Contrary to what my previous post might indicate, I don't take a particular stand on the ethics/practicability of cryogenics. It was just a slow day, and I had nothing better to do than badmouth transhumanists.
So, this being a similarly slow day: The Virtuosi had a post on cryopreservation, and the best bet for successful cryogenics still seems to me to be vitrification. But a 90% success rate is not very good if you are freezing a whole person; not many people would be happy with only 9/10 of their brain cells (though there are a few where I don't think it would matter...)
You need to try things on a smaller scale and then extend the concept, but with the speed that's required (the heat equation holds doesn't it? no idea, that's what I get for writing blog posts rather than taking freshman physics) how do you avoid damaging a small, but essential part of so large a whole?
Much better to try and hibernate through World War III. I think it is far more practical , there have been real successes with small mammals. I always thought chemically-induced suspended-animation was a better bet; and of course that's the definition of someone who's right: "someone who agrees with me."
Anyway this post was more about the logistics and practical limits of cryopreservation, than the social effects (not that I'm qualified, but I still feel that people don't cover as much of that as they should.)
Homo Hypocriticus (why lie?)
Robin Hanson's homo hypocriticus has something missing---- I don't know what to call it, but it's missing.....
False but non-detrimental-signaling (just rolls off the tongue doesn't it?)
Self-evaluation bias, perhaps? If someone believes they are a good person and attributes their actions to an altruistic motive, this may not be accurate, but is consistent with their other delusions (everyone being smarter, more attractive and a better astrophysicist than average.)
Maybe, some people do X because of Y (i.e. are "genuine,") then because other people want to be trusted (Z) they do Y. If the Z'rs don't break faith on other matters, their usurpation of the title X'rs might not be believed, but it may increase trust (which in turn could improve the outcome of interactions, and feeds into the "X fantasy")
Such lies may not increase productivity or societal stability, but they are easier to "maintain" than the truth, perhaps that partially explains the pervasive errors in determining causality.
False but non-detrimental-signaling (just rolls off the tongue doesn't it?)
Self-evaluation bias, perhaps? If someone believes they are a good person and attributes their actions to an altruistic motive, this may not be accurate, but is consistent with their other delusions (everyone being smarter, more attractive and a better astrophysicist than average.)
Maybe, some people do X because of Y (i.e. are "genuine,") then because other people want to be trusted (Z) they do Y. If the Z'rs don't break faith on other matters, their usurpation of the title X'rs might not be believed, but it may increase trust (which in turn could improve the outcome of interactions, and feeds into the "X fantasy")
Such lies may not increase productivity or societal stability, but they are easier to "maintain" than the truth, perhaps that partially explains the pervasive errors in determining causality.
The US Human Rights Record of 2009
I can't decide whether to laugh or cry; I'll settle for conflicted amusement.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/12/content_9582821_8.htm
"In the United States, civil and political rights of citizens are severely restricted and violated by the government."
I think this speaks for itself.
".....workers' economic, social and cultural rights cannot be guaranteed."" Workers' rights were seriously violated."
So the lack of involuntary associations has really hurt the American workforce?
"Racial discrimination is still a chronic problem of the United States." They're right on this point; we should stop calling everyone different from us "Yangguizi."
"We hereby advise the US government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field."
This reminds me of everything I both love and hate about China.
I lived in China when I was very small; and don't remember much, but I've heard many stories. Though it was in the western part of China; I would hope that the coasts would be a bit more civil and cosmopolitan, though the bureaucrats don't seem to be.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/12/content_9582821_8.htm
"In the United States, civil and political rights of citizens are severely restricted and violated by the government."
I think this speaks for itself.
".....workers' economic, social and cultural rights cannot be guaranteed."" Workers' rights were seriously violated."
So the lack of involuntary associations has really hurt the American workforce?
"Racial discrimination is still a chronic problem of the United States." They're right on this point; we should stop calling everyone different from us "Yangguizi."
"We hereby advise the US government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field."
This reminds me of everything I both love and hate about China.
I lived in China when I was very small; and don't remember much, but I've heard many stories. Though it was in the western part of China; I would hope that the coasts would be a bit more civil and cosmopolitan, though the bureaucrats don't seem to be.
Unlike most people you'd understand this post
Appealing to people's vanity is a time-honored method of salesmanship.
Trying appeal to people of average or below average intelligence, or "smart people" who are terribly insecure will cover a lot of ground. In fact the only sections of society to which it does not appeal, are the small portions of secure, very intelligent people or weirdly disconnected unassimilated mavericks1.
While not exactly subtle, this propaganda is effective. It's also useful even when trying to sell an idea, instead of a product. Why else would anyone endure lengthy pseudo-intellectual books, lectures or articles, except for the fact that they have been told that's what smart people do:
"Smart people don't enjoy television, smart people don't like video-games, smart people like James Joyce." The more suggestible (not necessarily the same as 'less intelligent') accept these arguments and act as if having "intellectual tastes" increases your native intelligence. I do not find this particularly bothersome, unless I have to interact with someone who actually believes that reading Salinger or Margaret Sanger makes them smarter than the rest.
Truly "smart people" seem to be able to wring out a lot of intellectual goodness from the most barren and unappealing mental spaces, and are able successfully interact with less intelligent people; being an "intellectual" however guarantees neither of these abilities and seems to preclude them.
1. For the record: I hate the term maverick, because true mavericks are almost universally hated, so slightly daring and endearing term "maverick" is never used to describe them. I also really hate notes and references
in addition, for contrarians like myself there is: http://youarenotsosmart.wordpress.com/
Trying appeal to people of average or below average intelligence, or "smart people" who are terribly insecure will cover a lot of ground. In fact the only sections of society to which it does not appeal, are the small portions of secure, very intelligent people or weirdly disconnected unassimilated mavericks1.
While not exactly subtle, this propaganda is effective. It's also useful even when trying to sell an idea, instead of a product. Why else would anyone endure lengthy pseudo-intellectual books, lectures or articles, except for the fact that they have been told that's what smart people do:
"Smart people don't enjoy television, smart people don't like video-games, smart people like James Joyce." The more suggestible (not necessarily the same as 'less intelligent') accept these arguments and act as if having "intellectual tastes" increases your native intelligence. I do not find this particularly bothersome, unless I have to interact with someone who actually believes that reading Salinger or Margaret Sanger makes them smarter than the rest.
Truly "smart people" seem to be able to wring out a lot of intellectual goodness from the most barren and unappealing mental spaces, and are able successfully interact with less intelligent people; being an "intellectual" however guarantees neither of these abilities and seems to preclude them.
1. For the record: I hate the term maverick, because true mavericks are almost universally hated, so slightly daring and endearing term "maverick" is never used to describe them. I also really hate notes and references
in addition, for contrarians like myself there is: http://youarenotsosmart.wordpress.com/
Nerd Jokes!
"I thought d(jerk)/dt was yank."
from nerdy_yo_mamma_jokesI love that someone did these, although the black hole and gravitational jokes lack imagination.
I just might start using reddit because of this. I love reading other people's jokes, it's sort of a Lamarckian theory of intelligence: 'I can understand intelligent people, hence I acquire their intelligence.. ' (edit 2011: this is probably the same reason I watch Big Bang)
I feel so witty... I can use big words like 'delicatessen' and know what they mean.
Additionally, I can't think where I heard it, but this probably qualifies as the worst nerd joke ever: "Q: What's the value of a contour integral around Western Europe? A: Zero, because all the Poles are in Eastern Europe."
(tell me if you can find anything in worse taste that won't get this blog blocked.)
(tell me if you can find anything in worse taste that won't get this blog blocked.)
Cryogenics
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.
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)