Labour remains the only progressive option

[pinstripe]

If you put much credence in what Ray Kurzweil kurzweilai.net and others are saying then we'll reach the point of Singularity by around 2030. "The Singularity" being the point where machine intelligence catches up with human intelligence. What happens to non-enhanced human beings after that is anyones guess.

TERMINATOR!

[NWpostie]

the problem is not the Labour Party. its the leaders and one unelected incompetent control freak.

There are some decent Labour MPs but not enough of them, maybe some time out of Government will shake them up if they haven't done so.

[andy2007]

Unsustainable population levels need to brought under control,

The UK tax credit and child benefit system has becoema joke!!!

Want a extra child cant afford it? Dont worry Gordon Clown will give you enough extra tax credit and child benefit to cover the cost!!!!

So open your legs boys and girls get breeding and get rich quick!!!!!

So what do you suggest?
Compulsary abortions?
Cutting Benifits for Single Parents?
Something else?

If you cut the Benefits for Single Parents. It will be the Children who'll suffer!

What we need to do, is to educate Teenagers. Teach them about Social Responsibility, sex education, and of course, teach them about Contraception.

Besides: When was the last time you saw a Single Parent, who wasn't struggling to make ends meet?

[Tman]

Besides: When was the last time you saw a Single Parent, who wasn't struggling to make ends meet?

Hard to judge from the outside, but some third and fourth generation professional wasters seem to play the system very well, while the genuinely needy struggle to get much help.

The Germans (and others) apparently have a system where every child conceived while on benefits doesn't automatically mean an increase in benefits or a bigger house. That should boost the demand for contraception among the feckless....

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If you put much credence in what Ray Kurzweil kurzweilai.net and others are saying then we'll reach the point of Singularity by around 2030. "The Singularity" being the point where machine intelligence catches up with human intelligence. What happens to non-enhanced human beings after that is anyones guess.

His predictions in "The Age of Intelligent Machines" was remarkably accurate but that did have a shorter time span that those in "The Singularity". I wonder if RM have already bid for Humans 2.0 and Humans 3.0

[El-Bandito]

For all its faults, Billy Hayes thinks Labour in power is the best hope for working people in Britain

Billy Hayes "thinks", now thats a quote and a half!!
"Labour in power is the best hope for working people in Britain"
What a crock of sh*t.... This Labour government in power is NOT Labour, its Tory Lite. BH can spout on and on about who he wants CWU members to vote for, it will not influence me. This Labour government lost its way years ago. My garndfather would be spinning in his grave at what the "New" Labour party(especially Brown, a Scot,as well,) are doing to Britain's working class just now.
Billy Hayes is,imo dillusional. Its not his fault, its obvious to me he is not media savvy. I have lost count the amount of times i have watched BH on tv spouting off about Charles 1st and about Royal Mail remaining in public hands, its like watching a repeat every time we have industrial disputes. I am not saying that he is wrong in what he is saying, i am just piss*d off that he is not stating what the majority,and it iS the majority of Rm postmen, are getting shafted day in day out.
My message to Billy Hayes is forget about who the hell cwu members should vote for in the next election and concentrate on the job at hand which 1000s of cwu members pay our dues for. Billy Hayes please please listen to your members especially the walking postmen of Britain!!! Because if you do not listen to us you will be out on your a*se along with 100's of New Labourites next election time.

[kingtubby]

If you put much credence in what Ray Kurzweil kurzweilai.net and others are saying then we'll reach the point of Singularity by around 2030. "The Singularity" being the point where machine intelligence catches up with human intelligence. What happens to non-enhanced human beings after that is anyones guess.

His predictions in "The Age of Intelligent Machines" was remarkably accurate but that did have a shorter time span that those in "The Singularity". I wonder if RM have already bid for Humans 2.0 and Humans 3.0

Clearly there is a moral argument against unrestrained technological advance; witness the fuss over genetic engineering, stem cell research and so on, but if we are to embrace progress fully then we'll have to accept that the morality that is attached to 'Humans 1.0' will have to change also.
The thing is, all these people who blithely talk about the inevitability of progress seem to think that humankind will always be the master of its own destiny and that technology will only ever be a means to an end.

[Big Daz]

Unsustainable population levels need to brought under control,

The UK tax credit and child benefit system has becoema joke!!!

Want a extra child cant afford it? Dont worry Gordon Clown will give you enough extra tax credit and child benefit to cover the cost!!!!

So open your legs boys and girls get breeding and get rich quick!!!!!

So what do you suggest?
Compulsary abortions?
Cutting Benifits for Single Parents?
Something else?

If you cut the Benefits for Single Parents. It will be the Children who'll suffer!

What we need to do, is to educate Teenagers. Teach them about Social Responsibility, sex education, and of course, teach them about Contraception.

Besides: When was the last time you saw a Single Parent, who wasn't struggling to make ends meet?

Calm down Comrade

My above comments were simple and accurate statements of fact with zero indication of the solution, it was clearly aimed at the amount of extra money parents get by having more than two children.

I have two children, cant afford a third one . But if me and the missus were to have another child then the government would give us enough extra money to cover the cost and make a profit. Is that really justified? The government should pay for two and then stop. This to be for all children born from April 2011 so as not to disadvantage exisiting parents and those who are currently expecting a third or even fourth etc. Over the space of three government terms the cost of child benefit/tax credit to the state will go down which can either be redeployed to the poorest parents or invested in public services.

Population overload is a global problem with 9 billion people expected by 2050 . The worlds space is limited and resoucres are finite.

Please take a look at the September issue of BBC focus magazine as it features the population issue, it will get your grey matter ticking away like never before!!!!

http://www.bbcfocusmagazine.com/issue/9-billions-crowd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tman]

The thing is, all these people who blithely talk about the inevitability of progress seem to think that humankind will always be the master of its own destiny and that technology will only ever be a means to an end.

Both those points are self-evidently true, aren't they?

{Unless you're anticipating an alien invasion, or the Second Coming, that is}

[kingtubby]

The thing is, all these people who blithely talk about the inevitability of progress seem to think that humankind will always be the master of its own destiny and that technology will only ever be a means to an end.

Both those points are self-evidently true, aren't they?

{Unless you're anticipating an alien invasion, or the Second Coming, that is}

You've missed the point. Yes progress is inevitable, but if you accept unchecked technological advancement you also accept that humankind as it is now will likely be subsumed by machine intelligence.
We are now entering what many are calling the "age of enhancement". Enhancement is an inevitable evolutionary force that is difficult to resist. When the right social conditions are in place, most people, given the opportunity to improve the odds of survival for themselves or their children will do so, whether it be through genetics or cyborg type implants. The thing is, at the moment there are strong moral and/or religious arguments against such progress, hence my point that either you accept unchecked progress and all that entails or you think that progress is fine up to a point, but that when it takes certain pathways, then it has to be held up or even halted. fwiw, I'm with the former.
Professor Kevin Warwick has some interesting things to say on the topic.

[Tman]

You've missed the point. Yes progress is inevitable, but if you accept unchecked technological advancement you also accept that humankind as it is now will likely be subsumed by machine intelligence.

Doesn't follow at all. You may as well say if weapon technology continues unchecked then "humankind" as it is now will likely fall victim to it.
{A "mon sequitur" as a certain RMC member so nicely misquoted a while back }

We are now entering what many are calling the "age of enhancement". Enhancement is an inevitable evolutionary force that is difficult to resist. When the right social conditions are in place, most people, given the opportunity to improve the odds of survival for themselves or their children will do so, whether it be through genetics or cyborg type implants.

You're obviously a sci-fi fan. "Most people" in this world don't get enough to eat, clean drinking water or sufficient medical care, and that situation only looks like it's going to worsen given that the world's population is increasing exponentially.
Therefore this "inevitable evolutionary force" looks like it's either going to be available for the select (ie rich) few, or just a theory.
Hardly "inevitable", then.

[kingtubby]

You've missed the point. Yes progress is inevitable, but if you accept unchecked technological advancement you also accept that humankind as it is now will likely be subsumed by machine intelligence.

Doesn't follow at all. You may as well say if weapon technology continues unchecked then "humankind" as it is now will likely fall victim to it.
{A "mon sequitur" as a certain RMC member so nicely misquoted a while back }

We are now entering what many are calling the "age of enhancement". Enhancement is an inevitable evolutionary force that is difficult to resist. When the right social conditions are in place, most people, given the opportunity to improve the odds of survival for themselves or their children will do so, whether it be through genetics or cyborg type implants.

You're obviously a sci-fi fan. "Most people" in this world don't get enough to eat, clean drinking water or sufficient medical care, and that situation only looks like it's going to worsen given that the world's population is increasing exponentially.
Therefore this "inevitable evolutionary force" looks like it's either going to be available for the select (ie rich) few, or just a theory.
Hardly "inevitable", then.

I'm afraid you've failed again to engage with the point I'm trying to make, and I can't be arsed to make it any clearer. Except to ask, do you think there are any reasons, moral or otherwise, for preventing scientific progress? Clearly there are plenty of people out there who do, though I'm not one of them.
As for sci-fi, I can take it or leave it frankly, though i did see District 9 recently and thought that was pretty good.

[Fred B]

Not voting remains the only progressive option.

As the old saying goes: If voting could change anything, they would make it illegal.

[Tman]

I'm afraid you've failed again to engage with the point I'm trying to make, and I can't be arsed to make it any clearer

.

You seem to be presenting one particular scenario (and a somewhat bizarre one at that) as "inevitable". I don't agree with this principle of either the "age of enhancement" being here, or even that it exists outside of someone's imagination.
Researchers, inventors and scientists do what they do, but it's up to the politicians, churchmen etc to put the moral spin on whether it's good or bad. Whatever, they won't stop researching and inventing, or progress.
The original premise was that progress for progress' sake is wrong, and more so when it costs jobs etc. Ned Ludd and his deluded bunch thought much the same, but thankfully no-one took much notice of that principle then either.

[kingtubby]

You seem to be presenting one particular scenario...

We appear to be at cross purposes. Never mind, I've probably overestimated you.