Immunology, presumably.

The only donor bodies that aren't going to treat the transplant as an act of war are clones or heavily immunosuppressed; and it's probably more plausible to assume that you'll be able to clone a human like a sheep than assume that you'll be making some fundamental breakthroughs in immunology to deal more elegantly with unmatched hosts.

I can see the utility of having spare organs in certain emergencies; but how much life extension would you actually get even if the sort of neurosurgery involved in removing a brain and reattaching it to a new host's spinal cord were viable? Is the theory that the assorted ghastly flavors of neurodegeneration are actually to be blamed on older organs and everything will be fine; or is this just a very expensive way to ensure that you skip the various ways peripheral organs can kill you and are assured to be the spryest patient in the dementia ward?

Israel tried it with Hamas back in the early 2000s. They killed at least three successive Hamas leaders within a few month. What they did not achieve was to crush Hamas. So no. The U.S. will be long out of bombs before the supply of new ayatollahs will run dry.

The problem with your argument is that while you rightly point out the strategic problem, you don't have a solution. The attempt at regime change has resulted in the very same regime emboldened now as they got the bragging right to have successfully repelled the largest military in the world together with the strongest army in the region in their unprovoked attack on the homeland. Additionally, you now have created at least one additional Shiite martyr, whose shrine will be a place of worship and pilgrimage for the centuries to come, and where oaths to defend Islam in his name will be renewed again and again.

Because the Buddhists for instance wreck havoc in Myanmar?

Why do you define people not adhering to your idea of a lifestyle "crazy"?

I for once neither like scuba diving, because I don't like the feeling of rubber on my skin, nor do I think skiing all year round is something important to do. I live in the Alps, I can go skiing whenever I feel like it anyway, but I barely do. And inhaling something from the boobs of some paid person was never a dream of mine. If that rocks your boat, why not find something who will do it because they like you, or they like the sensation of someone snorting something from their boobs? Ted Turner once said, Life was a game, and Money is how you keep score. Why in your opinion is chasing the next highscore in some computer game a worthwhile way to spend your time as a billionaire, while trying to increase your highscore in money is not?

No one seriously working in Cosmology does that. Indeed, there are a lot of theories out there trying to either displace or at least amend Einstein's General Relativity, like MoND or TeVeS. The problem: No one until now has come up with a good idea how to do it, and all the proposed alternatives don't work very well either, have to assume even more unknowns, or are outright wrong in places where GR has been shown to work. Until then, we continue to use GR, because we know, where it works fine, and we know, where it fails.

It's easy to sit in an armchair and wandwave some theories in existence which superseed General Relativity. It's really hard to actually write them down.

> How exactly are we going to do that?

Kill all humans, I guess.

You have to understand that we live under a death cult which wants to destroy all sentient life on the planet. Pushing for "there must be none" is one way to do that, because once we shut down oil, nuclear and plastics 90% of the population die and the other 10% spend the rest of their lives fighting each other for food and shelter.

I only once bought a new car, and this was an online sale (even back then in the 20th century!). I knew what I wanted, and no test drive would have changed my requirements. I owned this car for 120,000 miles. No complaints.

If speed limits were enforced, they would be abolished tomorrow. They only continue to exist because most people can break the speed limit for years without getting a ticket.

If drivers received a fine every time they broke the speed limit, politicians houses would be burning down the next day and the law would be abolished the day after.

You know why encryption is legal despite Bush and Clinton's best attempts to prevent it?

Because Gen-X kids risked a decade in jail for breaking Federal law to ensure the code got out there and everyone had it. It simply became impossible to regulate because anyone anywhere in the world could download the code and run it.

Today programmers won't even say 'no' when governments demand they ID all their users.

Because it's not about age. It's about eliminating anonymity online.

There were laws requiring that escaped slaves were returned to their owners. I presume you would have obeyed those laws, even though they were immoral.

> You live in a country with laws.

A country with laws, yes. A country with law, no.

It's ludicrous to tell people they should obey the law when none of Epstein's clients have been arrested and probably at least half of the business owners in the country would be in jail if the laws on employing illegal aliens were enforced.

If an escaped slave had turned up at your house in the 1800s asking for help, would you have followed the law and sent him back to his owner? From your post, I'm guessing you would have.

I know a few Christian Nationalists. None of them are pushing for "Age Versification" and most are against it because it's clearly just another step toward The Mark of the Beast where people won't be allowed on the Internet unless they bend the knee to Satan.

This push is coming from the communists and WEF-bozos who want to eliminate anonymity on the Internet. Literally everyone who's been following this for long knows that.

Which is why you see support for it from both "left-wing" and "right-wing" governments. They both have the same hands shoved up their behinds.