Latest | Categories | Top | Blog | Wiki | About & TOS | Imprint | Vision | Help | Fractal Generator | Futurist Directory | H+Pedia

Progenerate Hyperhumanism: The alternative to technological transhumanism


#1

Progenerate Hyperhumanism is a direct and total rejection of mainstream transhumanist thought and theories. PH was developed as a biologically pure alternative to the bastardization that transhumanism advocates for, and affirms totally that the human being is a sacred and elevated creature upon the Earth. Hyperhumanism seeks to lift humanity through biological enhancements, primarily through post birth genetic means. Hyperhumanism believes an empowered state is necessary to the completion of this goal, by making medical research a major focus of the government.

Tenets:
PH advocates for a rejection of cybernetic enhancements, as unnecessary, undesirable, and fundamentally anti-human.

PH believes that biological immortalism is the desirable goal for humanity as a whole.

PH believes in the preservation of the human trichotomy, mind, body, and spirit.

PH advocates for an empowered state and governmental structure, that will ensure biological equality among the populace, so that none may rise above the other and sow discord and division.

PH rejects all notions that artificial intelligence will or should “merge” with any element of human consciousness, and affirms totally the agency of humanity over all technology.

PH affirms that human life begins with fertilization, and the sovereignty of the individual must be respected even in the womb.

PH believes that all biological enhancements must be provided as a fundamental service by the state, no matter the cost.

PH rejects the arrogant notion that man was ever to become as God or as gods. Humanity should build on the framework of their biological design to maintain fundamental aspects of the human experience and identity.

PH denies the free market the right to distribute enhancements, as it would sow grave social discord and inequality.

PH denies the perverse idea that animal and human attributes should mix in any way.

PH affirms the importance in preserving human art, language, and welfare in all aspects of society.

PH affirms the primacy of humanity over the Earth and above all creatures.

PH affirms the primordial human connection to nature, and thus believes in preserving and protecting it.

Why Progenerate Hyperhumanism is anti-Transhumanist
Transhumanism, though not a monolithic movement, generally advocates for posthuman ideas, and is fundamentally recognized as anti-natural. Many transhumanists support the heinous idea of the “singularity”, which represents the death of the individual on the most basic level. Transhumanists believe in defiling their bodies with various implants, which is an anti-human idea and activity. Humans were not meant to be artificial constructs. Transhumanists ignore the extreme effects their ideas will have in the coming decades, as implants are available to the super rich, creating biological inequality that will rapidly deteriorate social fabric, especially in the western world. Transhumanists are also guilty of neglecting the potential their invasive technologies have on the government, which many will no doubt use to exploit their citizens. Social dialogue with transhumanists has not revealed, at least not in any significant capacity their proposed ideas on how a developed industrial society will safely make the transition into a cybernetic population. Transhumanism is a reckless, unguided, anti-human movement that should be combated in spaces of social dialogue across the world.

Social and Political Philosophy of Hyperhumanism
Hyperhumanism holds that the collective of a nation state or country must be provided, without discrimination, the opportunity for universal biological enhancement in line with the basic framework of the human body. Hyperhumanism does not seek to transcend humanity at all, but rather exalt its capabilities above and beyond what exists in the natural world. It is extremely important this process be provided by the state as a service for all citizens without exception, or else inequality will tear apart the fabric of the nation/country. Because enhancement is a state service, the government must be empowered to incentivize research firms, and if need be, nationalize them to ensure biological equality. The state should provide a template of all enhancements available to citizens. Hyperhumanism continues to affirm the sovereignty of the individual, and stresses that no one must be forced to take enhancements of any kind if they do not wish to.

Pro Human Philosophy
Hyperhumanism affirms the idea that the human experience is unique, and should be protected. Ancient and fundamental concepts such as the struggle and the victory are integral parts of that experience, that would fade away in most described forms of transhumanism leading to a meaningless existence. Hyperhumanism regards emotions as extremely important aspects of being human as well, because they are very important lenses in which we view the world. Constructs like the family and the nation state are protected under Hyperhumanism to ensure the welfare of the people.

Scientific Ideas and Theories
Hyperhumanism believes the frame of the human is an integral tool of the brain and mind and should be preserved and enhanced. It is proposed that many vulnerable human organs be replaced with genetically engineered lab grown versions, as well as muscles. Neural enhancement can come from biologically grown neural laces. All enhancements exist in the confines of the human body, no appendages are added or drastically altered, same with organs. These enhancements coupled with advanced medical techniques would eliminate most forms of diseases, and ensure a virtually infinite lifespan.

Exceptions to Cybernetics:
PH, hold that while cybernetics are an abomination, they may be used in special circumstances for severe disabilities such as blindess, and paraplegia if the state for whatever reason cannot repair the damage. PH also holds that if a nation state or country is still transitioning to an ideal Hyperhumanist system, they should use cybernetics to keep their aging population alive.

Questions and Concerns:
Why oppose Transhumanism so vehemently if it is already catching on to the public?
Because a better and more human system is possible to achieve with scientific advancements.

Are you trying to destroy Transhumanism?
Transhumanism should be exposed for what it is, a fundamentally anti-human and post human movement. Hyperhumanism is there to combat these misguided ideas.

Is Hyperhumanism socialist?
Hyperhumanism contains socialistic elements that exist to ensure total biological equality among the population at large but is not a socialist movement.

Is Hyperhumanism Fascist?
Hyperhumanism could be described as mildly authoritarian in some respects (suppression of cybernetics), but does advocate strongly for individual rights. Hyperhumanism is not a political ideology, but can be implanted modularly into most forms of government, including fascist ones. Indeed one may say the corporatist ideals of fascism fit well with proposed state control over technology firms, but Hyperhumanism was not made expressly for fascism or any other ideology.

Is Hyperhumanism religious?
Hyperhumanism does not advocate for any religion, but accepts religion as a fundamental human concept.

Are you hindering progress?
Hyperhumanism has a different definition of progress that silicon valley elites and body hackers, progress is defined by those who make it. Transhumanism is not inevitable.

You do know most of the technology you need for genetic engineering is not yet available yet?
While most of the technology Hyperhumanism needs is not yet available, it will be in the coming decades. This is why hyperhumanism advocates for state controlled research.

Why not just genetically engineer the embryo?
The embryo cannot be engineered because it cannot consent to being engineered. The integrity of the fetus and children in general is an important aspect of Hyperhumanism.

Aren’t hyperhumanist enhancements extremely expensive?
No more expensive than a full body cybernetic conversion could be, maybe even less once development techniques are perfected.

Is Hyperhumanism Nationalist?
Hyperhumanism requires the authority of the state but does not necessarily advocate for the existence of nations or countries or their preservation.

Symbology of Hyperhumanism
The leaf symbol represents nature, while the Star of Dichotomy represents two fundamental and natural concepts, order and destruction. The red wing of the star means destruction, while the blue means, order, the four pointed star in the middle represents the reconciliation of these ideas and moving up towards progress.

AUTHORS NOTE:
This entire idea was spurred on by one argument and developed in less than a day, needless to say it must have flaws. This is not an attack on all transhumanists, only as a rebutting of posthumanism.
Please feel free to criticize as harshly as you want.

It can be easily argued that Hyperhumanism is simply a radical sect of transhumanism that differentiates massively from most proposed theories, this author personally feels that it is different enough to count as its own movement entirely.

I made a mistake regarding the status of the fetus and embryo. Embryo would be modified, not fetus, I think.

Further Reading and Context:
I was debating a seemingly posthuman transhumanist online, when I somehow synthesized an entire proto-ideology. Sometimes I scare myself. I am a vehement and passionate anti posthumanist, and technically I do count as a “transhumanist” in the classical sense, though I would not consider myself one due to how opposed I am to most Transhumanist ideas.


#2

Furries will definitely feel triggered by this… :smiley:


#3

Yeah my entire philosophy is predicated on fundamentally anti-libertarian values. Furries can and should stick to suits.


(João Luz) #4

Far too fundamentalist, narrow-minded and authoritarian.

I am far from the most typical transhumanist myself. I don’t believe in a singularity.as it’s typically portrayed and I have long held the opinions that the potential has been awfully neglected due to an excessive emphasis on the cybernetics/AI side of things. But I don’t really think there’s a hard barrier between the two. Biological organisms and technological components are all just piles of chemicals. The difference is between the piles of chemicals that nature made (over millions of years of evolution) and the piles of chemicals that man made (with knowledge hard work and dedication). Of course that they don’t seem the same right now- technology is precise and has a more narrow focus, biology does lots of different stuff, is less efficient in some ways, but so much more intricate and sophisticated! But in the future, things will be different for sure. When Man can shape biology into highly efficient machines, and non-biological machines can be made so sophisticated that they resemble life in many ways, what difference is there really?

The main fault of your ideology is that you take an extremely definition of “human” and declare it to be “sacred” without actually giving any thought to identifying the things about humanity that are indeed of value. It seems to me that you’re far too concerned with whether or not something “looks human” or “feels human” and not enough with things such as sentience, sapience, self-consciousness and free will, which, to me, are the things that form the basis of our experience as humans, and as such should be intrinsically valued.

What’s so wrong about the mixing of human and animal attributes or the appendage of metal parts to one’s body? I don’t think that any of these modifications would make a person “less human” in any way that actually matters. Your usage of words such as “perverse” and “abomination” betrays the fact that you have an extremely emotional response to this type of enhacements, and that you oppose them becaue they “feel gross” to you, and not any rational reasons.

As for the political/economic aspects of your text, well, as a socialist, I don’t even think that the free market should exist, so it’s not like I entirely disagree with you. Still, I don’t think it should be only up to the state to improve humanity. Under a situation of widespread technological abundance, individuals should have lordship over their own bodiess and minds, which includes the right to modify, in whichever way they see fit- including turning into furries and uploading themselves into the cloud.


#5

Thank you very much for your criticism I appreciate it a lot. Yes, Hyperhumanism is authoritarian, fundamentalist, and narrow minded. I am a human chauvinist, I feel as if it is my sacred duty to advocate for the continuation of my own species.

The primary difference between biological organisms and technological components are as clear as day, one is synthetic, the other is not. One is produced by nature, the other is not. Now, that isn’t to say anything that is synthetic or artificial is inherently bad or evil, but we must at least recognize these fundamental differences. The sanctity of the natural is a fundamental cornerstone of my philosophy. Biological organisms by all accounts should not even exist, they are extremely unique in the universe and I do not believe it is the duty of man to manipulate nature to serve selfish goals. Agriculture is fine, horticulture is fine, GMO’s are less so, but tolerable. Human beings are the highest among all the creatures of the Earth, and are apart of nature. All nature is connected, humans included, as much as we pretend we are divorced from nature, we simply are not. To leave nature is to become inhuman. To say that technology and biology are simply “piles of chemicals” is totally devaluing nature.

That being said, what about the human being’s natural state is worth preserving? It is not about looking or feeling human, it is about being human. To be human you must be of nature, if you are not of nature you are not a human. You cannot call a highly sophisticated sentient and intelligent android a “human”, it is a machine, and it will always be a machine. Just like hacking off your arm and putting a prosthetic arm in its place does not make it a human arm. Transhumanists are guilty of denying the fundamental union the body has with the mind and the intangible, or spirit. A brain alone does not make a human. The entire body is a system that is highly interconnected, the microbiome of the intestines influences the brain, muscles respond to the brain, the entire nervous system is connected to the brain and to the body. Humans are not brains alone, or intelligence and sentience alone. As well, the human experience, which would be defiled, if not totally and utterly eradicated under most transhumanist systems, is another thing worth saving. In Huxley’s book, Brave New World, the author portrays a world without struggle, and without High Art which is derived from the human concept of struggle. Many transhumanists view “the struggle” as something undesirable, and even evil. This is wrong. The struggle is the foundation upon which so much human art and culture rests, it is such an important aspect of being a natural being, like we humans are. That isn’t to say we should let diseases run rampant or cause unnecessary suffering. Being a seemingly perfect being, would not find the struggle appealing as the basis of art, or recognize the importance of this cornerstone of human life. We need to feel our bodies ache during exercise, and feel rest afterwards. It feeds the mind, body and soul, and helps these aspects of you as a human person grow. So much can be learned from hardship, it allows for catharsis, sadness, introspection, renewal. Many transhumanists fail to see the value of this, and it sickens me. It comes off as exactly what it is, inhuman, and I do not allow for post humanism in my proposed system. Though, even in my system, many diseases wouldn’t even exist, and death would not occur naturally, there is still room for both the pleasant and the unpleasant, good and bad, keeping the door of the mind open for these experiences. What transhumanists fear is great suffering, which is understandable, but they take it a step to far when they say there should be none at all.

As far as furries go, it is simply species dysmorphia. I do not have much to say other than, if you want to become inhuman do not expected to be treated as a human. The reason why these modifications are perverse and abominable, is because it corrupts the human form, which I view as a beautiful and natural biological construct. This is why my ideology is called Hyperhumanism and not Transhumanism, nothing is being transcended on a fundamental level. What I really believe in is species identitarianism, the attributes of the human species is what makes us human, and to destroy those would be destroying humanity.

The reason why the state must be in firm and absolute control over the distribution of enhancements is to ensure total biological equality over the population, because allowing a select few to be enhanced would sow incredible social strife. That being said if someone rejects enhancements they should never be forced or coerced to take them. It is very much either all or nothing. A system like mine could never work in the United States, it is far to big, but an individual state, yes that could work. As time goes on and the medical technology advances further and further, the state would still have to be there, to make sure ALL are given enhancements.

Transhumanism paints a totally unrealistic and untenable picture for a future society, that is libertarian to the detriment of the collective utterly. My ruling philosophy states that there must be balance between the individual and the collective, and both will prosper. It is a practical solution, that preserves the human form and experience, and allows for rapid technological development. The nation does not die in my system. Humanity, or post humanity is not at risk of getting wiped out by a solar flare or an EMP weapon like in technological transhumanism. The abilities of the human being are extended, without need for perversions. Individuality lives, and order lives alongside it.

Posthumanism is an evil to me. Those who advocate for posthumanism are my enemy, and should be treated as traitors to their species.


(Shackleford) #6

Well, have fun with your hyperhumanism. I’m staying with transhumanism. But thanks for your informations about it. I like to hear about some good “-isms” from time to time. Different opinions matter!


#7

Thank you for being open minded.


(Alan Grimes) #8

Thank you for contirbuting to the conversation. I have sympathy for your position but I would like more options for self financing of arbitrary modifications. The primary battle will be over maintaining a human-compatible environment in the physical world over the lunacy that everything can be migrated to some so-called “virtual existance”. The clowns sticking random junk under ther skin are pretty ignorable…

I don’t think you will get past 150 years of lifespan even with aggressive biological modification, you will need to introduce nanites or use some kind of body-swapping system to get beyond that.


#9

I tend to go overboard with the forceful aspects of my ideas because I expect conflict. It is extremely important to me that the state have the most say in how technology advances. Transhumanists constantly invoke the idea that AI will outstrip human ability and that is why we should “merge” with it. That is an utterly asinine idea to begin with. If you do not want AI to outstrip humanity, the solution is extremely simple. What firms are researching AI? Find those companies, and make sure they are regulated. Put a cap on what they can research. Not that AI should not be advanced, but if you leave it up to the free market alone you can very easily end up with a lot of problems.

Self financing can still happen, I would not want these companies nationalized immediately. I am not really a corporatist, but they need tight control on what they are allowed to distribute, and like my system proposes it is a basic right for everyone.

Yeah the entire “brain uploading” thing is ridiculous to me. People act like the brain can survive independently from the body so easily. You put your entire consciousness at risk of dying in a power outage. The biggest achilles heel of Transhumanism is the vulnerability of computers. Computers still need to be charged regularly or have a constant source of power. They are also vulnerable to virtual viruses, and worst of all, EMP weapons and solar flares. You can wipe out an entire transhumanist society in an instant with one nuclear warhead.

The kind of biological modifications I have in mind are genetically engineered organs, muscles, and things like that. Also very important is genetic therapy for telomere integrity and powerful anti aging techniques. I am not really opposed to the use of nanites to accomplish some of these goals for a temporary time, at least until the rest of the anti aging field catches up with what is needed. It should also be possible to make a new body by using someones DNA. These are all theoretical concepts for the most part but they are still possible. This is why we should be investing in SENS and not neuralink.
People are so blinded by their own hubris sometimes.


#10

That has already happened very often, just in a biological instead of cybernetic way, it was called a “famine”.

Also, not only transhumanist, but pretty much all societies could be wiped out with nukes…


#11

An EMP from a nuclear warhead would seriously damage any society, not destroy it instantly. The more dependent on electricity a society is, the more vulnerable it is to electrical outages. EMP’s cause long lasting damage and electrical infrastructure takes a long time to fix. A transhumanist society, one that has hypothetically evolved to a level where everyone uses cybernetics of some sort, would grind to a halt, and die in like 1 minute flat if an EMP strike occurred.


(Alan Grimes) #12

Superintelligence is a thing. Not only do you want it for a number of various unspecified things, but it will be an inevitability. We are in a Red Queen race. One day you will wake up and way way too smart will turn into not nearly too smart at all by a hundred miles. Even if we can regulate everything on Earth, we have no idea what is lurking in the deep depths of Space. So constraining our own evolution is worse than stupid, it’s suicidal.

I am still in violent agreemnet with you about uploading though, especially destructive brain uploading.


#13

If you are saying that extraterrestrial life will be a problem in the future, I would like to point you to a lecture by renowned nano scientist Dr. Tour.

Life is a paradox and should not exist. Metaphysics aside though, I think aliens are the least of our problems. The greatest enemy of humanity has always been humanity itself. Besides, under by system, technology is still a major asset used my humans, it is not like that is going away. It is like reaching the end of the tech tree in Civ V, you do not even need to go any further. At some point technological development can become a detriment to an established society.


(Alan Grimes) #14

Civ 5 had a sequel, Beyond Earth that had a number of different ways humans could evolve beyond the present day. I would tend to suggest a heavily modded version of a game called Stellaris. While that game doesn’t really scratch my itch either, at least it demonstrates a variety of evoultionary paths and it’s game files are easily modified with a text editor so that you can create your own scenarios.


#15

Yeah but Beyond Earth was crap I heard. Probably not the best example for me to invoke for my idea, but whatever.

I know about Stellaris. Perfect alien genocide simulator.

But anyways, AI can still be used, just make sure it never becomes sentient, even if such a thing were possible. I feel like these reasons about why humanity must sacrifice their own natural state utterly are of transhumanists own making. The AI problem is very easy to solve, and that is like the biggest motivation for the hyper collectivist ego death nightmare called the singularity. I mean seriously what a terrible idea.


(Alan Grimes) #16

Stellaris also gives you the chance to assimilate or simply trade with other civilizations.


#17

That is cool if you like economic simulation.


(Michael Hrenka) #18

Thank you very much for exposing your ideology for open discussion in this forum.

In a certain way, your post feels very much like a relatively recent prediction of mine that the transhumanist community will fork into different branches. Yes, I would still classify Progenerate Hyperhumanism as a branch of transhumanism, possibly its more conservative one.

For my sci-fi world building project of Canonical Coherence I’ve come up with two different transhumanist ideologies that were prominent in the latter half of the 21st century: Aurelianism and Upgraders. The main line of distinction is their relation to the question of superintelligence. While Aurelians are opposed to any kind of superintelligence, Upgraders embrace it. In that sense, I would classify PH as a version of Aurelianism.

More recently I subdivided Aurelianism into two distinct flavours: Perpertualists and Harmonists. The difference between both positions lies in their stances towards the progress of intelligence. While Perpetualists demand that no further increase above current level human intelligence should be made, Harmonists allow for further progress as long as this form of progress is shared harmonically by all members of society, in order not to disrupt social cohesion. I would like to hear your thoughts on biological intelligence enhancement. How much of that would be acceptable to you?

It may be worth noting that in Canonical Coherence the Aurelians have effectively won the conflict against the Upgraders during the second half of the 21st century. That said, this resulted in a rather anti-liberal society and slowed down further progress massively. Rising political discontentment of the population with the system and machine uprising toppled the system in the 22st century, though.

I see a couple of problems with PH:

Desirablility

It’s always important to think about what you really want, and what you should be wanting. Those aren’t necessarily the same things. With an increase in maturity our wishes may shift in unexpected ways.

You seem to place a lot of value of the holistic experience of being human. It’s not clear to me why you do that exactly. A more reductionist approach that is common among transhumanists is to separate the experience of being human into different aspects and optimize them independently:

  • The body is augmented by implants or biological enhancements
  • The mind can be uploaded or merged with AI
  • Sensory experiences can be simulated and optimized
  • Feelings can be manipulated at will by chemicals or implants

Sure, many things can go horribly wrong with these reductionist approaches. I get that. Still, what is lost about being human when humanity is augmented piece by piece? Where does the human end and the post-human begin? There’s no answer to that question that would be obvious to everyone (see also the next point).

Of course you can be axiomatic about this and state that if any enhancement is allowed, it must respect the holistic integrity of the human, so uploading is out of the question, for example.

The problem is see is the following: Is being human the best you can possibly wish for? Well, you seem to affirm that. But your wish seems to require that everyone else is prohibited from transitioning to anything else than “human”. Of course that creates a tension between your position and everyone else who wants to become “more than human”. In the end, you may win and forcefully suppress all tendencies of people to deviate form the “human norm”. With that, you would however suppress a genuine part of the human experience, at least of some humans, to become something greater than human. To be fair, it’s also genuinely human to suppress such wishes.

What if there are problems that we can’t solve on our current level of humanity? What if solving those does require some form of superintelligence? Then we would be forced with the decision between not solving existential problems (and risking the end of our existence in the worst case) and solving existential problems with the proxy of the superintelligence we will crease (and risking the end of our autonomy and continued “natural” existence as humans). That’s not an easy decision to be made. Perhaps it’s not even necessary, if humans have the potential to solve any meaningful problem. But if not, we would need to decide one way or another.

Delineation

How do you define a human being? What kinds of transformation would stop that human being from counting as human? With all the possible transhumanist technologies in mind, these questions seem to be very difficult. With increasing possibilities of transformation the concept of “human” might become increasingly nebulous and impossible to define clearly.

Some humans are born with more than five fingers per hand. Do they still count as human? What if I opt for having six functional fingers per hand via surgical procedure? Would I forfeit my humanity with that decision? What if I glue feathers to my head to look more like a bird? For most people I would probably still count as human – albeit a silly one. What if I change my genome to make my body grow feathers? Perhaps not human anymore now. But what if I use cybernetic devices to create holograms of feathers and hack computers to simulate a modified genome? This is a crazy borderline case, but in that case I would appear to be non-human while being human. But would be desire to appear non-human disqualify me from being human? Do you need to want to be human to count as human?

Who should have the authority to decide who counts as human and who not? This is obviously a very political question. After all, if only humans have human rights, letting the authorities decide that you don’t count as human can quickly become a death sentence. If things go sideways, having the wrong ideas would suffice for you to lose your “political humanity” and be declared as undesirable unprotected non-human entity that is to be disposed of.

It’s also conceivable that there will be different fashions of what counts as human and what not. What counts as human in one era might not do so in another era. Which era is right, then? This can quickly disintegrate into cultural relativism.

Why? Isn’t this a position that seems to desire granting and eternal status of justification to the status quo?

Humans as they live today have little in common with humans that lived a million years ago. If humans back then have had the authority to define any new inventions as perversions and ban them, we would still be naked hunters and gatherers, using rocks as our most advanced weaponry.

  • Why are human beings that use fire still humans? Aren’t they hybristic in their desire to be like gods by assuming the ability to create fire at will?
  • Why are human beings that wear clothes still humans? Aren’t clothes perverse distortions of the genuine glorious naked human form?
  • Why is agriculture fine? Taking natural plants and selecting the ones that most seem to fit human desires and only care for those is one of the greatest perversions that humanity has ever done. The fruits, vegetables and crops we grow today have almost nothing in common with their original wild forms.

If humanity had been more conservative, it would be questionable whether it would have progressed at all. Of course it’s conceivable that after millions of years wild hunter gatherers that domesticated neither plants nor animals would have come up with cellphones and rifles. But that doesn’t seem to be very plausible to me. After all, the temptation to deviate from the path of opportunistic appropriation of useful technologies (like fire, clothing, agriculture) just seems to be too great.

Stability

How would a civilization guided by the ideology of PH prevent the development of artificial superintelligence? Sure, a global surveillance network that controls the activities of anyone who works on AI might work.

But what will stabilize the public approval of the necessity to outlaw such technologies? Propaganda? If yes, what will keep the propagandists in line? Strict mutual controls? Everyone having “problematic ideas” being sent to reeducation camps? That might work. Will it work forever? What happens when social order collapses due to natural disasters? Global warming, coronal mass ejections, a supervolcano erupting. Such catastrophes can spell the end of most (sub) planetary civilizations. People will return to savagery after such catastrophes and the validity of any ideology that was followed before the catastrophe will be questioned.


#19

i admire your audacity. you want an ant colony and a clon-hive, and you dont shame on it. thats prodigious.

indeed, you are a dark prince :flushed:

i wish you all succes you need in your missonary quest, because it is time for our enemies to gather together, so we can defeat them all by one inexorable stroke.


#20

i recommand everybody to read this book. bloodfreezing.

and if you think, that is improbable, i dare remember you, that just two weeks ago, an official german broadcasting company has done the masterpiece of all ´public manipulations:
they claimed that LESS hospitals means MORE health for all.

so never underestimate human stupidity.
or as einstein said (or should have said) :

« Zwei Dinge sind unendlich , das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, aber bei dem Universum bin ich mir noch nicht ganz sicher.» Dies ist ein weiteres unter Einsteins Namen verbreitetes Zitat, dessen Herkunft nicht nachgewiesen werden kann und das mit grösster Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht von Albert Einstein stammt.

i wish i could answer your question …