to be destroyed or break down sometime, whether it be through violence, a failure/deficit in whatever technology is upholding that borrowed-time life, or the planet being swallowed up by the Sun in billions of years (<- I added that one to appeal to Jodo). Remember: infinity is a long time.

If people somehow started living for an indefinite amount of time, there would definitely be strain of all kinds put on society. First of all: the distribution of the technology. Say the discovery breaks: now humans will be able to live "for ever". Who do you think would be able to benefit from this technology first? Its bound to be expensive and exclusive at first. The people who would be "immortalized" first would be the most powerful politicians and the richest businessmen, because that's the rationale of our society. Eventually the dilemma would arise: is everyone entitled to get the "eternal"-treatment? Would that even be desirable, from the point of view of the elites that control our society...? Can there be ethical arguments for denying or not denying someone this, and if so, what would they be? It would open up a Pandora's Box of difficult ethical problems, most of which probably have no real or satisfying solution. Which brings us to:

Hitler is a bad example. He was a violent tyrant that invited his own demise by his aggressive foreign policy. Exchange "Hitler" for "Stalin", and everything becomes clearer. Imagine a world were the original Soviet leaders never died. What chance would such a society have to change if the original people at the top never went way?

One of the reasons organisms evolved to reproduce in the first place was that if a terminal disease or dysfunction developed, it's offspring would still survive. Its the same thing with diseases when it comes to humans, but, much more importantly, with mentalities. Here the "Stalin"-argument holds. People's mentalities are usually formed when they're very young, and very few people change their views about anything. The older they get, the more stubbornly they cling to their "eternal truths". If we have a scenario where no one dies, older generations and their ingrained ways will never go away. Every form of progress in our society has depended on the fact that older generations die and leave way for younger generations with new ideas and viewpoints that replace the old, antiquated ones. The closest any society so far has gotten in immortalizing anyone is North Korea, their first president Kim Il-sung (father of Kim Jong-il) is called the "Eternal President" in the North Korean constitution. Even though he died in 1994, he might as well still be that country's president, because his policies are still maintained. And if this immortality-technology was available to him, the title of "eternal president" would have been literary true (to the great misfortune of the North Korean people). That's what eternal life would ultimately result in: the suppression of the power and life-joy that can only exist in people who are young, new and open to the world, replaced by these eternally living scabrous wretches who's only goal in existence will ultimately be to prolong their own existence at any cost (because the longer that unnatural state continues, the more scared and nervous would people become about death, which would after all come when the physical body is destroyed, be it a hundred or a billion years into the future).

And we haven't even touched on the subject of children and reproduction. Its a folly to assume that people would stop breeding just because they were told they're going to live for ever. There are other reasons for getting children than simply passing on your DNA, and a lot of people would probably do it anyway, because they simply wouldn't believe the scientists' assurances that "yes, you will live for ever, we promise!". Immortality + producing children would sooner or later lead to extreme over-population and put further strains on the planet's already stretched ability to support our species. Not to mention the fact that many people would probably have so many children (after all, some boredom and loneliness is bound to creep in during the millenniums, gotta do something) that they would lose track of their greater extended family. Imagine this scenario: you unwittingly end up having sex with someone descended from a child you had 200 or 300 years ago. An interesting scenario, that I personally could do well without.

That came out a bit limp. Maybe you're an exception, but my general impression is that people who truly enjoy life don't worry about the inevitability of death. If you're able to look back at a full life where you've done what you wanted to do, you'll be able to face death with a clear and steady heart when it comes. Its the people who feel profoundly unfulfilled or cheated by life that fret about the "outrage" of death and really dread it the closer it gets, they fear and hate death because they haven't realized life. This holds true for all the deeply religious people who can only think about the life-after-this-life while wasting the one and only chance they'll ever actually get, and, on the secular side, the daft kinds of scientists and philosophers who are obsessed about the issue all their lives. But like any limited commodity, life is precious because its not inexhaustible, and when its time to go, its time to go.

Just my 20 cents.

So you've figured it all out, eh?

"I'm not going there to die. I'm going to find out if I'm really alive." - Spike Spiegel

Anyway, it's an interesting way of looking at things to suggest that death gives life meaning in a way, and that it's the impermanence of things that makes life beautiful, but we really don't know what the alternative would be like.  Fiction often presents agelessness as a somewhat boring and pointless situation, but that's probably just our vanity.  We see ourselves as the ultimate lifeform, and if we aren't immortal, then it's probably not worth it to be so.  Therefore immortal beings are either self-appointed guardians who have grown arrogant and out of touch with reality or pitiful creatures that discover the emptiness inherent to an endless life (and in doing so may actually seek death).

Not really. As I wrote: "No human has been "immortal" yet, thus we do not know what an immortal person's subjective life-reality would be like. Ashley's guess is as good as yours." I was just describing my thoughts on the subject, I'm just as much a babe in the woods as anyone else on the issue.

Also, a clarification so no one misunderstands me: I'm not really arguing against scientific research into prolonging human life. To try to campaign against that would be pointless and futile, if the technology is possible to develop, it probably will be sometime. I'm just suggesting that "curing death" isn't as unequivocally a blessing as is often assumed. When you remove one of the fundamental conditions of human existence, a lot of problems are bound to arise.

I'm definitely going to vote in the election! I think it's a pity that many people don't vote. If every citizen voted, elections could be a whole different ballgame. Anyway, I think elections are always exciting times. Especially when you've had a really poor president, and he's going to be replaced with someone better

I'm pretty certain Obama is going to win. Really, I don't think it matters who the Republicans picked. People are so fed-up with Bush, that his association with the Republican party has destroyed any chance of them winning. Honestly, changes are good. It's bad when one party stays in power too long, and frankly I wish there was at least one more powerful party in the US. Yeah, I'm an independent, and generally vote for the lesser of two evils. Although I still like the bumper stickers that say "Why vote for the lesser of evils? Cthulhu 2008"

cheers,

-avatar!

edit: http://www.cthulhu.com/

DUDE. When it comes to "Discussions" like this, people can't HELP but dish out their own personal beliefs, and try to impose them on others...you know how it is.

P.S. Obama is SO going to f--- the economy up more than it already is...

Man, I am starting to see the humor in your posts...it's very amusing!

Female and Asian? I'd hit it. But I'll settle for Sarah Palin. She is such a MILF!

People were supposedly fed up with Bush in 2004 and look what happened -- he won by a higher margin than in 2000. If people are so fed up with him and Republicans in 2008, then Obama should have no problem winning, right? Problem is, his ahead margin isn't that far out... only 4 some odd percent ahead according to various polls and that is down from the weeks he was up and the last "debate."

I'm predicting Obama will win but what do I know? This year has been full of surprises and plot twists! Whomever wins, it's going to be the same old story: very close results, a divided country and disappointing (especially young) voter turnout.

Additionally, I just watched this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0C47Rlnc-8) little bit John Stossel did recently on people who shouldn't vote. Per usual, interesting stuff that is chillingly true.

Haha, yeah Cthulhu would definitely bring about change. Reminds me of this clip from The Onion.

John Stossel is awesome! I think he's like a less famous, better, and unbiased Michael Moore.

His show on greed was great, and I think highly relevant to the coming election and the times in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0VHiONk … re=related

cheers,

-avatar!

I don't understand. If you could live forever, then you would have a real chance to explore the universe. Living to 80 or 100 allows you to explore a small part of this planet. Immortality would allow you to live in each culture until you gained an understanding. You could do this on other planets, with aliens. You would practically need immortality because their languages might involve sounds we don't make. Or they might communicate with colors, or odors, which would take a fantastically long time to understand. And wouldn't you want to know what happens when entropy is maximized? Would there in fact be a big crunch and then a big bounce, to start things anew? With immortality, you would have enough time to survive the death of the universe.

It seems pretty certain that I will die, but not guaranteed. There is chance that we all might be recovered by an advanced future society. And furthermore, for reasons we might not be able to readily understand. Imagine dying and then waking up again, somewhere unfamiliar. While you were dead, you were in a state of non-existence. Time has no meaning relative to the state of the non-existent mind. Thus, there would be no delay if a future society decided to bring you back. It's kind of comforting to think about that; it's the only afterlife I can imagine being possible by science, other than storing your conscience in a computer. 

It might be that some people have no desire to learn. That could be an explanation for resistance to immortality. I would love to learn every foreign language and every alien language. Immortality could make that task possible and it would pale in comparison to what still could be learned.

Another advantage to immortality is it would allow me to investigate something I find peculiar - abstractions. Do abstractions actually exist? Is the number 5 out there, somewhere? And would I recognize it, if I found it? You see, we (us humans) might not hold the majority vote on what 5 really is. There might be aliens that far outnumber us and the abstract 5 is based on their point of view. My point is that our point of view might not be the gold standard. Immortality would allow me to compare our thoughts with alien thoughts and make conclusions I could never dream of, despite my best efforts.

I don't have a choice in the matter. No one else writes about immortality.

I'll send you 50 cents. You can buy a napkin and a toothpick. There's your first yard sign.

.

I assume you mean consciousness, not conscience? Quite different things, you know.

Have you read Plato or his nominalist critics? They discuss that shit all the time. A purely nonsensical question if you ask me, but if you enjoy or feel like you have to think about it, be my guest.

As I mentioned, a lot of modern philosophers write about immortality. Since you seem so interested in the subject, I'll point you in the direction if you're interested in exploring it: click here. Beware, though: a lot of BS ahead.

Yeah, I screwed up there. I definitely meant consciousness.

I'm not that concerned with Plato. He didn't know about particle physics and my idea is based on particles. Everything seems to be governed by the interaction of particles, so it seems reasonable to assume that abstractions are not immune to this. Whether or not they are governed by particles we have already discovered is not something I can answer, nor am I sure how to answer. My best guess is that abstractions do not exist anywhere but in the mind. Immortality would allow me to falsify the physical existence of abstractions. Or find them. Plato believed in 'perfect things'. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm more concerned with how we are able to use abstractions. It just amazes me that things that supposedly do not exist have such powerful real world implications. There has to be more going on.

I'm interested in reading stories about how people deal with immortality on a daily basis. Wil McCarthy, Greg Egan, Robert Heinlein, and Philip Jose Farmer have addressed this. Immortality doesn't seem much like science fiction anymore, since our minds can probably be stored in computers. Time travel and teleportation of objects (beyond the mesoscale) are still very unlikely. I can see a bottleneck to prevent immortality (for a while, at least). It is very likely we will learn how to live forever before we can afford to colonize other planets.

That's a very good point. I had figured out a long time ago that playing all the games I want to play is just not going to happen. This is where I got the idea for manufacturing time. Other than immortality, one would somehow need more time in order to take care of their gaming backlog.

This happened to me last summer when I quit my job in June and spent three and a half months doing nothing but playing games, drinking beer and singing karaoke. It was probably the best summer of my life and I cleaned up that backlog right quick. I didn't manufacture any time for my backlog but by quitting I surely made plenty of it.

.

How on Earth could you have afforded to not work three months? Teach us, Brother Zane!

What, are you seriously bothered or entertained by ideas like this? I used to read a lot about this when I studied philosophy, but that's because I forced myself to read it for the sake of education. I can't ever imagine someone going around thinking about this stuff of their own free will or because its fun or interesting. But "to each his own", I guess. Personally, I find it to be a mountain of triviality with no possible solution, and certainly not something I'd spend an eternity brooding about.

You seem to overlook the blatantly obvious fact that fiction is not reality. Much fiction has valuable human insights and life-wisdom to offer us, but only when it comes to stuff the authors have actually experienced themselves. No one has experienced immortality yet, thus any fiction dealing with the subject is pure speculation. A war veteran writing a work of fiction dealing with the war he/she was involved in has valuable lessons to teach us because he/she has experienced it. There are no "immortality veterans" as of yet, so any such account is bound to be speculative, and probably also deeply tainted by the author's own wishful thinking and preconceptions. If you eat that stuff up its more because of it's entertainment factor than it's truth factor, it really says nothing about the possibility of immortality.

I don't blame you for avoiding the philosophical works on the subject, however. Most of them are boring as f---.

I sold a bunch of stuff, cut corners with my spending (no new OSTs, no excess games, Ramen for lunch, etc.) and saved enough money so that I could afford rent, health/car insurance, bills and beer. Then I quit my job, bought a sweet 24 pack of Harpoon and started enjoying my life. I wish I could have lived like that forever, but all good things come to an end. I stopped playing Picross DS drunk until 4 AM and found a job. But, still - best hobo summer ever.

Go to college, major in a field that will give you marketable skills, use those skills to get a good job, and live well below your means.

Alternatively, get a job that's not so good and save money by living with your parents.

That sounds so... satisfying.  Well done Zane.  I believe we could all benefit from something like that, but none of us have the patience to make it happen.  (I know I couldn't now, with a toddler and wife to support )

It's the kind of thing you have to do while you're still single; parents/girlfriend/spouse/wife/children wouldn't allow you to sit around all day to do...anything. [joking] They wants you earning their bread for them, the freeloaders... [/joking]

As for me, I have to go on "Retreat" just to feel like I can play video-games; when I'm living out of my normal place of residence, I always feel like I should be working...which is precisely what I should be doing now, but...I rather finished with today's workload already.

I've liked Stossel for many years now because of his persuasive, no-BS reporting and mythbusting not to mention his proud libertarian philosophy to which I admire. He tends to make most of his enemies today on the American left because he's a avid, trumpeter of free-market capitalism to which he makes a bold, solid case in his "Give Me a Break" book. Have you read it? I recommend both of his books, they have made more questioning of "conventional wisdom" and less knee-jerk as I try to be independent of partisan nonsense. Have you seen his interview with the aforementioned Michael Moore?

.