posted
I believe we (humans) have reached a phase in our evolution where we will change ourselves (or be changed by ourselves) far faster than external evolutionary factors will change us. I believe that many branches of science and technology are on the verge of profound discoveries that will allow us to alter ourselves in ways that will help us surpass many physical, psychological, and social limitations we currently face as a species. Some areas I think which will help usher in opportunities for transhumanization are biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology, and cognitive sciences. Those who take advantage of these opportunities will, in effect, become "post-human" or "transhuman".
I'm an optimist. I think this is a good thing. I recognize that there are many who will disagree that such a change could be good. Some will disagree vehemently and some probably violently. On the other hand, there are already organized movements dedicated to exploring and bringing about transhumanist opportunities. What I'm interested in discussing are the following.
What are some of the ways humans might transition to post-humanity? Assuming transhumanity isn't forced upon us, and assuming different technologies might lead to different methods of post-human transition, what do you think society might be like in a world of humans co-existing with post-humans or transhumans(possibly of varying types)? Do you think transhumanism is a worthwhile goal? Is it something to be feared or avoided or even prohibited?
I won't pretend I can control the flow of discussion, and I don't really want to anyway. However, I'd appreciate it if we could keep the discussion open to all opinions and let people express themselves openly. It's fine to offer logical critiques of ideas presented, but let's try to keep it polite.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I myself am interested in the possibilities.
I think if we look at what a human being is in 200 years, we'd be surprised at all the changes. I see the first steps, at least, happening in my lifetime.
Perhaps implants which allow you to "zoom" your eyesite. I would think the government will be behind this one, equiping soldiers with this technology. Along the same lines, perhaps implants in your ears which allow you to focus on certain things (amplify them) and tune out others. I wouldn't be surprised if this was already in the works for our intelligence gathering agencies (though come to think of it, I think there's a hearing aid which does something like this already).
I think one major step will be the human to brain interface. We aren't as far away from this as people think, in my opinion. Perhaps something as simple as having a user interface which you don't need a mouse and keyboard to use. Want a web browser to open? Think of a red square. That sort of thing. One "advancement" I could see in my life would be small computer implants for data storage and for performing calculations. Want to remember a phone number? Put it in your hard-drive (by thinking about it). Want to calculate the natural log of 0.84? Use your computer CPU. That sort of thing.
And so on, and so on. There's very little on our body that we couldn't improve with cybernetics.
Then there's genetic engineering, which could do even more, without any operations.
The question is always whether society will embrace these changes, or fight them tooth and nail. Most people seem against altering what is "human", but its very hard to stand in the way of progress, and its already happening!
Everything from contact lenses, to tooth fillings, to replacement joints, to pace-makers, and so on, we are already becoming cyborgs. Its just a matter of degree at this point.
Thinking about human advancement is one of the things I love about the Hyperion books. In the books, the regular "humans" have remained unaltered, and have colonized earth like planets, terriforming when needed.
The "Outers" were expelled from human society, because they used nanotechnology to start altering themselves. They colonized empty space, living in space station type constructs, mining asteroids, and living in zero G. To better get along without gravity, they genetically engineered themselves to have longer, leaner bodies, no hair, and prehensile tails . Phase two for them was colonizing other planets, but instead of terriforming the planets, they genetically engineer sub-species of themselves to be able to live on the planet. They even develop a sub-species nicknamed "angels" which live in the vacuum of space itself, using enormous solar sails shaped like wings to get around (and presumably are photosythetic).
That might seem like an abomination to some, but I thought it was a very cool idea .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm something of a Luddite in this respect -- I'm very wary of anything external that could permanently alter my... well, my self (like hardware implantation, etc). I will not be an early adopter. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For better or worse we have stepped out of the relm of survival of the fittest. Human beings no longer (in non 3rd world contries) have to be concerned by day to day survival.
Of course, we haven't fully eliminated our friend survival of the fittest. But you have to be uber stupid or unlucky to die before you can breed these days. Add to it that on average, the higher the IQ of the parents, the less children and we have come to a crossroads. No longer are we faced with a natural world where things like bad vision/hearing, diabies, high blood pressure and many other common traits would be fatal and therefore removed (mostly) from the gene pool.
I read a Heinlein book (don't remember off the top of my head which) where instead of altering human genes, simply the best sets from both parents were choosen.
Every parent only contributes half of their genes to their offspring, which gene is contributed is random. In RAH's future, each gene was carefully selected (from the possible two) so that the combination wouldn't backfire.
I much prefer the thought of policing our own genes than that thought of actual modification.
We have removed ourselves from natural selection with use of our technology. That makes us rely on our technology. Without modern refridgeration, transportation and production, millions would die from lack of insulin shots.
It is time we start weeding out some of the negitive genes from our pool.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's like the movie "Gattaca". They modified the genes in utero to remove any birth defects and any other physical imperfections like near-sightedness, asthma, dyslexia, and the like.
I'm fine with that, I think.
I also agree that there are a lot of things that can be improved in the human body. But I'd rather see those advances done with gene therapy than with neuroscience. For example, I'd like to see therapies that would halt organ failure, doubling our lifespans at least. Ways to keep ligaments, tendons, muscles, and bones young.
On the biological engineering end, I think we're 20 or so years away from effective joint replacements that will last long after we've died. I'm dissatisfied with our current replacement surgeries for knees, hips, and ankles.
Once we extend not only our lifespan but our quality of life, it seems logical that our attention will be turned to reproductive strategies. If you live 200 years, you can have a lot of kids. Unless we use this new lifespan to start a serious colonization program (which I'd love to do), we'll have to limit how many children everyone can have (Thirds, anyone?).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is time we start weeding out some of the negitive genes from our pool.
I agree with the spirit of this, though I don't agree with it quite literally. I think we are way too ignorant of human genes at this point to "start weeding out" anything. (Though I am not a geneticist so I'm not really one to decide this. )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if transhumanism is allowed to progress rationally and openly there will be many who will want to take advantages of new technology to enhance their mental and physical skills, increase their life expectancy, and preserve their apparent youth. On the other hand, if such technology isn't forced upon people (and I don't think it should be), many other people will choose to reject transhumanist technologies. I think this might lead to a world with multiple, perhaps competing, sentient societies on and near this planet. Diverse societies today are rife with problems surrounding all manner of strife created by individual groups trying to obtain and protect what they feel are their basic rights. These problems exist in racial, political, social, sexual, gender, and philosophical arenas. Individuals find themselves at odds with others often in many arenas at the same time.
It would be easier for transhumanist ideas to flourish if many of these problems were eliminated or at least ameliorated. On the other hand, some transhumanist groups (like The Extropy Institute) are creating communities made up largely of people who actively try to accept diversity and even embrace it. In this way, transhumanism could be a factor that leads us toward a more free and accepting society and in this way be an active element in eliminating or ameliorating racial, political, religious, etc. tensions. I can see both paths as possibilities, though I hope the second one become the reality.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm cool with weeding out genetic diseases. I mean, both my parents and two of my grandparents (and one uncle) have died from a genetic disease. One I probably have.
But at the same time, sometimes the 'bad' things are related to the 'good' things (genetically speaking) in ways I don't think we fully understand, yet.
Speaking as bundle of atavistic weirdness myself, I think too much meddling with our genetic code could lead to reduced diversity. The less diverse we are as a species, the more likely we are to be wiped out by the next generation of disease to come along... I mean, sickle cell anemia, for example, gives some added resistance to malaria.
There's a WORLD of inintended consequences out there, just waiting for us to rush ahead.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it depends a lot on if on sees oneself as part of the onward thrust of technological progress or not. I suppose I betray that I do not.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is time we start weeding out some of the negative genes from our pool.
Earth. Hitler. 1938. (to flippantly borrow from Star Trek VI).
Put more realistically, though, as Karl points out, we need to know a LOT more about how this works. We are more than the product of our genes and the genes combine in subtle ways. We might find, in engineering out poor eyesight, that we've made ourselves more susceptible to temperature variances. If we genetically engineer away diabetes, we might enhance our risk of cancer. It's not as simple as just saying "this switch makes guys salivate over redheads" and then flipping it on or off.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
The other end of it is a lot of spectacular human beings have been born with conditions that, were we able to select which genes we kept, would have been eradicated. If the whole "pick your offspring's traits" thing had been in effect for the last 150 years, there'd have been no Einstein, no Lincoln, no Darwin, no Helen Keller, no Gehrig, no Hawking, and no Napoleon.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, especially if it's a non-gender specific salivation over red heads
There's a scalpel that cuts both ways. As most gay people I know have said something like "don't you think I would choose to be normal if it were in my power?"
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've mentioned elsewhere that I think the rash of survivable but unpleasant psych disorders are a result of preferential mating. I mean, the sexual revolution was largely a result of the development of birth control. To where many now consider anything but marrying for love to be inhumane.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could make a strong case that MY parents should never have married, most of them due to genetic considerations. And yeah, I have poor eyesight (well, not so much now ) and will probably be on dialysis some time before I die.
But I'd still rather be me than not be at all, if you take my meaning.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm willing to admit my parents shouldn't have been allowed to marry. But I believe I would have been born elsewhere under different circumstances. I guess the idea is that we fix all and only the things people want or believe they want fixed then. But what about the public health obligation? What if someone doesn't want to be cured of their nicotine addiction? Does society have a right to make them fix it? I mean, we all think flouridating the water is a legitimate public health obligation. (We used loosely here).
P.S. I'm pretty skeptical that human happiness can be achieved by simply removing everything that we can identify as distressful. I think it will make us evolve, but no into something better. You know, like the human rabbits that couldn't read in Well's original Time Machine
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: That's like the movie "Gattaca". They modified the genes in utero to remove any birth defects and any other physical imperfections like near-sightedness, asthma, dyslexia, and the like.
I'm fine with that, I think.
So long as we don't get to the point (as in Gattaca) where individuals who don't completely meet the physical standard are considered to be "Invalid" and therefore can't hold a legitimate place in society.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have also wondered this and I tentatively post this as it is very "charged" but I had a discussion with some homosexual friends about it and got mixed responses.
Assuming for the sake of moving past the "born this way argument" let's assume that Homosexuality is biologic.
When we can genetically alter genetics, should we alter that "gay" gene to make homosexuals straight?
Also including bisexuality is genetic in the argument as well.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[edit: this is addressed to Goody Scrivener's post above] That's one of the worries, certainly. Another, perhaps less serious concern, are the changes in areas of competition. An obvious example would be sports. I imagine that a runner with cyber-legs would be disqualified as an Olympic competitor, but what about in pro-sports? What if physical enhancements are so common that prohibitions for athletes relegates the Olympics to a quaint custom practiced by a tiny group?
Outside of the sports arena, what about in normal jobs? Xavier mentioned augmented soldiers above. Could the government require augmentation as a condition of enlistment? How far could that go? What about private corporations? Could a financial firm require a brain/computer interface augmentation as a requirement of employment if they felt such an augmentation gave them a necessary competitive edge? If they couldn't require it officially, could they do so de facto by only hiring transhumans? Should they be required to give jobs to people less better equipped to perform them? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think they are questions we'll have to face.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well as long as we are talking hypotheticals, here's one I just thought of...
A couple is going to have a child. Genetic tests indicate that the child will have diabetes, or some other genetic problem. For whatever reason, the parents choose not to fix the problem with genetic engineering.
When the child comes of age, could he or she sue the parents for their choice? If a genetic problem can be prevented, could it not become the obligation of the parents to prevent it if they are able to? Where would religious rights play into this?
Just something that crossed my mind... (this is one of my favorite topics)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a book writen by an author named Ray Kurzweil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Spiritual_Machines ) that is very interesting, and deals with this exact question. It focuses mostly on what will happen when and if computers claim to be conscious, but it also talks about other technology, like the transhuman things discussed earlier. Really good, and scary read, because alot of the stuff he says will blow your mind, and it is very well researched.
He predicts that humans will one day meld their consciousness within machines, thereby sheading the limitations of our physical forms, and essentially becomming immortal (this is one of his more radical predictions, he makes many more sensible ones). He also says that since most of the labour intensive jobs of the future will be done by intelligent machines, the new focus of society will be knowledge, rather than production.
Oh, and as for people not wanting to change, think about it this way. The people that do accept the change and techonology will have quite a large comparative advantage over the luddites, who arent cognitively, physically, and socially enhanced, so in the end, most people won't have much of a choice if they want to function in society.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman, I think personal freedom should be maintained as much as possible in questions such as these. I certainly don't think anyone should be forced to be made "straight". However, I also don't believe that straight/gay is a strictly genetically determined quality. I believe, in fact, that gay/straight is a false dichotomy.
I would be opposed to almost any forced alteration whether it be to remove homosexual tendencies, skin color, or whathaveyou.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
People act like this will suddenly happen and we will be faced with the choice weather or not we should create a cyborg or genetically superior Human. It will be a somewhat slowly integrated into society. It will start with simple things that no one will question. A nanotech robot that prevents heart disease or repairs your vision. An electronic repair to the spinal cord so someone can walk again. We already use prosthetic limbs. Once this type of technology becomes proven and accepted it will go a step further to improving us well beyond normal human capacity. Then somewhere down the line we have a bunch of nanobots running through our system repairing things and helping us to live to be 200. By that time no one will be worried about weather or not we should, it will be accepted as common sense. Why wouldn’t you do it to stay healthy.
Of course you have all moved way past this. I think at the time we will think of a soldier would have all the enhancements, if we are still using Human soldiers.
Has homosexuality been proven to be genetic? What if it not? I was honestly wondering. If given the choice right now, I can’t think of many people who would choose for their children to be gay, but in 200 years it could be totally accepted, making it just another choice for parents. Over their very long lifetime they could decide to have 3 boys and 4 girls, 5 straight, 2 gay. It would be no different than choosing the height, IQ range, eye color
What if it gets to the point where all of these things can change just like we change hair color now? Talk about eliminating prejudice. If people could change skin color or sexual preference by going to the doctor it would be hard to hate someone for that reason.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As already mentioned, we are on the verge of so many different possibilities due to our advancement in knowledge and technology. It seems like we are rapidly advancing our knowledge in genetics, microprocessors, and nanotechnology all at the same time. The next 20-50 years may result in very drastic changes as these fields work closer and closer together.
I think first and foremost this will have a dramatic social and cultural impact. We already see a drastic and increasing separation between depevolped and non/under developed nations. As further advancements are made, this rift will even grow larger as only the most affluent countries will be able to benefit from new technologies. Quality of life, and then life span, and then evolutionary behaviors will be affected. Groups/nations that choose not to participate in some of these advances will form the new middle class of mankind. The superiority of the new upper class will cause prejudice, repression, and rebellion. While the middle and upper class battle for recognition and social equality, the lower class will fall further and further behind, eventually resulting in a new sub-species of human.
Do I really expect this to happen? Not really, but knowledge and technology can be very dangerous if not handled correctly.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Memory enhancement, an increased range of senses, dieting control and thought communication will all be on the market, while technology to allow for multi-dimensional thought will be at the planning stage.
Multi-dimensional thought is probably one of the most ideal enhancements humans could ever recive.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If people could change skin color or sexual preference by going to the doctor it would be hard to hate someone for that reason.
People change boob size by going to the doctor. There is a lot of irrational resentment, if not hatred, expressed for people who do that.
To my knowledge it is most widely accepted that sexuality arises from a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental factors. My take on it is that it doesn't matter whether it is genetic or environmental or downright chosen. People should have the right to pursue their own happiness with whatever consenting adult they choose. That's as far as the government should step into it.
I strongly suspect many things having to do with our personality will eventually be shown to be derived from genetic predisposition and environmental influence. Until that is provent not to be the case, I think questions of should only serve to hurt the people who are.
I agree that things won't happen in one fell swoop, but I disagree that people (in general, if that's what you meant) act like it's going to happen tomorrow. I think too many people act like it won't happen for a hundred years or more so thinking about it is a waste of time. To me, discussing it and planning for it now is the best way to avoid catastrophic problems down the road.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If people could change skin color or sexual preference by going to the doctor it would be hard to hate someone for that reason.
You could say both of these have been done. With examples like Micheal Jackson, and just general people who get sex changes. Though that isn't really sexual preference.
Also, does anyone know if having a photographic memory is a genetic 'disorder'? Are there any downsides to it?
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The kind of transhumanism I find more promising, because it raises fewer ethical dilemmas, is the use of cybernetics to enhance our abilities. The reason I prefer this to genetic modification is that it's more amenable to individual choice. Rather than the parents dictating which abilities the child develops, the individual can choose which augmentations he/she wants. To me, transhumanism is all about increasing the freedom of available options for the individual.
Of course I would absolutely be for removing provably dangerous genes prior to birth. And if the bio revolution takes off while electronics lag... well, I hope that doesn't happen.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's like the movie "Gattaca". They modified the genes in utero to remove any birth defects and any other physical imperfections like near-sightedness, asthma, dyslexia, and the like.
This reminds me Star Trek TNG where Geordi's visor is used to save a planet that has used genetic engineering to abort/fix genetic mutations--like the one Geordi has.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
That is an interesting article. I did have a problem with how the methodology used to get a deaf child was manipulated by the author.
quote: intentionally produced a child who cannot hear. The couple themselves are deaf and lesbian, so when a sperm bank would not provide them with a deaf donor, they found one themselves. "We wanted to increase our chances of having a baby who is deaf," one of them explained. And they succeeded-their baby is "quite deaf."
quote:. Now is the time to draw the line. Parents (or anyone else) must not be allowed to impose, genetically or otherwise, a harmful characteristic on their child.
quote: Wouldn't we condemn parents who took some tool and intentionally destroyed their child's ability to hear? If they do the same thing using genetic tools, as in effect this deaf couple did, our opposition should be equally strong.
It doesn't sound like any tools were used to create a deaf child. It doesn't sound like any genetic manipulation was used. They just screened who the donor would be.
When you get married, you screen who your spouse is. I dated a girl who had a muscular disorder, she had kids by a previous marriage and they did not have a disorder (tho the odds were against them). Her sister, on the other hand, had a child who did have the same disease (as the odds predicted).
Is the sister or her husband manipulating genes because she wanted kids? Does this author think she should not be allowed to have kids? What about the husband? He chose her--knowing they may have kids with disorders.
I think people should be free to choose who will be their partner in having kids. I am thinking of tradition marriage, and I agree the fact that the parents are lesbians who are hunting for sperm may cloud the issue.
I think the principal is similar--maybe even the same. They did not manipulate anything genetically to get a deaf child. They did choose a donor who was deaf. There was still a chance the child could have had hearing.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember an episode where Geordi once explained that in many ways his visor allowed him to see better than natural site would. The person he was talking to asked why everyone didn't choose to "upgrade". He gave some answer I thought was very lame like "People don't like to mess with things that aren't broken" or something like that. At any rate, I expect a society with technology like Star Trek would have many many people who chose the upgrade. Depending on the tradeoffs, I might be one myself. Not only that, but there should be no reason why sighted people could not be fitted with a visor like his that they could use when they wanted to and take off when they didn't need it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Most people with memories approaching this sort of thing have serious, life-long coping issues. Also, such things are frequently found linked to Asperger's, and many people so afflicted (with or without autistic spectrum disorders) struggle to form normal relationships, and... Geez I don't want to talk about this.
Just get it in your head that that most of the cool images or myths surrounding this sort of thing are FICTION. *runs away, screaming*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I expect a society with technology like Star Trek would have many many people who chose the upgrade... there should be no reason why sighted people could not be fitted with a visor like his that they could use when they wanted to and take off when they didn't need it.
I truly marvel at the possibilities that technology may offer us in the near future. But I also keep that optimism in check. I really don't think most people will have the luxury of choosing whether they want the latest breakthroughs in technology for themselves or for their children. Instead, I think it will be determined more on financial constraints. Because of the fact that over a billion people cannot even afford to be properly fed on a daily basis, I think it will be a long long time before the majority of earth's population will be able to afford the body enhancements, genetic filtering, or technological supplements that the upper class will take for granted. We already take for granted something as basic as clean water. I don't think that trend will change anytime soon.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of eidetic memory, I like the idea of having a 'playback' feature for the senses. You don't remember everything that ever happened to you, in the sense of being able to recall it and having your memories triggered by sense impressions, etc. But at any time you can re-experience any previous experiences you've had.
This was in a book by Greg Egan, and I imagine other authors have had the same idea.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, just to get some dissenting opinions out there, anyone interested in arguments against human augmentation should read this article by Leon Kass (chair of the dreaded President's Council on Bioethics).
posted
Transmetropolitan by Warren Ellis has a lot of intriguing futuristic post-human possibilities. I would voluntarily become a foglet, if it worked the way it does in the books. Whether or not that's actually physically possible regardless of technology advances is the larger problem, though.
I recently finished Neuromancer by William Gibson. It's a bit dated now, but still has some cool ideas of "enhancement" through surgical and genetic means. Mostly it's implant stuff.
But the question is an interesting one. Would people cross easily from cosmetic changes to functional ones? I say sure. I can imagine it being almost impossible not to in some situations.
If, for example, business people were able to be implanted with a face-to-name database, I can imagine how the pressure to never forget a client's name would just be unbearable. It'd brand the offender as a hopeless troglodyte or one who really didn't care about people, or whatever.
Similarly, can you imagine raising a child without access to a computer these days? Well, once computers become embedded circuitry, won't we all get them for our kids just so little Johnny doesn't get left behind? You'd almost have to just to prove you had your kid's best interests at heart. Heck, the government will have to give grants so that poor people can afford implants for their children. It'd be a mess otherwise.
"Normals" will be viewed like we think of people on those living history farms. Like "isn't it nice that they gave up their real life to entertain us."
Of course, the Amish will still have the best produce, dairy products and baked goods.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Phase two for them was colonizing other planets, but instead of terriforming the planets, they genetically engineer sub-species of themselves to be able to live on the planet. They even develop a sub-species nicknamed "angels" which live in the vacuum of space itself, using enormous solar sails shaped like wings to get around (and presumably are photosythetic).![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
sorry there Olivet. I didn't mean to strike a cord there.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
