I'm not philosophically opposed to freezing and then reanimating my gray, frozen corpse in a thousand years; and using advanced nano-slush to preserve my already fragile brain isn't particularly repulsive to me, but the logic of cryogenics escapes me.
In a possible future where it is actually possible to revive a pseudo-mummy, how would our beneficent post-cestors decide who to revive? More people would be put in the "deep-freeze" every year, the demand to be revived would always exceed the ability to do so. Even in an utopian society where kindness is perfectly subsidized, they would be forced to decide who would live. How would we repay the investment of a vastly more advanced society? By our labor, intellectual or physical.
Why are we even assuming that such an amazingly advanced society would want our worthless 21st century brains? They would already know that the standardized tests of intelligence left out a lot of essential information; and even people with exceptional native intelligence might be irretrievably damaged by our primitive educational processes.
At best the revived would be parochial curiosities:
"Zoo York" snapshot of the year 2010 with authentic inhabitants."
"Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and Manhattanites."
We would not be highly valued members of an advanced society; saying that we are signing ourselves up for slavery might be a bit strong, but I can see no instance in history where disoriented, unacculturated and vulnerable people are not taken advantage of.
La Siesta
Because of the Industrial Revolution, western rates of productivity are pretty high. But what about when rest of the world catches up? How are we going to eke out that last smidgen of production per person?
Napping, napping is the answer! Unfortunately, we don't take naps as a rule; and surely we all want to be more productive. Maybe napping just doesn't look productive, or a manic caffeine-orgy followed by it's inevitable depressive torpor feels more industrious.
Maybe we enjoy living in the clouds, simply floating, coasting on the magnificent pollution of the 19th century.
Now that we are assured that napping does in fact mean that we are resting our magnificent midbrains, instead of meaning that we are lazy louts------- the spanish will take over the world (again.)
The Japanese sometimes have special rooms for workers to nap in, and they seem to be doing okay. (haven't fallen of the edge of the earth, or become a third world nation or anything.)
Napping, napping is the answer! Unfortunately, we don't take naps as a rule; and surely we all want to be more productive. Maybe napping just doesn't look productive, or a manic caffeine-orgy followed by it's inevitable depressive torpor feels more industrious.
Maybe we enjoy living in the clouds, simply floating, coasting on the magnificent pollution of the 19th century.
Now that we are assured that napping does in fact mean that we are resting our magnificent midbrains, instead of meaning that we are lazy louts------- the spanish will take over the world (again.)
The Japanese sometimes have special rooms for workers to nap in, and they seem to be doing okay. (haven't fallen of the edge of the earth, or become a third world nation or anything.)
And Gauss said ..... Let there be lies
The study of probabilities is useful (and really cool,) but there's one problem; we allow uneducated people to read. Worse (and more harmfully) we actually allow them to own televisions; in this way an effective assault of meaningless numbers can be expertly aimed at uninformed bystanders.
Not that being ignorant of advanced statistics makes someone stupid. In this situation it's more like collateral damage: people buried under the numerological fallout from incendiary discussions; initiated in all likelihood by more "experts." (I'm not sure how many undergraduates you need to have bludgeoned into submission to qualify as an "expert.")
Leaving the actual manipulation and misrepresentation of data alone, there is still a bias towards agreement with previous results. It's difficult to adjust to new information.
There are people who just go along with the (possibly skewed) facts that they learned in college 10, 20 or 30+ years ago (I know and love people like this.)
Or possibly it's because even statisticians do not understand their own work.
So the same people who have (or have not) been educated (correctly or incorrectly,) are also allowed to vote; about subjects they may not know about, with a didactic method that is terribly confusing if you happen to have picked up your only smatterings on Rush Limbaugh, The Colbert Report, and NBC news. Actually some professors are just as confusing. I take it all back, Rush.
I'm pretty sure the only solution is to create a dictatorial intelligentsia, headed by the disembodied spirit of John Stuart Mill.
I have the right to disagree
Overcoming Bias on how it's free hearing not free speech. I disagree, but obviously my forum is.. limited. Illustrating my point.
Free speech is not simply a status-marker; the only thing it actually "marks" is the citizens' membership of an enlightened society.
The ability to speak does not mean that you are guaranteed listeners (that would be the status-marker in my opinion,) but it does provide some protection from the tyranny of the majority. "I should be able to speak my mind, even if no one in the world wants to listen to me." Perhaps, this explains the popularity of blogs.
It's perfectly rational to want to explain how you are right; even if your reasons for believing you are right are irrational. Sensible people realize that: if they are allowed to express themselves, others should be too. Otherwise, the whole construct wouldn't last very long.
Insert appropriate non-Voltaire quote. Even if the idealist rhetoric doesn't directly map onto reality, the end result is generally good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)