Thank you, Buddha. (Cool! Never thanked the Buddha before!)

Brodsky:

I must admit to a perhaps "fatal" shortcoming: I think I am neither smart nor educated enough to further advance the arguments set forth here. This essay is, in fact, highly emotional and, therefore, may fail on that basis.

Mainly, I think that further advancements in the area of humanism are necessary before the technology of transhumanism can benefit our species. Until we are able to practice restraint and humility to a much greater degree than we are now, dystopia is inevitable.

A main theme and goal of the transhumanist movement is "immortality". I am old and, as such, afraid of my death. But nothing I see in these proposed "scientific achievements" entices me to desire to live in a world in which mankind's propensity for self-destruction far outpaces its ability to make peace.

Our most fundamental problem, I think, is that we are unable to embrace a fundamental concept: "not everything that CAN be done SHOULD be done".

Peace.

Brodsky:

I must admit to a perhaps "fatal" shortcoming: I think I am neither smart nor educated enough to further advance the arguments set forth here. This essay is, in fact, highly emotional and, therefore, may fail on that basis.

Mainly, I think that further advancements in the area of humanism are necessary before the technology of transhumanism can benefit our species. Until we are able to practice restraint and humility to a much greater degree than we are now, dystopia is inevitable.

A main theme and goal of the transhumanist movement is "immortality". I am old and, as such, afraid of my death. But nothing I see in these proposed "scientific achievements" entices me to desire to live in a world in which mankind's propensity for self-destruction far outpaces its ability to make peace.

Our most fundamental problem, I think, is that we are unable to embrace a fundamental concept: "not everything that CAN be done SHOULD be done".

Peace.

There was an article in The New Yorker in April, "Can Iran Change", that shed a goodly amount of light on this.

Ahmadi has a lot of appeal to the poor and working classes, and is totally loyal to Khameinei. Mousavi is not really a "reformer", but the candidate of the middle and upper classes.

Although I believe Mousavi is probably tied, at least financially, to "western influences", I also believe that those "influences" are not so much interested in "regime change" as they are in instability.

Also, Russia and China have just congratulated Ahmadi on his "win", which must concern Washington immensely. The Iranians are well aware that fundamentally they are both pawns and power-brokers in the East-West geopolitical chess game.

There is no "revolution" afoot in Iran - just a lot of frustration. I may, of course, be mistaken, but I think things will calm down shortly and be relegated to the same pages in the news that Gaza now occupies.

As for NK, I'm sure Obama will rattle a couple of switch-blades, but will let China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization work things out. NK gets jealous and throws tantrums, but China won't let them loose, I'm sure.

Peace.

Especially if the truck is sitting on cinderblocks in a field. As always, thanks for the comments and support, Sly my friend. (For both of you, just in case, my blog P! is at http://ddjango.blogspot.com. Don't hesitate to visit and comment there, too.) Peace.

I agree on so many of your points, I don't know where to begin in thanking you and responding, so here goes . . .

I think we have moved into territory that HAS been charted - but the map has been lost and/or rejected. Kunstler and I, among a growing number of others, have argued for years that the answer lies in localized systems of small scale and purposeful communities. We, in fact, really don't want the "boom years" to return for several reasons, the foremost being that they are ecologically (not just environmentally) suicidal. We celebrate the situation as an opportunity to claim or reclaim lives at a "truer" level through cooperation and simpler living.

We will not ever be able to repay debts in the manner you are thinking of, though we will pay in other ways for generations to come. We must accept that and move toward real solutions rather than continued failure. The problem is systemic to the point of being ontological; it is not just a big economic bump in the road.

You are right in pointing out that the situation would be as dire under any president. But it does not matter whether I'd like Obama to fail or succeed, because he and I have different definitions of what those terms mean. I agree totally with the definition implied in the opening quote from Kunstler.

As for debtor's prisons: there will indeed be prisons for debtors, but only for those who threaten and/or carry out violent acts against the status quo. As for the rising clamor to "take to the streets", I say "get real - grow up". The last two sentences of your comments are perfect.

You've got it right. Thank you.

I agree.

Thanks for the continuing support, Sly :)

Thanks, Sly . . .

The system we have now is no longer capitalism and the meta-capitalists know that. They can only hope they will be able to survive its demise by keeping us under control until they shore up their fortresses with robotic forces.

Welcome to 1984. Tighten your life vest and floatation devise.

Thanks, Sly . . .

The system we have now is no longer capitalism and the meta-capitalists know that. They can only hope they will be able to survive its demise by keeping us under control until they shore up their fortresses with robotic forces.

Welcome to 1984. Tighten your life vest and floatation devise.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you for the compliment and for being a fan. Spread it around, if you're so inclined. ddjango's my web/pen-name, but yes, Mr Reinhardt is an idol of mine. I would have chosen "django", but someone else got there first. The extra "d" does make it rather distinctive, though, don't you think? My blog address is http://ddjango.blogspot.com. Drop by. Say hello. Be at and about peace, ddjango.

snarky lad, isn't you?