This seems like kind of a strange symposium:

There is a growing debate among conservative thinkers and pundits about whether Darwinian theory helps or harms conservatism and its public policy agenda. Some have argued forcefully that Darwin’s theory provides support for conservative positions on family life, economics, bioethics, and other issues, while others have countered that the effort to justify conservative policy positions on Darwinian grounds is fundamentally flawed. Does Darwin’s theory help defend or undermine traditional morality and family life? Does it encourage or discredit economic freedom? Is it a spur or a brake to utopian schemes to re-engineer human nature?

Doesn’t it matter whether or not the theory is valid? Is it only something to be discussed in terms of its effects on conservatism (or for that matter progressivism)? If it turns out that it somehow is harmful to traditional morality and family life (I’m not sure that the empirical evidence bears this out, even if it does in theory), does that mean that it shouldn’t be taught in science classes, even if it’s the best scientific explanation for the fossil record (and human behavior)? What is the point of this symposium?

Bernard Harcourt is finding some very interesting and powerful correlations between crime rates and institutionalization rates. And you can’t just look at prisons. I’m not an expert in the field, but I suspect that this may be groundbreaking, with some interesting implications for public policy.

At least I had a good excuse.

Readers may interpret that comment in any way they wish.

The disease may not be as destructive of memory as previously believed. That means that if they can come up with a cure, or ways of repairing the neuronal damage, people may be savable as the persons they were. This would reduce the attractiveness of the cryonics solution for them, if true.

[Update in the afternoon]

I should clarify that last sentence, per the question in comments. What I mean is that it would reduce the attractiveness of cryonics as a cure for Alzheimer’s. That is, if you believe that Alzheimer’s is destroying your mind, you’d like to preserve it before it’s all gone, so even though it’s currently illegal, it would be desirable to have yourself frozen now in the hope that they can repair you in the future, rather than the empty husk of the Alzheimer’s-addled you, from which all knowledge of who you are is gone.

This research provides an alternative. Let the mind go, if it can be brought back with future therapies, even before you’re suspended, without taking the risk on freezing it.

The disease may not be as destructive of memory as previously believed. That means that if they can come up with a cure, or ways of repairing the neuronal damage, people may be savable as the persons they were. This would reduce the attractiveness of the cryonics solution for them, if true.

[Update in the afternoon]

I should clarify that last sentence, per the question in comments. What I mean is that it would reduce the attractiveness of cryonics as a cure for Alzheimer’s. That is, if you believe that Alzheimer’s is destroying your mind, you’d like to preserve it before it’s all gone, so even though it’s currently illegal, it would be desirable to have yourself frozen now in the hope that they can repair you in the future, rather than the empty husk of the Alzheimer’s-addled you, from which all knowledge of who you are is gone.

This research provides an alternative. Let the mind go, if it can be brought back with future therapies, even before you’re suspended, without taking the risk on freezing it.

The disease may not be as destructive of memory as previously believed. That means that if they can come up with a cure, or ways of repairing the neuronal damage, people may be savable as the persons they were. This would reduce the attractiveness of the cryonics solution for them, if true.

[Update in the afternoon]

I should clarify that last sentence, per the question in comments. What I mean is that it would reduce the attractiveness of cryonics as a cure for Alzheimer’s. That is, if you believe that Alzheimer’s is destroying your mind, you’d like to preserve it before it’s all gone, so even though it’s currently illegal, it would be desirable to have yourself frozen now in the hope that they can repair you in the future, rather than the empty husk of the Alzheimer’s-addled you, from which all knowledge of who you are is gone.

This research provides an alternative. Let the mind go, if it can be brought back with future therapies, even before you’re suspended, without taking the risk on freezing it.

They may have found out what’s really killing the bees.

I never bought the cell phone theory, anyway. I know that those things have been getting smaller and smaller, but I don’t know how they would have gotten the bees to use them, or sign up for a twelve-month plan.

They may have found out what’s really killing the bees.

I never bought the cell phone theory, anyway. I know that those things have been getting smaller and smaller, but I don’t know how they would have gotten the bees to use them, or sign up for a twelve-month plan.

They may have found out what’s really killing the bees.

I never bought the cell phone theory, anyway. I know that those things have been getting smaller and smaller, but I don’t know how they would have gotten the bees to use them, or sign up for a twelve-month plan.

Carbon credits turn out to be bogus.

Well, so were the indulgences that the Church sold, that went and got Luther’s tonsure all in a knot. It’s just one more indication that this is about moralizing and religion, rather than science. In theory, though, you’d think that carbon credits would be more confirmable. I mean, you don’t have to wait until you’re dead to find out whether you got your money’s worth…