I get it exactly.
I don't care who considers me "worth informing", nobody controls my actual value now or in the future.
Nor yours, except you are apparently too weak psychologically to handle reality, and thus your main point here appears to be to say I'm "delusional" as a random target, then pointlessly going on about it with explicitly no suggested path to improvement to the circumstance you find yourself in.
I am not treating it as a game. You are. One you've decided there is no alternative but for you to lose, inevitably and permanently. There is you "we" you keep referring to regarding this, in any respect.
Let's constrain ourselves to what you know then.
You have a view on whether government is to serve the citizens, or the citizens are to serve government--and you (presumably) have a vote.
You're free to conjecture it's "optimism", along with many others having your basis for analysis.
However, ultimately, everything done by everyone is known.
Because, speaking long-term, they'll simply be forced to, or admit they never had any.
Before we escalate to all-out cyber and/or nuclear war with Russia, will we be seeing any -actual evidence- of anything other than a very dumb phishing link clicking Podesta, or of "hacking" involving anything requiring more skill than a neighborhood high school computer club, much less a nation-state?
Although I'm sure the Democrats would much prefer the accused not be allowed to speak at all, Putin's question is still pertinent--is he responsible for Democrat losses at -every other governmental level-, as well? Were the Wikileaks e-mails manipulated or untrue, which has still not been asserted?
This red herring is becoming as dangerous as it is ludicrous.
Public roads: Now in Alpha
Technology preview available now, possibly lethal, and mandatory.
The empirical evidence you have a 0% survival rate is overwhelming, as is every other quite-scientific claim I have made.
You're trying to shoehorn a failed stock argument into a statement that isn't there, that you choose to imagine is there wishing it fit. What is overwhelming proven by experience and all data is that you will die, and this and every position you have become completely irrelevant according to you yourself. I'll take it from there.
Hitchens was ironically and appropriately eaten by his own DNA. Parroting his "razor" won't alter your outcome in the least.
My point is not to "tackle" biological aging, but rather to set the context of rational versus irrational interpretations of a populist clickbait Slashdot title. Review the sequence of the posts if that's unclear.
If I save some people time realizing sooner rather than later that "reversing aging" and the open-ended implications that clearly tries to suggest, are plainly and irreversibly scientifically invalid, all the better.
It does, by exactly the chain of reasoning I gave.
You don't get to scope inference.
I'm sorry, I thought the topic was science.
How many humans have survived across all those existing across time, or will survive who are presently living, in 1000 years?
Zero. That means a 0% survival rate, at least in the context of medicine and science.
"Entropy" is a basic law of thermodynamics that says the usable energy of any system, including the physical universe, is continually decreasing. That means, disease, homicide, overpopulation, asteroids, global warming, nuclear war, absolutely everything else aside, there is no possible (literally Earthly) way for any humans to survive, within the materially-reductionistic context at hand.
Usually, people here proceed with reference to a peculiar mysticism that a set of memes, or a greedy molecule, or "species" survival, means there is other than a 0% survival rate, that is, that somehow every single individual of those of their worldview will be not be eliminated by evolution.
They will be. Unquestionably. That's clear science, particularly for those whose Venn Diagram of "reality" has just that one circle.
Perhaps so, but it hardly meets the sensationalism of the thread title.
And, given the survival rate for humans remains steady at 0%, and that will never rise, due to entropy if nothing else, I'd prefer something rather... more.
If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't.