The invention of religion primarily eased the inevitability of death. As our lives unfolded, experiencing our own demise was a rather scary realization. There was nothing we could do other than developing elaborate comforting narratives for the unknown. This is how religious stories came to be.
We like to entertain the thought that Renaissance liberated us from the shackles of Religion. Our torment though was never spiritual but biological. Our brain evolution enslaved us. Reproduction, the primary immortal mechanism that seems to satisfy all other organisms, became inadequate for homo-sapiens.
Religion and philosophy exist because humans die. Transhumanism came to the scene for much the same reason. The only difference with the previous two human enquiries is that it came to replace the abstract ideological narrative with a conceptual material application.
Up in close examination, transhumanism is almost identical to Religion. The flawed human body seeks liberation from its own prison. Our thirst for perfection is never quenched. The immutable belief that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations by the means of science and technology is no different than trying to transcend from the flawed physical material to the mechanical and eternal. In essence, Religion 2.0.
I consider myself a polyatheist — there are many Gods I don't believe. Nonetheless, I have noticed a strong trend from people in neoatheist circles towards this transhumanism trend that I often come to disagree. My argument is that they have substituted one belief with another without even realizing it. No matter how much we proud ourselves for being atheists, we all believers to at least something.
There is really no reason a human being would wish to live forever nor we have any evidence that it is attainable. All the research in the field is nothing more than overhyped claims — no different than the blind belief a religious person has towards the claims of a holy books. The atheist has substituted the blind belief towards the pastor towards that of a scientist. In both cases, there is little information known. All ideas are build upon anecdotal evidence.
Have you considered eating just pizza for a week? How about a month? A year? How about eating the same pizza for 50 years? How about playing the same video game until you die? Not many people are able to properly rationalize the implications of such an act. This is also the primary reason most people are naively wishing for immortality.
When it comes to perceiving time our brains give up. Time is not only extremely relative but also elusive to the human experience. Our quest toward immortality is nothing more than a naive self-misunderstanding. If we did realize what it means to live forever we would never wish or pursue it.
We seek change and variety. This is after all the only absolute truth of the universe. Everything changes, always. Nonetheless, we like to entertain the idea of the eternal without realizing the magnitude of the torture that is entailed. In eternity, a prison's size is irrelevant. It does not matter if it is 5x5 meters or 5x5 light years. Eventually, everything will feel like eating the same pizza, over and over again — forever. No need to worry though. Immortality is contra to existence.
"The immutable belief that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations by the means of science and technology is no different than trying to transcend from the flawed physical material to the mechanical and eternal."
No different? I'd say that one, religion, is just a wish, and the other 'transhumanism' is an endeavor.
They are both wishes. They are both endeavors.
Under Mao, the Chinese learned that a picture of a plum is not the same thing as an actual plum. Indefinite life-span (with good health) is the plum I seek.
I explain in the article how seeking material immortality is no different than seeking immaterial immortality.
Indefinite life-span is torture and definitely a not good measure of health.
I guess we are misunderstanding each other. When I say 'indefinite life-span' I mean that one will be in a youthful state. (that's the goal) And that one will be able to punch his ticket (die) at a time of his own choosing.
I've read somewhere that even when biological immortality is possible (10 to 20 years from now.) that one will statistically die in an accident within 800 years.
But when the technology does come, and I think it will, I earnestly hope that those who want it, will not be stopped from achieving a much longer and much healthier life-span.
Cheers.
Even if that happens then being "alive" really will have no point. If you could just switch off without pain (assuming the technology exists) then really all the experiences you could live as a human being with the appropriate receptors will be limited.
Remember. We already trippled our lifespan and most of us are miserable and depressed as fuck.
Technically, we can already just "switch off".
Euthanasia is becoming legal in more and more places, and improvised forms can also be done without pain (given basic knowledge of biology and access to the proper components).
Though our society is in no way close to accepting that some people might be allowed to kill themselves.
Mainly because, given we can't see the future, we can't evaluate if someone is in a temporary state of suicidal ideas or if they'll be miserable wrecks forever is they aren't allowed to end their life.
Why would the possible experiences we could live be limited if we could just switch off ?
We might just enter into "contracts" with significant others making it so they dedicate X or Y years with the other, and none of them are allowed to end their life during that time, or the decision must be mutual.
And keep the extreme prejudice against taking one's own life alive in said contractual life periods, where a person has pretty much sworn they'll stay alive for said period.
I personally think I'd have a blast as an immortal. I'd have time to learn all the skills, be they artistic or scientific.
Explore the world (and possibly the universe).
Write/read a ton of books...
There's LOTS to do.
Of course, it depends on if we're still under the same "work to live, and don't you dare stray or we ostracize you" society we have today, or more of a "machines that synthesize food or build basic shelter/amenities are a dime a dozen and the universe is open to us" society.
We've got to work on a lot of stuff before being immortal is something that'll actually be worth it, once the hype has gone down (say, after the first 30 years).
I'm sorry but this is pure nonsense. Of course there's a difference between transhumanism and religion. Transhumanism is based on science and facts whereas religion is based on bullshit.
There's nothing "religious" about getting chips implanted, having prosthetic limbs, controlling machines with our thoughts and synthetic neurons communicating with biological neurons. These are all factual things that currently exist. Now, given that these things currently exist, it's also completely factual that these technologies will continue to improve, just like every other technology.
Everything about transhumanism is based on scientific fact - from living in Matrix like virtual realities using brain computer interfaces (BCIs) to becoming immortal synthetic minds living in orbit around stars - they're all progressions of current technologies with no laws of physics preventing their creation.
Ignoring synthetic immortality for a moment, we do in fact have biological evidence that immortality is biologically possible - the immortal jellyfish. Also, to claim that people have no reason to want to live forever is every bit as stupid as claiming that people have no reason to want to live at all. Do you see everyone lining up to kill themselves because I don't. I most certainly want to live forever and my reasons are many, I just don't want to live forever as a decrepit senile pensioner.
This is complete and utter bullshit and makes it obvious you haven't even bothered to look into these claims. Are synthetic neurons bullshit? Are brain computer interfaces bullshit? Are age reversal experiments that have rejuvenated mice bullshit? Are prosthetic limbs bullshit?
No it isn't, don't be so ridiculous. Why would anyone want to play the same video game until they die when they can play every an new game whenever they want. On the Internet, is there just one site that people can visit. Of course not, people make new sites every day. As a synthetic immortal, you wont just have access to to 1 virtual reality, you will have access to an infinitude of virtual realities where absolutely anything is possible because they will all have their own laws of physics which could be vastly different from our own. You wont be limited to virtual reality either. What's to stop a synthetic mind from building themselves a spaceship body to travel around the galaxy in? Distance between stars and the time it would take to travel between them? Why would those things matter to an immortal with access to an infinitude of virtual realities ?
Posts like this annoy the crap out of me because you've given no actual thought to the subject as evidenced by your pizza paragraph.
Death denial sets you off to the dark side! And makes you ugly to boot.
:)
I think you are asserting a connection between enhancing human bodies with technology and seeking and more importantly expecting immortality without demonstrating or at least explaining why that is the case. In a way you are substituting the variety of reasons people might be fascinated by the idea with an unreasonable conviction that immortality is inevitable. You are basically debating a belief or an attitude that is marginal at best.
On the other hand, I kind of agree with your second idea, that given enough time, existence itself will become a boring chore. If I had the option for avoiding death for as long as I wanted, I wouldn't mind giving it shot. You always have suicide as a way out, right?
Just as a curious but not really relevant counter-example, I have a friend that has already survived decades on Pizza Margarita almost exclusively and a baked potato or two from time to time. I'm not talking about just the same pizza every day, but the exact same pizza from the exact same place every meal. He is forced to eat other stuff from time to time for health or practical reasons, but if it was up to his preferences alone, it would be pizza every single time. A few decades later (which is of course nothing compared to eternity) he doesn't seem to be slowing down or getting bored or tired of eating the exact same food. He thinks he's found the perfect thing to eat and has already enjoyed it thousands of times.
I agree with your criticism. But oh boy, I can't picture a human being eating the same thing for years.
Right! I really have no clue how he keeps it up without getting absolutely fed up with it and I actually have no clue how he stays healthy either. I guess a pizza Margarita actually has pretty much everything you need for a balanced diet... who knew :P
until it doesn't. I don't think so. he is eating other things as well
I wasn't serious about that, I was trying to make a joke, obviously unsuccessfully. I already mentioned that he eats other stuff sometimes because he too realizes that this type of diet has zero chance of being healthy and even sustainable on its own. The fascinating thing is that if it was up to him and there were no health implications , he would really stick to this food item exclusively.
answering too many comments. Got me caught up I guess.
It happens, not a big deal at all. Also the quality of my "joke" surely helped the confusion :P
After watching that episode of black mirror, im super ready to be uploaded into a computer walking on a beach for the rest of eternity
at this point ill even take having my conciousness being uploaded into R2D2 and rolling around earth for the next thousand years if i could
What makes you think is any different than walking inside a prison room for 1000 years?
Very Interesting
God is anything that you accept as the ultimate truth, how you connect to that is your religion. Or not!
Seems like some of you here made logic and reasoning your religion, same bull shit a mortal or inmortality discussion through logical thinking, (marcusorlyius and kyriacos).
Not because you are well documented and have good semantics and charm my subjectiveness is out of existence; or immortality or mortality themselves; or whatever some humans want or some others don´t.
So, whatever! Its a nice interesting disrupting article.
Good for discussions but no conclusions.
religion is just controlling people...
I get your opinion but you're missing the bigger picture...
I don't think it was intended to be about controlling people but as a whole, religion has definitely served many purposes and not all of them have been righteous.
Religion is very multifaceted; belief itself isn't inherently controlling, but states - especially imperialist ones - will always take advantage of religious (and whatever else they can) to control people. Religion is seldom the true evil, whatever or whoever is exploiting it for their own gain is.
I agree. Many people like to say that money is inherently evil as well but it falls into the same boat. Originally it was just an abstraction layer for trading.
Money I'm less certain on. I don't find it inherent either I suppose, but it has functionally led to a lot of bad events and situations that likely could never happen otherwise. I think most of the bad from religion, on the other hand, could have come from other places.
An idea that a think people don't parse out enough is that the gnostic/agnostic thing is a modifier that can be applied to atheism or theism. I think sureness about things we can't really ever have knowledge of (especially not in any complete way) is a bigger folly than believing or not believing in gods or no gods, so whether one is an atheist and transhumanist or a theist, anything other than agnosticism is pretty foolish. As I once read, "religion is philosophical suicide"; this goes for pseudo-scientific religion as much as more the transparently spiritual.
Interesting, I definitely agree with the last statement. Sometimes I think it is just very dangerous. I feel bad for people that really are looking for something and lose so much of their valuable time chasing the dreams and fictions of a "guru" only to realize this after it is too late. Time can't be recovered.
Yeah, it's better to use ideas you come across for contemplation and reflection, your devotion should be saved for the values that you resonate and identify with, not those imposed on you. Take everything that can't be known with a grain of salt.
I agree. Additionally, there can be nuggets of very important concepts hidden within and I think it becomes very hard for most people, including myself, to sort through what has value and what is fantastical.
A lot of it has to do with determining origins, although that can vary anywhere between self-evident and impossible, and often fall somewhere in the middle requiring significant research or contemplation.
Immortality would be the greatest torture in the entire universe. Living forever is indeed contra existence as you wisely put it in your post. However I don't agree with you on the relgious part. Religion (initially) isn't something invented to ease our pain on this planet filled with sorrow and suffering. Later it was (ab)used, I agree on that part but I believe religion is much broader than that. Religion however is in my opinion separated from the church. I despise what 'religion' (as we know it today) has become and I understand why a lot of people (including you) have lost faith. Initially I did so too but things in my life have happened that can't be explained by science. Faith is much broader than death, atleast for me personally. How do you think everything we know came to creation. What do you think the period prior to the creation of the universe was like? Was there nothing? Surely something can't be made out of nothing, right?
You need to complete this rhyme of thought.
I think this is rather irrelevant. Religion and church go together. A church is nothing more than the group of people who abide to one religion. I didn't really lose faith. I rather have trouble finding things to believe. This applies beyond religion.
If it cannot be explained by Science it does mean that can be explained from Religion.
How do you think the creator came to be then?
including the creator.... If you can assume that a creator always existed then you can assume that existence always existed and there is no grand design to it. If a puddle woke up tomorrow it would assume that the tree exists so it cannot evaporate, the animals need it because they drink from it. Anything can have a central part in universe and assume that things have been designed for it. This is nothing but a delusion.
Wow a very interesting post, I liked it
Hahah!! But cheeseburgers for 50 years and you gotta deal!! best read today!!! thank you! lol
I dear you to try it for a month. The same cheeseburger, for all meals.
Yeah immortality is more like a curse than a blessing.
Never heard of polyatheist, so I guess you are monotheist ;)
I hope Q comes back to the new series or film arc
The fact that you never heard the tern is does not mean that I am a monotheist. We are all polyatheists. There are many Gods we don't believe. Most just happen to believe in one.
Do you have any more info about this?
Don't think Q is coming back, he never even made it to the films. I thought his character was awesome!
Immortality might be a bit much but I wouldn't mind a few hundred extra years. Having the choice when to end it would make a big difference. Also I could do without getting old, sick, and miserable.
Living over and over the same experiences would make you feel old, sick and miserable.
Why are you making the assumption that people would live the same experience over and over given that they'd basically be able to experience anything they wanted any time they wanted?
because when you have an infinite amount of time you will end exploring an infinite amount of possibilities.
forever.
logic. use it.
If people have an infinite amount of time and are exploring an infinite amount of possibilities, they're quite obviously not experiencing the same thing over and over again.
Logic - something you clearly don't possess.
Experience is not infinite though. There comes a time where a carbon atom will look much like a carbon atom no matter if you found it here or on the other side of the universe.
Infinite amount of possibilities =/= infinite amount of matter
There is only that much matter and if you look at the periodic table of elements, only so many combinations.
sigh. don't make me ridicule you like that.
Really??? Why is the human being so arrogant in thinking he knows everything in the universe? Are you saying that there are no more elements because they are not in the Periodic Table? Think twice, please.
And to think there is an limited amount of possibilities is to be pretty closed minded.
Edit: Of ocurse, you have a limited life but that is something else.
That was your argument, not mine. I merely proved how flawed your logic was.
Completely irrelevant to what I said.
I never said it did. /shrug
So what? What's this got to do with anything I said?
With that pile of irrelevant nonsense? I don't even know what the hell your blabbering on about and I suspect you don't either.
That's why I figure a few hundred years would be a good compromise. I mean, there are well over half a million books published each year, so at a book a week it would take me 1000 years to read one year's output. Plus I'd like to write a few hundred. I'd also like to master the piano and the drums, learn to paint worth a damn, travel extensively and meet lots of people, finally attain my pilot's license, maybe go back to college. Maybe even have a kid or two, if I knew it wasn't going to take up my whole lifetime.
So I don't know, I'd rather decide for myself when I was bored enough to pull the plug.
most books will look the same. I experience this even today after having read some books. most people repeat themselves because really, there is not much one can come up with other than mostly repeating what others have said before him.
Religiousness, it seems to me, is different. I, for example, do not believe in God-Father. But I know for sure, that there are Higher Powers and Higher Knowledge, that help us in this world and to which we can turn for help=)
Like? Also. How do you know?
Just know. Feel with my heart and my feminine intuition. I am a good conductor and transmitter of feelings with advanced empathy (I so think). Try to live My the heart)
I like this paper
This is a screen
good post
plise followback...
done
Masterly written! Your philosophy concept on life and immortality..incredible!
Good postinanga and meaningful greetings from me @abupasi.alachy
I find your thoughts on this topic very interesting to say the least, has your perspective on this topic ever been different? What about religion, have you believed the the way you do about that all your life? You said time is extremely relative, but so to is human perception. This comment is not a "your wrong" statement, you very well could be right. Do you believe that there is a chance you might be wrong, if you can do that then that is a good thing. To be completely not open to the possibility that one could wrong about their belief, is a sign of ignorance. It does not mean that you don't believe what you think, it just leaves room for the possibility. I do indeed agree to immorality being a prison, but from a whole different perspective. Each sentient being has to wake up to the true nature of reality, and our ignorance is the reason why we don't wake up. Humans are already immortal, they just don't know it. I may be wrong, but it just what I have come to understand from my perspective and level of ignorance. Thank you.
I used to be a believer. After I researched the subject of religion I found it hard to believe.
Ofcource but there is no evidence to suggest that I am.
Well, have you considered that you are wrong about this and that our reality is all there is? What can be implied without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Do you have any falsifiable evidence for this?
No I don't have evidence, for you, but I have proven it for myself. There is no way for me to prove it to you, this is a tricky thing about Buddhism. but I also always keep in mind that I may be wrong, that my ignorance may be blinding me to the real truth of all of existence. The fact that I don't have to believe everything in Buddhism is something I really like about it. Evidence and proof are scientific attributes, the religion of science demands this absolute. Everyone including you are fighting to define their existence, and maybe just maybe, their existence is what they want it to be? Your reality is you and you alone, your perception counts really for you only! So many people want to feel like they have the answer, not for others but for themselves. A never ending drive to prove they are in control of there existence, for when they don't they feel lost. I am wrong and I am right every day, even at the same time. Again I am not saying you are wrong an anyway, but you very well could be even with the religion of science. Its your truth, your reality, your perception, and even with all the evidence that you have, it is still only your interpretation of that evidence. Just like the interpretation of a religious book. I know for myself that there are things out in this reality, way more complicated then our small interaction on earth. We as ignorant beings have such a little window to see the bigger picture. Look at what an ant comprehends compared to what we comprehend, do really think the buck stops at us. That even our notion of time itself is an anyway really what is going on. It quite frankly is beyond our comprehension just like the ant.
I mean no disrespect, I really enjoy talking about things like this. I am sorry if I come off angry, I promise i'm not just passionate about the topic. You have given me a gift, and thank you for that. I enjoy the going back and forth with peoples point of view.
Shared to Steemit Twitter
I am completely against Transhumanism. Especially because its roots are Eugenics. And that quest for immortality in which they are, is only the desire they have to resemble God completely. Yes, because we are made in the image and likeness of God but we are not immortal like him .... Transhumanism is a way to achieve it according to the transhumanists.
I also find it very stupid and especially boring to live forever. Unfortunately when I knew what Transhumanism was and from where it came I realized also that some of my "artistic" heroes were also transhumanists as well as the messages in their work.
That is quite irrelevant though since being against it doesn't necessarily stop it. It will continue happening. We have been doing it for millenia.
I only expressed my opinion about transhumanism, nothing more. It is not my intention to stop it somehow, not that I or anyone else can. At least I know my position, most people do not even know what it is.
And yet Transhumanism is not even 100 years old for your information. I'm sure you know it but you are so arrogant sometimes that I really like to correct you now :D
And why you say "We"? Are you transhumanist?
I wouldn't say that immortality is contra to existence. One can live a meaningless existence. I will agree that without the limitation of time, things become meaningless. Our decisions lose weight and simply become irrelevant markers in the passage of time. Even with our limited lifespans we waste a lot of time in anticipation of future events, when we would value that time more if those future events were less of a certainty.
How can you logically make such a statement when nobody has ever experienced such a situation?
Perhaps, I should have worded that better and thought it out a little more. A specific event's meaning tends to decrease over time. I can and have experienced that in my finite life. Today, my experience of 11th birthday will mean more to me than that same birthday twenty years from now, unless some future event makes that birthday important somehow.
Given that the human's capacity to hold memories is finite (although it could be expanded), these specific events in an infinite timeline, a finite distribution becomes thinner and thinner until it approaches zero.
However, this point is mistaken. For people value the recent over the distant (in my experience). Thus, one's life could view the distribution skewed towards the recent and disregard the past. A specific moment in one's past could lose all of it's meaning, but one could continue to value repetitive things as they become novel once again over the passage of time. I could enjoy eating an infinitive number of pizzas as long as I spaced the experiences out.
Although, I can't definitively say this is fact, this argument appears to be plausible given prior although limited experience.
That's a much a better response. I like the fact you mention that our capacity to store memories could be increased. Another solution would be to dump those memories to permanent long-term storage just like a computer would.
Imagine replacing your neurons with synthetic neurons Ship of Theseus style. If we did that, we wouldn't have to stop when we've converted all the biological neurons, we could simply add new synthetic neurons and expand our intelligence and memory capacity. Is there a size limit to that expansion? Is it possible for me to to become a solar system sized synthetic brain? If so, then we won't even be able to imagine the possibilities that would open any more than an ant can imagine what humans are capable of.
I find it mind-boggling that some people think they could experience everything and would get bored.
Again, you fail to grasp the larger picture. Perhaps Dr. Manhattan can help once more
I have to agree with other replies here. Religion and transhumanism are entirely different. Religion is thought, belief and faith in the promise of eternal life. Transhumansism is the usage of science and technology to improve life, regardless of length.
We are talking about the similarity of the process here. Not the similarity of the concepts.
"The invention of religion primarily eased the inevitability of death."
Maybe religion was not invented in the first place. Religion could be a byproduct of some unknown psychological mechanisms we are currently not conscious of.
To me immorality is a state of mind though.
Religion. What is it?
I regard it as "morality" in ones relations with God, or the gods, or the Holy. In other words, it is giving God his due, just as morality is giving ones fellow human being his due.
So what is pseudo-religion? Pseudo-morality would probably be amorality: treating ones companions with no morality at all, which does not mean necessarily being immoral. But to treat the companions without reference to any moral measures at all: rewarding evil acts, punishing good acts, arbitrarily and randomly.
So a pseudo-religion would be treating the Holy as if it were not Holy, God as if He were not God (or gods). It would be akin to having a blasphemous attitude to God/the Holy.
I've noticed that "religion" has become synonymous with, "evil, oppressive social structure". It has come closer to "morality" or "immorality" in that it measures religion against human freedom and realization, as if religion were essentially inimical to humanity. But "moral" and "immoral" are terms presupposing human beings and relationships among them. These are the correct terms applied to oppressive social structures. "Religion" is not about priests or pontiffs or witch doctors, but of the divinity beyond these human beings.
"Religion", if it is to have any useful meaning at all, should not be diluted to "morality", but must keep its fundamental connection with the divine, whatever the "divine" is understood to be.
I think what's happening is that the divine is so forgotten or reduced to human or material reality, that it's getting confused with morality. Atheism is swallowing up all perception of the "holy". And in the absence of the Holy, "religion" is left with only earthbound connotations and denotations. It is conceptually diluted and destroyed.
I write this note because the post seems to make no indication of what the author means by "religion". I read that "religion" comes from death. It is a form of fear, I suppose.
I think some people have a more positive take on the reality of religion.
religion is the pinion of the masses! many have used it as shackles to imprison people.
I want to live until I decide to no longer live. I hope that scientists figure out how to do this. I have no faith that they will, but I have hope.
With religion you have "faith" that it is all as you "hope". I do not agree that they are the same.
I respect you decision to die and I respect the decision to live forever. The choice is not ours at the moment, but in the future I hope it will be so.
Even though I had never given much thought on the subject of immortality I feel like this is the point where I would end up as well. Great post, you seem like a person who actually makes the effort to hold on to an opinion and doesn't just pick one.
See your post mentioned here
@kyriacos buen artículo y digno de discusión, te sigo!
Puedes dar una vuelta y visitar mi blog.
https://steemit.com/relicion/@cyclope/que-es-la-salvacion-para-el-hijo-de-dios
https://steemit.com/@cyclope
This post reminds me of the words of Vernor Vinge:
"A mind that stays at the same capacity cannot live forever; after a few thousand years it would look more like a repeating tape loop than a person. To live indefinitely long, the mind itself must grow ... and when it becomes great enough, and looks back ... what fellow-feeling can it have with the soul that it was originally?
Transhumanism also involves growth, you don't touch this aspect in your post.
growth is irrelevant in eternity.
Why? Things could grow and change eternally. And there might be no eternity, compared to the human scale yes, but absolutely maybe not.
We wouldn't be any different than a rock at that point. we would be indifferent to anything.
Yes, like the Troglodytes in Borges "The Immortal". But I don't see the connection to the discussion we started here. Your (and Borges) thoughts assume immortality without growth.
There can't be any growth as some point. The periodic table of elements only has that many elements and only a few combinations can be made in an infinite time.
But then you also have to consider that the universe will not be inhabitable indefinitely, the entropy is growing, the hydrogen necessary for nuclear fusion in the stars will be depleted at some point and so on. Once we leave the human time scale this has to be taken into account. There is some question what can happen in the limit. Altogether I think that it is an interesting thought experiment of you (and Borges), but it cannot serve, at least in this simple form, as refutation of transhumanism.
Nice article !!! please share this immoral case @ spain - check this for population freedom:
https://steemit.com/corruption/@rayandoelimi/spain-presiden-becomes-a-segwit-26th-of-july-2017-corruption-world-tour-2017-politics-news-lmao
Let me illustrate this theme.
https://steemit.com/art/@bronkong/galactic-poetry-start-you-week-with-some-creativity