I've seen a lot of dislike for the more "futuristic hollywood" design. Lemme see if I can sway some of you...
Dumping..
I don't hate the future, I hate certain aesthetics.
Don't hate the future at all. In fact, I wish there was more non-Gundam sci-fi that involes robots around the place.
If I were to be greedy, I'd hope for more real life robot threads, or even AI threads.
>>14357856
I hate the future because I see nothing good in it, and also because I'm slightly scared by some of the things it's supposed to contain.
I don't want any of the stuff I see in sci-fi to happen. Some of it is cool as fiction but I want it to remain fiction.
My question: why DON'T you hate the future?
>>14357887
Possibility of a post-scarcity society where I can live with my robo waifu forever after gaining immortality?
>>14357856
Because the hollywood aesthetic for a lot of things is terrible.
>>14357898
I think it's unlikely to happen without tremendous drawbacks, and I don't see the appeal of immortality.
>>14357856
Because it looks generic as fuck.
>>14357933
generic doesn't mean bland or boring or unimaginative or uninteresting or cheap or inauthentic.
It means that it falls in line with the requirements of a genre.
>>14357910
Highly extended longevity, then. The overpopulation will give us an excuse for space travel and I want to see as much of the future as possible. I want to know where the human race goes and what it does and what it creates.
>>14357947
I don't understand the appeal of any of this either. Can you explain?
>>14357947
I am with you.
>>14357964
then can you explain what's so cool about it?
>>14357951
If those words don't appeal to you, then there's not much to explain. I want to observe what happens to humanity as a whole, even just for another few centuries. Plus I want to see if we can build some real sci-fi shit.
>>14357973
I want to see what is beyond our galaxy, I want to see different races and new planets, I want to see what tech comes out with a mix of cultures and alien races, I want to see the day actual half breed Humans show up, I want to say after thousands and thousands of years later I want to say "I saw it from the beginning." Sadly any of that will be way past my time unless I was in a robotic body.
Also >>14357977
>>14357898
>>14357947
>>14357964
>implying any of you will have a realistic chance to be rich and powerful enough to have it
Considering that 90% of the world still live in second to third world stage, post-scarcity is a fantasy. Off to the solyent green facility you go pleb
>>14357951
do you not see the appeal of life period?
>>14357984
>>14357977
Sorry, all that stuff just seems like a hassle for something we can already access. We already have science-fiction to live out our fantasies effortlessly and without risks.
>>14357992
>tfw you are actually well offYes its my own fucking money.
Well I guess robotic life extension for me.
>>14357998
No what we are saying is that we don't want it to be fiction, we want to actually see it with our own eyes.
I am fully prepared for the risks as long as I explore the unknown.
>>14357993
The appeal of life is eating good food, masturbating, listening to pretty sounds and watching pretty pictures.
>>14358007
>life extension
>life
>>14358014
That is a interesting view on life.
Very, unfulfilling.
Not to shit on you but how old are you?
>>14358012
Well you must not find your own life very precious then.
>>14358019
Hey if my brain can work if you stick it in a robotic body then I am good to go.
>>14358026
>Wanting to explore new shit in a new age of exploration
>Same as not finding your life very precious
What?
>>14358024
23. I think it's as fulfilling as it gets. Life is its own purpose, discarding it for the sake of curiosity wouldn't be fulfilling.
>>14358032
Exploration is just so negligible and vain compared to being yourself.
Unless you don't really like being yourself in the first place. Then the risks will seem negligible to you.
>>14357860
I hate this "futuristic visor helmet that covers the entire head and face" meme the most.
>>14358014
>>14358024
Even if thats all he wants out of life, which is fine imo its his life, picture doing that for much longer. It`s a very basic and simple appeal. You get to witness more pretty sounds be made and more pretty pictures be drawn and taken and more good food and ingredients be discovered and utilized and jacking off to more and more fucked up shit.
>>14358037
Okay so your 23.
I am happy myself, I just want to see new shit with my own eyes. Its nothing to do with liking myself. When I die I want to say "That was some cool shit I found" before I bite the dust HOPEFULLY it will be fucking thousands of years later. Without curiosity life is a stale husk.
Then again its all just personal views.
>>14358042
Yeah but that's not what you're about, is it?
>>14358053
Your life is a stale husk without curiosity?
That's pretty sad.
>>14358069
Not mine, don't turn this shit on me.
Imagine if no one was curious in all of History. You would not be here on this fucking website. We would still think the world is flatDon't you dare say it is, that is some retarded shit if you do. We would still never question the church. etc.
>>14358082
If all that shit didn't happen, we wouldn't exist.
Which would be fine.
>>14358082
>Not mine, don't turn this shit on me.
Hey you did say "it's all just my personal views".
Maybe I should rephrase: if you didn't have curiosity, your life WOULD be a stale husk?
Still pretty sad.
>>14358090
Wow someone is a downer. I am glad I exist and that is all that matters to me.
>>14358097
No, maybe I should have separated that.
I think in general without curiosity life is a stale husk.
Everything before that is what I personally believe.
>>14358098
Oh I'm also glad that I exist!
I'm just not sad about the hypothetical situation in which I wouldn't exist.
>>14358108
Ah, I see, you're looking at it from a collective perspective, then. I don't see how that has any relevance to the way we live ours as individuals.
>>14358118
I don't know what to say really.
All I want to do is explore and tell stories about my adventures in a infinite ocean of stars. Sadly that would not be possible in my lifetime that is why I want to be in a robot body or something else to let me live that long.
>>14358042
>jacking off to more and more fucked up shit
>mfw the path to human crossbreeds began with "I have finally experienced all that porn has to offer, what comes next?"
>>14358118
How is it hard to understand that someone wants to see cool new things? It's not because their life is boring or they don't appreciate it, some people just have wanderlust. Some people have wanderlust that stretches to the stars and beyond.
>>14358127
Yeah you've completely lost me again. Sounds to me like you'd get more out of mysticism and drug use.
>>14358153
Literally this>>14358149
Not drug use. I just really want to see past the stars.
>>14358149
You can see cool new things from the comfort of your home without having to sacrifice anything.
>>14358178
I can only reiterate what I just said.
>>14358189
>You can see cool new things from the comfort of your home
But that would be boring.
>>14358198
Mysticism yes, drug use no. How hard is this?
>>14358203
Ah, so you enjoy the prospect of extreme risks?
I mean, that's what adventure entails, doesn't it?
>>14358209
Why not drug use?
>>14358211
Yes some times, probably some more risks with space travel. Though actually interacting with new life on other planets is well worth that risk.
>>14358219
Because using drugs to see shit is fake.
Its like thinking that looking at a image of some place is a good replacement for actually going there. You are not really experiencing it yourself.
I also don't want to fuck up my body that way.
>>14358221
I completely disagree, then.
>>14358235
That risk depends on the person.
>>14358038
well breaking it down, it has some innate advantages, like protection from explosive concussion waves, shrapnel, heat and cold, biological warfare,.. etc. But it also does have some serious flaws, like depth perception issues, weight, eyestrain, does it need exo armor etc?
>>14358242
Obviously, there's a lot of stuff you wouldn't even consider a sacrifice, let alone a risk worth being run, I'm just saying I don't understand your perspective since exploration is meaningless to me.
>>14358231
That's as close to understanding you as I'll get then.
>>14358297
Okay so to me exploration is great. I love exploring shit with my own eyes. Not to discredit someone but to just see it myself.
>>14358311
I think the big difference then is that I don't dismiss any of my experiences as inauthentic experiences.
>>14358347
I think you are also confusing yourself here.
If I see a picture of a place and asked "Do you want to go?"also if I have the money for it and or not in a middle of a warzoneI would say yes. Yes I saw it in a picture and that in of itself is a experience but seeing it is another one.
>>14358354
It's certainly a different experience, and I would certainly enjoy them in different ways, but while you'd be like "yeah let's go there" I'd be like "just show me more pictures" and if they told me there aren't more pics and that I'd have to come see it for myself, I'd be like "nah I'm good, I'll just go eat some pasta instead."
>>14358354
Wait, you're the guy who's into adventure and shit?
Why WOULDN'T you want to go in a warzone?
>>14358411
Just because I want adventure it does not mean I want to get blown up.
There are risks I would take and there are risks for stupid people to take.
>>14358413
Yeah, such as going on alien planets where there might be torture-cults of parasitic rape monsters who feed on shame and terror.
I mean we're talking about "the future" in general, not just "the likeliest future" or "your ideal future".
>>14358418
Granted that is unknown. Going in fully aware that there is a war going on is stupid.
Its not like I would be "Oh a planet! Land right now!" No I would fucking research before I actually land on it.
>>14358432
Obviously, cautiousness is the only reasonable attitude towards new things. And once the risks have been made negligible, THEN you can legitimately be enthusiastic about it.
The thing is that with such a broad concept as "the future", there's so many conceivable, and unforseable risks, that being enthusiastic about the future in general just seems silly to me.
In order to be excited for what might happen in "the future" I'd have to turn it into a fiction that doesn't include significant risks, and just let my own faith do the rest of the work.
Is that what you're doing?
>>14358472
Its more like I really hope and would like if that future were to be real.
>>14358480
Ah, so it's not really within your control then.
As for myself I sometimes fantasize about the future but I can't help realizing that it's just my fantasy, that most people would probably find it nightmarish just like I find their ideal future nightmarish, and that realization just makes me lose hope for the future even when I try to keep it up.
>>14358494
Oh I know that I would die before we even have casual travel outside of the Milkyway.
>>14357887
oooooh you flipped it on me. Actually, I hate that iPods are getting smaller, my cell phone isn't waterproof, and I still wipe my ass like a fucking caveman pretending to be something that he's not. Ur right, fuck the future.
>>14358498
Yeah I'm just saying that because you started this thread saying that you were trying to "sway" other people, that's why I originally answered.
As far as I'm concerned, the pictures you posted do nothing to sway me to your idea of a perfect future.
>>14358518
Jesus fuck, why the sarcasm?
>>14357933
Bruh, thats all mecha is. Look at gundam, same thing over and over just with more or less pointy angles, and its sweet as fuck. Open up ur heart man...
>>14358524
Oh no I did not start this thread. I was just saying that I want to travel to different worlds in the future and live a long ass time doing so.
What the OP posted is not my ideal future.
>>14358546
oh, my bad
>>14358551
Thats fine.
>>14358542
I'm not being sarcastic, for real, iPods are small enough, phones should be able to be submerged in water (its 2016 for goodness sake) and I don't really enjoy wiping my ass, but I will continued to do so because I can't afford a French toilet with a water fountain for my butthole. I'm being serious.
>>14357856
Because it looks terrible and generic and it's not to my taste.
>>14358581
why don't you step into the shower or use a bucket to wash ur ass then, instead of leaving skidmarks all over your underwear?
>>14358544
>he says as he posts fan lineart garbage by one guy, all specific to one franchise
Yeah man I totally agree with you, it's not like things like the Zock or Dodgore or Val Varo exist within the one setting.
>>14358127
I'm sure we'll see some cool shit.
Google is working on immortality. Check out Calico, it's a biomedical division of google working on figuring out how exactly aging works and how we can stop it. There's also Aubrey de Gray who is part of the SENS foundation who thinks that it's extremely possible that we'll soon be able to slow aging, and once we slow it we can beat it.
>>14359697
as cool as immortality sounds, i hope we won't discover it
it's just gonna stagnate the human race
>>14359707
I wonder about that. I was reading an interesting sci-fi series by an author named Peter Hamilton, and it was about a humanity who had discovered immortality and how they would spread among the stars, turns out they were doing pretty much the same shit we are. Even down to some having meaningless 9 to 5. Eventually, thousand years later, they discovered how to upload their consciousness to a electronic interface. Pretty much you live life normally until you get tired of life and then plug yourself into a computer.
Overall I'm fine with stagnation, I'm scared of death and I don't want it to come anytime soon.
>>14357992
This. The future is going to be total ass, I have no idea how some of you can be so naive as to actually want to live for thousands of years. It's absolutely mindboggling.
>>14359697
Google aren't working on immortality, they're working on a way to artificially preserve the brains of their top employees. And as much as they say they aren't evil, that sounds a lot like an attempt to turn people into computer chips.
>>14359721
Well that sounds even more horrible than stagnation.
>>14359745
I'm good with being a computer chip.
>>14359749
I'm glad you are, but I'd rather not live in a world where there's an even remote chance of this happening to me.
I'm going to try and be a test subject for whatever janky ass life extensions there is maybe I'll end up a brain in a jar answering yes no questions maybe I'll be an android or maybe they'll put my soul into a roomba and forget all about me
>>14359745
The problem that generally leads to people stagnating with age is just the capacity of brains. Once technology surpasses the human brain, the various elements that limit one's capability to gather and weigh knowledge will have been completely erased, so I can only see that vastly accelerating what every individual person is capable of. Organisms are fundamentally just highly advanced self-sustaining machines, so I don't see why we can't push the envelope.
>>14359727
That's just pessimism talking. There are an infinite number of possibilities extending all across the spectrum from 100% positive to 100% negative. It's only natural to measure that based on what we can tell from whatever limited perception we have, but the future hasn't happened yet, so there's no reason not to wait and see.
Fear of the unknown is of it's nature a safety mechanism. So is the absence of ambition. At the same time, doing so leaves one vulnerable to a vast array of dangerous possibilities when an outside force acts on you and not the other way around. It's about as senseless as gambling everything in an all or nothing move, so cautious optimism is usually the best method to subscribe to. I suggest researching Soren Kierkegard and Albert Camus if neither of you are familiar with them.
>>14359759
Why? Do you think you're going to be forced to live forever and never know the sweet embrace of death?
>>14359772Organisms are fundamentally just highly advanced self-sustaining machines
Because organisms aren't machines, since a machine is designed and built.
If you want a machine to replace you and to use your memories to perform tasks, fine, but don't try to push that envelope at me under the guise of immortality.
>that's just pessimism talking
and you're just blind optimism talking, throwing buzzwords like "stagnation", "ambition" and "surpassing the human brain" as if cautiousness could lead to optimism.
You've read Kierkegaard but don't know the basic definition of a machine.
>>14359774
Yes, I'd say that's a very distinct possibility.
>>14359784
For what reason? You don't think there would be enough people willing to be immortal that they wouldn't let you die if you wanted?
>>14359790
Yes that's what I think might happen. It's not very likely at all, but remember that suicide is illegal in most states, that people who attempted suicide are chained to their hospital beds until they've stabilized.
People don't let each other die even when they don't have access to "immortality".
>>14359800
It's actually not a crime to commit suicide, it is a crime to help someone else commit suicide though. But you are right about them being committed. I feel like that with extra longevity that maybe that attitude would change, maturity and all that but who knows.
, but I feel like the image of death might change with the onset of immortality.
>>14359816
I don't know what state you live in, but in my country, attempting suicide IS a crime.
>>14359781
A machine being designed and built isn't that different from how we're designed and built by our DNA down to the cellular level. Would calling humans a democratic corporation that owns trillions of factories be more appropriate? Referring to organisms as anything other than organisms is just making an analogy, it's not complicated. The idea of some spiritual essence that separates organisms from machines when the primary difference is just that one is a vastly more intelligent, capable, and complex arrangement of the same basic molecules is nonsensical.
>stagnation
>ambition
Reusing the words of others to communicate an understanding of the same idea isn't really throwing around buzzwords.
>surpassing the human brain
Would calling it a technological singularity be more helpful? Machine learning exists. So does nanotechnology.
>as if cautiousness could lead to optimism
Cautiousness is just attentiveness, which is just omniscience without the omni. The mildly paradoxical nature of it is exactly why cautious optimism functions without just being moderation fallacy.
>>14359836
There you go again with the fallacious analogies. DNAs aren't people, they don't have intents, they don't build anything, they don't design anything, they just happen to replicate themselves. If anything, you're the one who's attributing spiritual properties to things that aren't even conscious in order to dissolve the difference between machines and organisms.
Cautiousness is caring more about your safety than about your hopes. Nobody's 100% cautious all the time, but you're below 50% cautious if you're being optimistic.
>>14358038
anyone got any of those pics by that photobasher who shops electric razor heads and lawnmower engines over soldiers heads in attempt make them look futuristic? he puts a bunch of pointles blue filters over them too. dont know if he was doing it as a joke or whether he was serious
>>14359845
That's a pretty reasonable way of putting it. The simplest way to clarify this line of thinking would be to take a step back and propose that DNA is a human's code. Nerves are circuits, bones are a frame, muscles are pistons and gears, the digestive system is our power supply and cooling system, and skin is our chassis. There are other components that do various different things, but these are the fundamentals. The primary difference is the complexity of the materials these things are made out of that makes big organic robots sustainable.
But with all the arbitrary nonsense aside, when everything is composed of the same electrical signals and elements, I can't think of a reason to reach the conclusion that artificial tech is permanently seperate from what is organic. When we're talking about the future prospects of technology, many simple shortcuts simulating human parts like muscles, noses, and tongues already exist. Chances are, as quantum physics advances, everything will reach a more advanced level of molecular arrangements that's more and more human. The main difference between that and natural selection is that one is forced and the other isn't. Otherwise, if it reaches a level that's more advanced than what we'll naturally have at the time, I see little reason to jump over unless there's some totalitarian regime that seeks to control me or something of that nature, which is a maybe exactly like everything else. It's not more or less likely.
>Cautiousness is caring more about your safety than about your hopes
That's not especially more accurate to the definition than calling it attentiveness, but your point stands.
>>14359880
I get your line of thinking, but I'm just telling you that it's fallacious because it relies on inaccurate definitions.
And you seem to be aware of it. So why don't you simply say that DNA is SORT OF LIKE a human's code and so on instead of making statements you know are wrong?
>>14359901
That's true, it's just miscommunication on my part due to conveying things from the wrong mindset. I would like to hear your thoughts on synthetic organisms or simpler alternatives though and why that would theoretically be worse than staying entirely natural human.
>>14359909
It basically boils down to two things as far as I'm concerned:
I like being myself, and all solutions I've heard so far to extend life indefinitely involve discarding myself to only preserve some of my organs or some of my abilities. Meaning that I wouldn't effectively survive those procedures, only bits of me would.
And secondly, since those procedures require a complete understanding of human biology and consciousness, it means that this knowledge can potentially be used against people in horrible ways, and that this risk vastly outweighs any possible advantage.
I mean if there was a pill I could take that would extend my life without fucking up my metabolism or replacing any part of me, I'd probably take it, but I won't settle for anything more invasive.
>>14359917
That's understandable, particularly the fear of manipulation. Regarding the loss of humanity, which is partially what I was addressing earlier when I preemptively brought up spirituality, seems a bit narcissistic to me, though. It's like if I were a wild rabbit but had the opportunity to become a human, that would require complete knowledge of both, so I'm damned either way. However, even if I lose my rabbit form, I could both survive more effectively and be more accomplished as a human.
As for the more forseeable future, cybernetic augmentation is more suspicious due to the consequences of rejection, so becoming reliant on some sort of regular gene therapy or drug to make them work would explicitly require dependence, which is more suspicious. The main question to me is 'will you be whole or not?' What that whole composes comes second.
>>14360001
No, you don't understand, It's not about loss of humanity, it's about self-destruction; I only care about staying human because that's what I am, there's no value to humanity if you aren't human in the first place. And I don't see what's so narcissistic about not wanting to be mutilated or sacrificed for the sake of one of your organs.
>>14357870
Congrats, you killed your argument by the third image.
>>14360024
>It's not about loss of humanity, it's about self-destruction
>I only care about staying human because that's what I am
This doesn't seem to fit. I don't really see how taking on an entirely different form equal or greater than prior is somehow self-destructive, nor do I see how loss of humanity is different from losing your current form which is human. I certainly didn't mean some abstract concept of humanity if that's what you mean. Any potential risk in that transition is inescapable, not that it really matters.
>there's no value to humanity if you aren't human in the first place
Well. Yeah? The value placed on being human is only really valid relative to alternative organisms.
>I don't see what's so narcissistic about not wanting to be mutilated or sacrificed for the sake of one of your organs
If you mean like a brain in a jar type thing, the typical response would be that it's the control center where all key information that we use on a daily basis is. It's the consciousness, which is the only part that's irreplaceable. I personally don't follow this line of reasoning under most circumstances, but it carries a degree of weight. What I was talking about was the complete adaptation of information within the brain to a different medium, whether that be a hard drive maintained by nanobots or another synthetic brain entirely in a new and more advanced synthetic organic body. The latter is the main focus here, hence the rabbit-to-human analogy.
>>14360098
>the only part that's irreplaceable
It's just a part of me, it's not me. If you replace the rest, it's no longer me. It's not more or less irreplaceable as any other part.
That's why it's self-destructive, same as any type of surgery that's not meant to restore you.
>>14360581
Ah, the old "my grandfather's gun" thing.
Well here's the problem with that: your cells are being replaced constantly. None of the skin you have now was on your body eight years ago.
To say nothing of the "hadrons popping in and out of existence constantly" thing when you look at the sub-atomic level. The traditional concept of "existence" is fundamentally flawed, because everything is in a constant state of change. Things don't really exist, they *occur*. Your "existence" has a clearly defined beginning and end, you are an event.
>>14358030
you'd be a senile vegetable in robot body then.
Brain ages just like any other organ - unless we can actually reverse aging - no amount of robotic modifications will change jack.
>>14361424
My cells are being replacing themselves, they're transforming extraneous materials into themselves, they are not being transformed into something else.
>when you look at a sub-atomic level
nobody's ever looked at a sub-atomic level. If you think that you're just an instantaneous blip, why aren't you willing to accept death?
I care about self-preservation just as much as you do, it's just that you're ignoring your own intuitions in order to make your beliefs compatible with your hopes.
>>14361424
>Well here's the problem with that: your cells are being replaced constantly. None of the skin you have now was on your body eight years ago.
Everyone knows that weak argument, it only works with objects that are assembled from heterogenous elements and designed to be modified from the outside instead of renewing themselves. Which is to say machines, as opposed to organisms. That's the reason why the concept of "foreign body" only exists in biology.
>>14361424
It's even worse if you think about the way the mind works.
Your memories aren't "Stored" the way computer data is, when you remember something you aren't playing back a recording, but rather recreating the event in your mind out of a network of associations. Each time you do this the memory changes slightly, and it's very easy to trick yourself into remembering things that never happened.
The ability to upload your mind onto a computer is going to do some crazy shit to the concept of identity.
>>14361546
Well first off, in order to even consider the possibility of uploading minds into computers, you'd have to get rid of the concept of identity by replacing it with the concept of mind.
>it's even worse
again, it's not worse or better, it's just the way I live. Losing memories is a pity but new memories don't come from somewhere else, they come from yourself, you're just metabolizing experiences just like your stomach metabolizes nutrients. Your memories aren't "being replaced", they renew themselves.
It seems to me that your stance is based on a lot of analogies and very few observations.
>>14358544
First time I saw someone complain about Gundam MSs looking the same, I usually see people complain about the Muv Luv TSFs looking the same
>>14361581
Are you implying that Gundam MSs don't look the same?
Cause they obviously do and are obviously supposed to.
>>14357876
IT'S JUST DAVID BOWIE IN A SUIT WITH A MASK ON
>>14361568
If a mind can be copied though, then you can have more than one copies of a person, they will diverge (quite rapidly without any human limitations holding them back) and all of them are equally valid human beings. Can you legally delete your backup copies or is that murder? Can your copies legally claim ownership of any of your stuff? Can your copies be held liable for crimes you committed?
>>14361615
If you're looking at things from a purely legal standpoint then sure, machines that imitate persons could be considered persons and have the same legal rights, since we already have a legal category for collective persons (associations, businesses, religious orders etc..) even though they aren't actual people.
>>14361615
We've been over this, it's common sense that copying your brain structure into another material just creates someone who's similar to you but isn't you.
That's the premise of a bunch of sci-fi stories. I think Soma was based around this, correct?
>>14361656
So you can get away with murder if you make a backup copy and then commit suicide?
>>14361646
Identity is most useful as a legal concept.
>>14361424
>To say nothing of the "hadrons popping in and out of existence constantly" thing when you look at the sub-atomic level. The traditional concept of "existence" is fundamentally flawed, because everything is in a constant state of change.
Not really, because everything you mentioned does not occur ALL AT ONCE
Even if cells are constantly dying and being replaced, I can confidently assert my own existance because I don't fall asleep and wake up the next day and have no idea what the hell happened, where I am, etc. In other words, there is a continuity of conscience.
If you upload your brain to a computer or what ever it is people are on there is a clear stopping point between the two with one being the true original and the other merely a copy. I guess for some people they don't really care or are convinced that the artificial 'them' is the 'real' 'them', but for people like me that isn't the case.
>>14361663
Well yeah you could get away with murder since you'd kill yourself before the law can get to you.
Your copy hasn't done anything wrong, I don't see how it can be held accountable for what you did.
>>14361666
Even if there isn't an actual continuity of conscience, you can legitimately choose to take responsibility for everything you remember doing since there's no evidence of you being a copy in your memories.
But if you clearly remembered being made out of someone else's memories, then yeah, it would be stupid of you to claim that you are this person.
>>14357856
If I saw some fag with a camera for a head in the street I'd point at him and laugh.
>>14361742
>>14361742
>tacticool means ugly
for fuck's sake, how fucking hard is it to give your future soldiers a nice silhouette?
>>14361752
>>14361752
I like the industrial design this one has but it looks kinda goofy.
Remove the paintjob, make it bulkier and you've got something badass.
>>14361754
I don't think you know what a silhouette is
>>14361755
Looks like something out of Lynch's Dune, kinda disgusting but in an interesting way.
>>14361764
Oh I do, and this guy just looks chubby because all of the armor is around his abdomen and neck.
>>14361762
There was quite a few variations of it in the movie
Rich guy had gold plated ones as body guards
>>14357856
I like the "Blomkamp future" if that's what you have in mind.
What I don't like about it, is that it tries to be emotional and give you fuzzy feelings while scaring you at the same time, by using the very same design elements for both things.
The designs you see in his movies exclusively lend themselves to entirely brutal, gritty and serious stories.
>>14361796
What'samatter, can't handle more than one emotion at once?
>>14361832
not if the director is making it harder for me.
