Brendan: Might you reconsider, imagine being able to comment on this forum into the next century? Thread: Free Will: Fertility Politics View Single Post
#12
06-29-2008, 05:45 PM
bjkeefe

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,008
Re: Free Will: Fertility Politics
Kerry's article, Who Owns Your Body Parts?, is quite good.

I will point out one way in which you (or your estate) can get compensated for your lifeless carcass: donate it to a medical school. Most med schools handle the cost of cremation after the students have finished, which means you're saving several hundred bucks, at least.

It's also a good thing to do. According to my mother, who got interested in this while looking for material for her column, med schools face a chronic shortage of cadavers. I can only imagine that the tissue market that Kerry describes has made matters worse. She signed up to donate her body, my father did, too, and I plan to do the same.

Unless someone makes me a better offer in the meantime, of course.
__________________
Brendan

re: status, "If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning."
-Aristotle Onassis substitute "status." the ideal is getting yourself a hot chick and telling people you don't care about the rat-race or status and that's why you don't invest your marginal time in generating loads of cash or securing a high powered career :-)

Quoting razib: re: status,

"If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning."
-Aristotle Onassis

substitute "status." the ideal is getting yourself a hot chick and telling people you don't care about the rat-race or status and that's why you don't invest your marginal time in generating loads of cash or securing a high powered career :-)

I know we have engaged in discussions on sexism.
How does that Husband of Jackie O quote sit with you?

he was a heternormative pig!

Quoting razib: he was a heternormative pig!

English please. (smiling).

Quoting graz: Brendan:

Might you reconsider, imagine being able to comment on this forum into the next century?

Heh. No way. The easiest way to get out of it is to say that I assign a very low probability to the reliability of the technology. I always have. Recently, I heard this, and came away with the impression that it was even more of a cockamamie scheme than I had once thought. As Robin notes, even if we imagine that the bugs can be worked out of the science part (freezing, storage without degradation, and thawing), the hard part is the rest. I don't believe that the human and business aspects will work. If there is one thing we're terrible at as a species, especially in our high-tech, fast-paced, capitalist Western-style culture, it's long-term maintenance. The second argument against is the price. If I heard Robin right, we're talking a price tag of "more than a Hummer." Assuming he means new, MSRP, and from a year or two ago (I don't think you could give them away, these days), we're talking at least $50,000. I'd rather spend that money on other things here and now, and/or leave it to a good charity. Even if I could be assured it would work

I'm still trying to figure out which word I substitute "status" for.

Quoting graz: English please. (smiling).

you do know that demanding that a person of color speak *english* is redolent of exclusionary speech?

Quoting razib: you do know that demanding that a person of color speak *english* is redolent of exclusionary speech?

No, what I do know is that I enjoy your blog. I first spotted it through a link to Reihan that Sullivan made. But I am perplexed by your resort to framing casual forum conversation in such weighted and defensive terms. You never had the respect to concede in our previous thread that Drezner was referring to a joke from Saturday Night Live and not insulting Megan. But still you remained offended, why? Speak up, you have the "forum."

Amen to that.
For razib: A(wo)men.

Quoting graz: No, what I do know is that I enjoy your blog. I first spotted it through a link to Reihan that Sullivan made. But I am perplexed by your resort to framing casual forum conversation in such weighted and defensive terms.

You never had the respect to concede in our previous thread that Drezner was referring to a joke from Saturday Night Live and not insulting Megan. But still you remained offended, why? Speak up, you have the "forum."

LOL. i guess the joke went too far? i like to do PC-speak to see how seriously people take my crap (on yglesias' blog they always take me seriously, it's pretty f**king funny), and you took it really seriously. i mean, come on, i'm objecting to you demanding i speak english and dropping in the word *redolent* :-)

Quoting razib: LOL. i guess the joke went too far? i like to do PC-speak to see how seriously people take my crap (on yglesias' blog they always take me seriously, it's pretty f**king funny), and you took it really seriously. i mean, come on, i'm objecting to you demanding i speak english and dropping in the word *redolent* :-)

You really had me. And I am relieved. One never knows.
But I was having such a hard time squaring your posts at gnxp.com with the knee-jerk gobbldeygook that you were serving at my expense. Peace.

here to disorient you. *bow*

I'm still trying to figure out which word I substitute "status" for.

I know. Works with three of the four nouns. Or all three: "If status didn't exist, all the status in the world would have no status."

My Goal: To achieve alpha commentor status which I believe comes from be mentioned in Bob and Mickey's "Viewer Comments" section. My Comments: Good Diavlog though Will talked over Robin a bit too much in the beginning for my taste. Robin's comment about teaching students not to opt for the latest and greatest in healthcare methods got my wheels spinning. He points out that most new stuff is found to be worse than the old stuff. The problem with his approach is that the only way we can figure out whether the new stuff works or not is to try it. Four of five bad ideas get filtered out and one lives on ... none would live on if we followed Robin's advice and sat on the sidelines waiting for something to happen. My thoughts continued. It seems, on balance, our decision making process is wired to aspire to something beyond the horizon of what is knowable, at least until the journey has started. We're wired to try that new treatment, because, on balance, it has been a successful strategy. I think using quantitative studies of one aspect of our decision

Quoting scted: My Goal: [...]

Self-Assessment: [...]

Excessive meta-ness and self-referentiality will hamper your pursuit of the goal of alpha-dom. Just kidding. Keep 'em coming. And speaking as one who is supremely qualified to comment in this regard, quality beats quantity every day of the week.

And speaking as one who is supremely qualified to comment in this regard, quality beats quantity every day of the week.

Do you ever sleep?

Quoting Wonderment: Do you ever sleep?

More than I wish I had to. But I do suffer the occasional bout of insomnia.

Hippocrates established the method for bias-free a long, long time ago: First, externalize, and then objectify. Today, we call this method, "medicine" (science). His two-step process for truth-seeking (to find the actual cause and cure for illness) is arguably the single most important idea in all of history [Dan Robinson (Oxford and GU) once said so]. Rand thought so much of Hippocrates's single sentence idea that she named her entire philosophy for it. It's great to have one of the GMU economists in Will's interviews. Nice job.

I liked listening to Hanson a great deal. Invite him back sometime -- perhaps for the weekend science diavlog?

Quoting scted: Self-Assessment:
Likelihood of making the Bob and Mickey show: <20%
Humor (seemed to be important to Bob): B-
Originality of thoughts: Good
Combined score: 3 stars

I'd just like to know what equation you used to average a percentage. a letter score, and an adjective into three stars. That's some serious algebra!

On Cryogenics
Could this really make sense if EVERYONE did it? Would it remain only as expensive as a Hummer if everyone were doing it?
How much of the world's resources can be devoted to keeping a bunch of frozen bodies around in vats of liquid nitrogen? If we look at the practice from a disinterested perspective, and assuming that the revived "me" takes up resources that might have gone to the new generation, does it make sense that we should replace generations of my descendents (supposing I had any) with just a thousand years of me? Is my slim chance of being revived worth depriving other people who could use my organs now? Are we happy to look forward to a society with very few children and lots and lots of methuselas? On Cryogenics and Bias
It's a bit weird that the only bias considered by our diavloggers is the bias against thinking about one's own death. We also have a strong bias in favor of surviving, even when the "survival" might not seem really worth it. Why isn't this the bias that drives our diavloggers to

Bloggin:

Will admits that he doesn't want his life to end. Since death is the end of life, it follows that he doesn't want to die. If we assume not only that he prefers a longer life, but that he very, very much prefers a longer life over a shorter one, and if we assume that fear is appropriately directed at serious blows to our own interests, then how can it not make sense to fear death?

I'm not sure how well I can articulate the difference, but I felt like I understood Will's distinction, because I share it. It's a sense that once I'm dead, there won't be a problem, I won't care, and so on, and given that death is inevitable, I don't worry that it's going to be my ultimate fate. On the other hand, I like being alive, so as long as I have most of my faculties, I'm in no hurry to get to the point of being without a care. It's sort of like being at a good concert. You know that the finale is going to be played, and maybe an encore or two, and then the lights come up and out you go. You know there's

BN,

If we look at the practice from a disinterested perspective, and assuming that the revived "me" takes up resources that might have gone to the new generation, does it make sense that we should replace generations of my descendents (supposing I had any) with just a thousand years of me?

I was wondering if you thought the "me" would really be a surviving self in any meaningful sense? Let's say you (and only you) were revived in 10,000 years in a vastly different world where none of your cultural references made any sense? Would "you" have really survived? Our intuition seems to say yes, it would be like emerging from a coma. But I'm not so sure.

Is my slim chance of being revived worth depriving other people who could use my organs now? Are we happy to look forward to a society with very few children and lots and lots of methuselas?

I suppose their theory is that the future society would only revive them if there were a viable place for them in that society. They would not have an equal right to life as an infant or "first

Spending $50,000 in order to receive the far-flung benefit of "living forever" sounds like just about the most conceited, biased thing a person can do. What makes YOUR interests so special? That amount of money can have the almost certain benefit of saving lives right now. Some ~25,000 children die each day from malnourishment and poverty related diseases. I'm not suggesting, however, we need to live every waking second with the thought of Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism weighing on our mind. Setting aside tens of thousands of dollars for "scientific resurrection" falls into a different category.

Brendan, that's a great analogy. It certainly puts the recent positive report on Shrooms, into a broader context. If life's a concert...

Quoting Cain: Spending $50,000 in order to receive the far-flung benefit of "living forever" sounds like just about the most conceited, biased thing a person can do. What makes YOUR interests so special? That amount of money can have the almost certain benefit of saving lives right now. Some ~25,000 children die each day from malnourishment and poverty related diseases.

I'm not suggesting, however, we need to live every waking second with the thought of Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism weighing on our mind. Setting aside tens of thousands of dollars for "scientific resurrection" falls into a different category.

It seems a small price to pay to me. How is this any different morally from seeking medical care? As long as my parts will sustain it, I intend to continue to exist. Think of this as insurance against "errors of timing," in which my viability is compromised by an unfortunate, but hopefully temporary, technological inability to repair some physical flaw. Even taking what's offered here at face value, the "forever" hypothesis seems a tad premature.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hi Brendan,
I think I understand what Will is saying, but if I do (if it is indeed based upon the Epicurean argument I mentioned), I think he's mistaken -- in fact, I think the Epicurean argument rests on an assumption that conflicts with other remarks he makes.

It's a sense that once I'm dead, there won't be a problem, I won't care

,

You add a number of other considerations after this, but how much is dependent upon THIS consideration? This is the Epicurean argument I mentioned. It seems to depend on the assumption that something is an evil only if you recognize it as an evil at the time when it is taking place. By this standard, being kept in a dungeon all your life might not be an evil because you wouldn't know enough to recognize it as an evil. And if it isn't an evil, then why would keeping someone in a dungeon all their lives count as a harm? Maybe it's perfectly OK to keep someone in a dungeon all their lives, so long as you never let them out and let them know what they are missing? I think it's far more plausible that something

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not sure how well I can articulate the difference, but I felt like I understood Will's distinction, because I share it. It's a sense that once I'm dead, there won't be a problem, I won't care, and so on, and given that death is inevitable, I don't worry that it's going to be my ultimate fate. On the other hand, I like being alive, so as long as I have most of my faculties, I'm in no hurry to get to the point of being without a care.

...The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true. This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anaesthetic from which none come round. -Philip Larkin

sleepyhead: Thanks for the poem. Larkin can bring it, no doubt. Here's a snippet that speaks more to me: Under the wide and starry sky,
Dig the grave and let me lie.
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will. --Robert Louis Stevenson

Bloggin: I don't know from Epicurean. Up till today, I always thought that had something to do with food. But seriously ... I think a lot of this depends on what your definition of fear is. Certainly there is a strong instinct for self-preservation built into us. There is also something like a deep regret or an impending sense of loss that we might feel when contemplating the end of it all. Few of us, sound in mind and body, have an express urge to cut things short. In fact, we have strong urges in the opposite direction. So, you could add all these up and call it a fear of death. On the other hand, we might also consider whether fear exists by evaluating how much it weighs on our minds, day to day, and how much it affects our decision-making, both in the short and long term. Almost none of us avoids everything that we know is likely to shorten our lives or avoids every action that might end very badly. For example, I smoke cigarettes. I well know the long term risks, often summarized in phrases like "every cigarette cuts 11 minutes off your life." That does not

Cryonics, not Cryogenics.

So uniform agreement is a deep sign of bias, and the existence of disagreement is a deep sign of bias? It seems like there's some equivocation of "bias" and "error-making". It seems to me that assuming that people make mistakes together with the presence of arbitrary choices can account for the existence of disagreement in a way that bias doesn't quite catch. Why would people be biased to disagree? Why not be biased to agree? It's entirely possible I'm missing a subtle point.

Yes, I agree. How can you assume that two people disagreeing means that one of them must have bias clouding their judgment, when they could be disagreeing about something that isn't currently knowable (e.g. whether cryonics will ultimately work), or that can never be a matter of objective fact (e.g. whether a work of art has artistic merit)?