I agree that neurosuspension is better than nothing, but I disagree that whole body is for suckers. This is a topic that’s been going on for years in cryonics discussions.
We simply don’t know how much of our identity is in our body, as opposed to simply our brains. For instance, I suspect that there is a lot of distributed motor intelligence in athletes and musicians — when I play an instrument (or for that matter, simply type on a keyboard) I have a sense that my hands aren’t being directly controlled by the brain, but are rather receiving higher-level commands issued by the brain that are implemented at a lower level, based on local memory. I don’t know that to be the case, but if you can afford to keep the whole body, it might end up being worth not having to reacquire old skills.
…has been cryonically suspended.
Given the horror of ALS, it seems like the best bet.
Are there any good arguments against it?
I say that if they want to have militarized equipment, they should get it only on condition that they have ubiquitous cameras, with no ability to withhold recordings other than to protect victims’ identities.
Some thoughts from Cracked’s David Wong.
This is where I differ with Lileks (and Virginia Postrel). I have no desire to customize anything. To me it’s pointless work. Perhaps because I have absolutely no artistic talent (at least visually) or even that much aesthetic sensibility. My computer screen has the same background that was installed with the OS. I did put an effect on my phone when I first got it, because I was playing around with it to see how it all worked, but I’ve never downloaded, let alone paid for, a ring tone. Or a fancy case. I really just don’t care.
This could be an interesting series. Hope they don’t screw it up.
By “man,” they mean humans, of course.
What will we do if and when there are no more jobs?
It’s long, and too much there to pick out a quote, but worth the read.
As I’ve noted before, Marxism is not a discipline, or even an ideology, really. It’s an attitude founded in envy and a grasping for power. Simply put, if you believe your judgment of someone else’s need to be superior to their own, and are willing to enforce it at the point of a gun, you are a Marxist. And that attitude describes a large majority of Democrats, and far too many Republicans.
I’m always amused by scientists who don’t understand their own epistomological assumptions and foundations.
[Update a while later, after going out to get a haircut...]
Link was missing. Fixed now, sorry.
Are they already here?
What’s behind all these surprising numbers? I can’t say, but it’s hard not to notice that a decline in destructive behavior associated with peer pressure has happened at the same moment that the US became a fully wired nation.
Now that broadband access is nearly universal — 78% of homes, and that’s not counting all the schools and library and Wi-Fi hotspot connections available to most kids with minimal effort — restless youth don’t have to go along with whatever the local knuckleheads are up to.
They can find their community of likeminded souls online, and an unintended consequence of their tinkering with YouTube videos or playing “Call of Duty” with a buddy in Mexico City, they’re staying in. As a frustrated barman in England, where pubs have been closing in huge numbers, put it to The Economist, “Kids these days just want to live in their f- – – ing own little worlds in their bedrooms watching Netflix and becoming obese.” That sounds right, but at least no one ever got pregnant from eating Cheetos.
How are young people turning out politically? They’re liberal Democrats . . . who sometimes sound an awful lot like conservative Republicans.
I don’t really care whether or not they’re Republicans, as long as they’re vehemently not Democrats.
[Update a while later]
This seems related, somehow: How the Left got boring.
Sorry, first link was broken. Should be fixed now.
Leftists who falsely call themselves liberal believe it’s a dirty word. Because people who are allowed to make a profit aren’t dependent on them.
Why they need to talk to each other:
Most of climate science is in ‘shut up and calculate’ mode. This is a very dangerous place to be given the substantial uncertainties, ignorance and areas of disagreement, not to mention the problems/failures of climate models. Climate science needs reflection on the fundamental assumptions, re-interpretations, and deeper thinking. How to reason about the complex climate system, and its uncertainties, is not at all straightforward. And then of course there are the ethical issues, including understanding how the climate debate has gone so badly wrong.
Yes, yes it is.
What it isn’t:
…journalists cover complex things they don’t know about all the time, and this is usually okay because they research and talk to people who do know about it.
Unless, of course, they’re writing about libertarians.
Not only do you not have to know the first thing about libertarianism to cover it for major news outlets, it is perfectly fine to a) decline to ask anybody who does know, b) make up your own version of what it is, and then c) lament the terribleness of this terrible philosophy or people you have just created. Cases in point: approximately every 10th article published by Salon, this piece by Damon Linker at The Week.
A lot of people seem to have difficulty with the concept of liberty.
It’s a mystery:
As one participating scientist points out, to miss the mark by so much means what we understand about the universe is fundamentally wrong. The universe continues to be exciting, a little scary, but mostly—a mystery.
And yet some have the hubris to tell us they can predict the temperature of the planet and level of the seas decades from now.
The new Planet of the Apes movie appears to be quite disturbing. [Warning: Spoilers]
How he gets it wrong.
Always good advice, in any field of endeavor. Sadly, it doesn’t happen that much in education these days.
Since we were discussing philosophy the other day, Lileks has some thoughts:
The article concerns the anti-Semitism of Heidegger, and how the publication of recent texts the philosopher intended to be the capstone of his output reveals that he didn’t have the easy, lazy cultural anti-Semitism of the era, but really, really thought hard on how the Jews were putting the stick to the decent noble Volk. Not just any kind of Jews, though: worldwide jewry! It’s the richest kind.
..Anything that starts out with “Russia and America are the same” is the product of a mind so high in the clouds it cannot tell the different between red and black ants. But while Russia did indeed have “unrestricted organization of the average man,” an inevitable consequence of the state’s politicization of the entire society, you could say Germany under Hitler had a smattering as well. Or a gerschmatturung, to use Heidegger’s word. Just kidding; he doesn’t. But the article is full of German words intended to set off a Concept, as though expressing a concept in a train-wreck of consonants makes it important. I suppose the point is to be accurate, use the terms the author uses so there can be no misunderstanding. But for my part that would require anything close to comprehension, and I cannot grasp a lot of what Heidegger is talking about, perhaps because there seems to be no point in understanding what he’s saying.
Philosophy isn’t useless, but some philosophers are. Or worse than.
Hey, guys, please stop saying dumb things about it.
It may be a futile battle, but I’ll certainly keep tilting at the windmill. The Left is not liberal.
It turns out that classical liberals (i.e., libertarians) are smarter than both.