> charity will never bring revolution and even worse charity will actively suppress revolution. ... > Revolution used to mean pitchforks and guillotines (the

> charity will never bring revolution and even worse charity will actively suppress revolution. ... > Revolution used to mean pitchforks and guillotines (the French especially loved them), but today, funnily enough, that would be ineffective even if the people would be able to close their favorite streaming channel and wake up. This strikes me as a strange way to say 'people are too happy to lead a violent revolt'. > We could probably try today this idea, but (i) there is no coagulated we to make it work after at least 158 years of divisiveness and What was before those 158 years? Unity? Until we get rid of nationalism, racism and religion divisiveness is going to be the rule, not the exception. > A revolution today would take completely other form from the past. Because the French revolution with guillotines was the same as the ones before it? > we can learn to programatically interface with the cells and just say, top-down, "you, the cells, already know how to build an eye, you did it once, rebuild one here", don't scar, regenerate [1]. 1,000 year lifespan is achievable with 100% organ, tissue regeneration, and then the revolution begins, hopefully. What? This could be on a sandwich board worn by the guy who in 2013 had to remove those Apocalypse 2012 stickers from his blacked out panel van. What strange, hollow rhetoric that post is.