Too often, I too spend my precious life enjoying the circus that keeps common people deluded while real players change the world. It wouldn’t be so bad if the people doing the work behind the scenes would be benign and doing good things. Then something like the probable murder of that former FSB agent reminds me that’s hardly the case. Evil still lives while the man who refused to do evil is dead. It is time to act to counter people who do such things in my own way and stop being one of the deluded people.
I noticed New Scientist has asked many eminent people to make some far fetched predictions about the next 50 years. Can’t say they are that illuminating in general (they are also very short) but at least I can agree with Gregory Chaitin:
“I hope that by 2056 weird astronomical observations will lead to radical new fundamental physics. I expect people will be tampering with the human genome, which should be fun. In my own field, I hope the current desiccated, formal approach has died out and people are more adventurous and creative.”
Yes, I think tampering with human genome to produce better sex kittens should be fun (let’s make them more beautiful, more willing with some novel features that make having sex with them more delightful… and let’s have me test driving them). I’m sure if foolish westerners won’tÂtryÂitÂatÂleast someÂrichÂSheikhÂwillÂdoÂitÂinÂtheÂMiddle-EastÂorÂsomeplace – if Chinese or Japanese won’t beat everyone in that respect. ThoughÂofÂcourseÂIÂseeÂlotsÂofÂotherÂgood uses for genetic tampering.
Also, I agree with Greg on that more empirical approach to mathematics could be more fruitful. UsingÂempirical simulations to explore the space of possibilities should also be a lot cooler if you could have a computer that is something like 8000000000 times more powerful than the one I’m using now; hopefully Moore’s Law will make that possible in the next 50 years. Theoretical math is for pussycats – real men do it using simulations.
Young teenage girls can be quite sexy and very foolish. It is very tempting to try to lure them into sinning. It’s hard to deny that. Anyway, I share the opinion of police chief Grange that if you have sex with them you shouldn’t be automatically considered a paedophile. Also, from an utilitarian perspective, I have to admit that it is very much of a possibility, that for some teenage girls,the sex industry might be the best choice. Yes, forget higher education, some girls are just bred for having sex and pleasing men and quite possibly it is their most notable talent and they should have the choice of judging if that’s the case themselves even when they are just young possibly foolish teenagers. Yes, they might very well be too immature to make the best possible choice for themselves, but then again, if that is the case, they just as well might make errors both ways, e.g., like trying to do what their parents tell them to do and continue their education in ordinary schools even though that is not really in their best interests. And based on my own experience,truly foolish girls rarely grow up to be smart and responsible womenlater in any case,whichmeansthatthecurrentpolicyonlydelaystheinevitable, whilepunishingthosewhowould
do better if they had more choices.
On the other hand, if young girls have children without being able to support them, the current situation is a bad one since the system forces people, who shouldn’t be responsible for anything those girls have done, to pay the costs of raising their children. In my opinion, the right way to fix this would be to make them really responsible and not giving them any handouts so they would either learn to use contraception or else be punished somehow if they won’t be able to take care of their children; of course some responsibility should fall on men who impregnate them. After all, in a decent society, having children without being able to support them should be a serious offence. Though I would think even those kinds of teenage girls I have written about here might be able to support them if they would be allowed to do what they do best: please men for money.
Alright, enough writing for today, though I’m already planning a future scenario where science is brought to help in breeding better sex kittens. I’m sure the proper use of scientific method would be able to improve on what whores and many men have produced over generations (note: I’ve been watching way too much porn lately).
I’ve recently followed this debate on whether extremely premature babies should be allowed to die (see for example this). I’d say they should only be treated if their parents would pay all the costs and doctors agreed to help them. Life can be cruel and wasting so much resources on those who will most likely die or suffer anyway will easily make it even more cruel. Whether you like it or not, even if with expensive care some of them would live, they would likely propagate suffering since their children, if they would ever have them, would probably be more likely to suffer similar fate. Better stop the unfortunate chain of events right now before the situation turns even worse – that is the right thing to do. Similarly, I support euthanising severely disabled babies unless someone can provide them a decent chance of decent life without forcing others to pay the costs unwillingly. This does not happen currently so I cannot support current practices.
Though it is of course possible that future medical innovations would solve the problem of “fixing” their offspring, that possibility in itself doesn’t justify forcing a “pro-life” perspective on everyone in general and unwilling taxpayers in particular.
If we really want to make the world better for ourselves and our descendants, we’d better support lives that are worth celebrating instead of supporting lives that are full of misery.
Even some doctors have realized search engines can help make difficult diagnoses. I too have used Google to find possible diagnoses sometime before. And I did find answers that seemed to make sense.
Then again, although the study found out that Google helped make the correct diagnosis in 58% of the cases I have a quote like the following from the article:
“A spokeswoman for the Patients Association said it would be “concerned” if doctors were using websites to diagnose people because many contained dubious information.
“What would happen if they gave the patient the wrong information? There are lots of good sites out there, but we also know that there are many that are not credible,” she said.”
Oh, boy, the little misogynist in my head is tempted to say that once again a woman proves she misses the point and ain’t that smart -that’s hardly the right question to ask or to be worried about. Doctors have always made mistakes and given wrong information. The right or better question is can doctors give patients better advice if they consult search engines in tough cases and that study seems to say yes more oftenÂtheyÂcan than not.
I’m not ashamed to say that I plan to live forever. And I’m not ashamed to say I’m willing to give calorie restriction a try albeit in a not-very-strict form currently to increase my chances of reaching the escape velocity. New York Mag has a quite decent article on the subject. It’s very reassuring to see some people can be in so good condition when they are over 70 if they just take good care of themselves. Though obviously some people, like Rumsfeld, seem to be able to do that without practising CR. I’d say I can admire people like them. And I want to take good care of myself too. It is just very wrong that taxation forces people who live responsibly to subsidize people who don’t.
Some smart guy someday said that we have to realize that much of what is done in our societies is due to stupidity and ignorance. I think one such stupid policy might be that people in general think kids should not be punished for their misbehaviour as much as adults. You know, kids and teenagers can do all sorts of crimes and they are often barely punished at all. They bully other kids (I guess bullying isn’t even a crime in many cases and places), steal from shops, vandalize places and occasionally do some really horrible things. And they go free in probably most cases as far as I know (they definitely did go free when I was growing up). Sometimes I just have to wonder if we would be better off if we just gave death penalty for even the youngest offenders after they had committed some monstrous acts. This could be a significant benefit for our societies since it is very rare that such people would later turn out to become good citizens and since they are still young societies haven’t yet invested that much money in them which would definitely not remain the case if they were allowed to live like they currently are since kids like that demand more attention and cause havoc at the expense of decent people. Instead of being a bad time for doing something so drastic as sentencing people to death, as people generally seem to believe is the case, childhood might well be the best time to do it.
To be honest, I think my argument is so very persuasive (although I should probably elaborate on it more sometime to counter some common arguments) I have to think the current situation is really due to sheer stupidity. Or worse, it could be possible, that it is in the best interests of some of our worst politicians and leaders, to keep the rotten eggs of our societies alive for various reasons, and that’s why they oppose giving them what they deserve: death.
It is the ultimate human desire to live forever. But only recently science has begun to make real progress toward meeting this goal. And in my opinion science and technological progress is the only way to achieve immortality since I’m not religious at all. Optimists, like Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey, think people like me could be there when the final breakthrough happens.
I do too think it’s a real possibility in my lifetime. However, this belief has some consequences. A rational person who believes he has the chance will try to survive since the utility of a substantially prolonged life could be so great. Some people have definitely put more thought on this subject but I haven’t read anything about one particular idea I have: since murdering a person now is potentially more damaging than ever before, the punishment for murder and related crimes should be going up the more real the prospect of immortality seems. However, it doesn’t seem that is really happening in our societies. Murderers walk free in many cases after spending only few years or decades in prison – so much less than could be considered just. And if we beat aging during the time a murdered person could have lived the murderer might still walk free soon enough and use the cure to survive indefinitely. This is in my opinion totally unacceptable. Our societies are growing more unjust each year. I’d say we have to do something to correct this situation or else evil prevails.
Once upon a time I was pretty much like multiculturalists are these days. I thought immigration is in general a good thing for my country. But then I was young and foolish and at a lousy public shool where I had been fed all sorts of propaganda and I did not really know much about immigrants from Muslim countries. I can’t say I still do personally know that much about them but the evidence is mounting against them. The closest thing I have come near those Muslim immigrants was when I served in public jury back in my home country (yeah, I’m an immigrant myself). I saw quite a few Muslims in court back then. At times some of them seemed quite amiable but then again they of course tried to act that way while in trial – and I remember seeing some violent outbursts of anger which betrayed what they truly were: people who had no respect for civilized values. I’d say seeing them helped me realize the threat is real. We should fight to stop their multiplication in our countries and we should stop subsidizing them through welfare and other ways. Read this article by Fjordman if you think otherwise and reconsider your position. And keep your eyes open and think for yourself so you won’t help our downfall.
This woman wasted her money gambling online and now she kinda calls for more government regulation (or at least the BBC spin makes it seem like they do promote it). Now that’s of course what people who have been misled by modern nanny states do, but hey, I just don’t think that’s the smart way to do it. If some people can’t control themselves, then let them suffer the consequences and don’t force other people to pay for the costs of regulation. That course of action should lead to more resources to responsible people and therefore quite likely to the growth of their numbers while the proposed regulation would benefit the sheep population and help it multiply faster. I say no to regulation. Fools should learn to correct their own behaviour or else perish in the long run.