When control towers "hand over" the planes from one to the next, there is no serious authenticated transfer of stuff. It is completely on trust. Control tower A says, "handing over to the next tower" it basically says, "stop talking to me, call the other guy and get instructions". Pilot calls the next tower, self identifies and asks for directions. If they had filed a fake flight plan of a chartered flight from say Aceh, Indonesia to Tashkent, Tajikistan the plane can change identities and fly through air defense systems without rousing suspicion. So many flight plans get filed, the flight does not take off for some reason or the other, and they don't bother canceling it. But you are right, what you gonna do with a 777 on the tarmac with 260 passengers?
= = = Alcoholic beverages allowed and provided. Unlimited fastfood allowances. An in-house Bunny Ranch (legal for a Nevada campus). No bullshit anti-discrimination training and assorted brainwashing. Crash couches where you can chill or sleepover if you don't feel like going home. Generous basements for those of us who can't stand direct sunlight anymore. = = =
I can't tell if this is Swiftian satire or not - which I guess makes it a brilliant piece of writing either way.
For the record a very large percentage of men would find a work environment such as the parodist describes disgusting and depart within a few days as well. Leaving the rest to surf "game" web sites until the organization collapsed and the bankruptcy trustee started filing clawback lawsuits.
Then you become a cyborg and "evolve" by upgrading. Sounds pretty sweet to me. Probably the easiest route to "immortality" too.
It opens up for a boatload of problems, though. Like the clone problem. Communism likely has to be achieved and property abolished before this is feasible. Otherwise, let's say you upgrade, but leave your old self active. Who owns your assets? And who speaks for "you"? And if killing the old body is the law, when, legally, does you-2.0 become a person? What if the transfer takes place over relativistic distances?
We sure have to change a lot from being greedy self-worshiping apes before this stands a chance.
I don't think it will - human nature being what it is, I think machine hosted humans can be no more than slaves, serving those who can and will exploit being able to possess and inherit.
Time will tell, and I won't be around, as I'm content with having an unpredictably short life span.
Why is transhumanism a fantasy? Our consciousness arises from the functioning of our physical brain and if we can duplicate that functioning in a machine then we can live much, much longer than we live know.
I'm not so sure. Can you find chips that are guaranteed to last as long as a human brain lasts?
Oh, FUTURE technology, I hear the cries. Sorry, no, the direction of technology research goes in the opposite direction, towards faster, smaller and less durable. There is no reason why this should change, given that those who sell want to continue selling replacements as often as they can get away with.
Show me a computer built to last longer than a human lifespan, and I'll lift an eyebrow. Until then, it's merely a fantasy.
Since when has being beyond an evolutionary incentive had anything to do with morality. We vaccinate our children, wash our hands, build sewage treatment plants, etc... all of which subvert evolution.
That's not subverting evolution. Evolution happens whenever there is a way for genetics to pass. If the people who wash their hands and build sewage treatment plants have a higher chance of their offspring reproducing, then they're the evolutionary winners.
If you can make peoples lives better and longer it is right to do so.
That doesn't follow. That's moralism, and assuming that your culture has a monopoly on knowing what's "better". Some might think that a Logan's Run society was better. Others would gladly have traded their 90 year old lifespans for the much shorter lives of, say, Mozart or Jim Morrison.
If you want to live forever, go ahead, and try. But don't for a second assume that everybody is as shit scared of death as you are and should feel happy if given longer lives. It's not for you to say.
The delays in turning off the transponder and the data stream to the modem, flying between way points on a well known path etc might be explained by confused and disabled pilots too.
Hypoxia can set in as little as 90 seconds of oxygen deprivation and will severely incapacitate and confuse people. Cabin pressure loss is the most common theory for hypoxia. But cabin pressure loss would deploy oxygen masks, sound alarms and the pilot would have been alert in the first few seconds to declare emergency and radio out. The captain seems to be nerd with home made flight simulator, he would have reacted correctly to oxygen masks dropping from the ceilings.
Carbon monoxide is a way for hypoxia to set in. If there was a slow smoldering fire in the cockpit, not hot enough to trigger fire alarms it could result in incapacitated confused pilots. Again there are CO detectors, and warnings and associated with it.
I am not sure how regularly these systems that detect cabin pressure loss and CO detectors are tested. It is quite expensive to actually deploy all those oxygen masks. So even the regular testing protocol would require the maintenance crew to disable the actual deployment of the oxygen masks and test the detection and deployment signals. They could forget to turn them back on, like the did in the Helios flight disaster I mentioned in another thread. CO detector is chemical based. They have to be replaced regularly and this is an old plane.
Once the pilots flip switches on and off in confused state lose their consciousness completely, the plane would fly on autopilot following the way points that happened to be programmed.
If there is foul play involved, it would be worthwhile exercise to make sure every flight plan that was file in that duration and every flight directed by the control towers in that time is legit and locate those planes. The pilot(s) could easily turn off the transponder, drop out of radar, pop back in and start using a different call sign. Without a transponder, air traffic control completely trusts the pilot to self identify the plane correctly. If the malefactors had filed a fake flight plan, the plane could change its identity mid flight without attracting attention.
So because death always wins at the end you want others not to try and not to work towards increasing their own lifespan? Yeah, death always wins, as long as we let it, it wins. We will all die, no question about it. What are you going to do about it, just return to the slime you came out of? You won't even try?
Those who will try, do you know what will happen once (not if, once) they succeed? They will be called 'the rich' (and they may as well be, it will be painfully expensive to achieve those results) and the rest will go to WAR to get a piece of that cake, which they did not bake, which the likes of you are spitting upon in its general direction.
Don't pretend you won't be on this or some other forum should this happen within your life time, yelling and screaming that the rich are the bastards that prevent the rest from having something that they have achieved. Your position right now is most likely in direct contradiction to your future position, should that future materialise, where you will be willing to do just about anything, including murder and theft, anything to get a piece of that.
Whoah, what a rant, and all quite misplaced too.
If the "rich" wants a cure that prolongs life, let them have it. It will be the downfall for them in the long run. And if the plebs want to go to war over that, let them.
It will just serve to get rid of both, making those of us who don't feel a need to cheat or cause death have a greater chance of our genes surviving in the long run.
I don't envy people with long lives. Nor short lives. If they want long lives, let them have it. As long as those attaining it pay for the resources and don't take mine which I use to lead a happy life.
We should probably take away the insulin from the diabetics and the classes and contacts from people who are near-sighted, and undo any laser surgeries we've done on peoples eyes.
You know, to serve as an evolutionary incentive.
In case you were wondering, evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of those who successfully reproduce most", or we would have weeded things like near-sightedness out of the genome a long time ago, along with all other recessive traits.
Straw-man, as well as a severely wrong understanding of evolution. Evolution does not cause anything - it describes what happens. And what happens is that those who have viable offspring down the line are the ones whose genes survive. No time limit, no single generation. That you live is an evolutionary plus for the genes of your great-great-geat-grandmother.
As for recessive traits, unless they are severe enough to cause you to lose against competitors without the same trait, they will not be bred out. We still have tail bones and appendices. The disadvantage isn't big enough to make a difference compared to other differences. Same with myopia, which incidentally can also be advantageous for individuals who deal with close things and do not have a need to focus at what's far away. Diabetes? I would think that type 2 isn't going to show a lot of evolutionary disadvantage, given that it mostly hits post-fertile or low-fertility individuals. Depending on where you live, it may have an economic impact that cascades down to younger generations.
Type 1 diabetes is more likely to show a selection favor against it in the long run, and, indeed, the relatively low rate of individuals with type 1 diabetes is likely a sign of this happening.
Evolution is not more important than individuals
Evolution is certainly more inevitable than individuals, and without evolution, there wouldn't be any individuals either.
Because evolution happens no matter what, the immortals would become roadkill on the road of evolution.
Indeed, and saying "Death is wrong" is in my view just another form of religion, most of which are based on the fear of death. It may be a good survival trait to have fear of death, but it leads to things like religions, including this new technological one, and prolonging life beyond when it serves an evolutionary incentive.
Death is just the end part of life. Avoid it if you still intend to reproduce or care for young, and otherwise, it's just death. Nothing mystical or something you can or should beat. Unless you want to believe in fairy tales, just accept it. Death is.
For some of the bee colonies, the workers and the queen have genetic relatedness of 0.75, our body cells have r=1 between blood cells and gonads. Thus the insect colony is a looser agglomeration and our bodies are tighter agglomerations. Between parent and children the relatedness factor r=0.5, between cousins r= 0.125. uncles/aunts to nephews/nieces r= 0.25. In societies where first cousin marriage is encouraged, the general relatedness of the population could be much higher. Though it was not unknown in Europe (Einestein, Darwin married their first cousins) it is more common in the East. Even then most of them allow only children of a brother and sister to marry, not children of two brothers or children of two sisters. The only exception is the Ottoman empire which made marriage between children of brothers legal/halal/kosher. (Since Ottoman empire was Islamic many people confuse this practice with Islam. But in Muslim countries that were never ruled by the Ottomans this practice is very rare). Places that were once ruled by the Ottoman empire you could have whole villages or clans where all males have exactly the same y chromosome and have very high degree of relatedness. Such populations would pledge allegiance to the clan and take great personal sacrifices for the sake of their clans or tribes or villages or their shieks.
You could see the level of personal sacrifice made by individual animals or cells as a continuum plotted on genetic relatedness factor r. Our cells pledge very tight allegiance to the germline cells, ants/bees somewhat looser, human societies with very high relatedness have high patriotic feelings and personal sacrifices for the sake of community.
Trying to impose a western style democracy of a society with a mean value r on to other societies with an order of magnitude different r would not work easily. Giving autonomy and self governance for people/tribes/clans with high degree of relatedness, but subject to collective punishments and rewards would be considered sacrilege in the West. But such practices are more likely to succeed, pacify the population and lead to peace.