Monday, February 28, 2005
Rainbow Activism
While reading the news I realized that all this Rainbow acitivism goes far beyond any issues of equal rights under law. It isn't a request for tolerance, it is a demand for approval. Sometime shortly after I started blogging, I had a major rant on this. I seem to be gearing up for another.
If they want equal rights, then when they rub our noses in their cross-dressing, gay unions, etc., don't go whining to some nanny-state organization or attorneys about the straight response to it. Ask for attention and you'll get it. Just remember, like a kid that gets spanked for misbehaving, not all attention is positive.
I don't give a damn what members of the Rainbow Coalition do on their time, and on their property. That is tolerance and the essence of personal freedom. However, try to get me to approve of it, and I am more likely to get ugly and most certainly not sympathetic.
If they want equal rights, then when they rub our noses in their cross-dressing, gay unions, etc., don't go whining to some nanny-state organization or attorneys about the straight response to it. Ask for attention and you'll get it. Just remember, like a kid that gets spanked for misbehaving, not all attention is positive.
I don't give a damn what members of the Rainbow Coalition do on their time, and on their property. That is tolerance and the essence of personal freedom. However, try to get me to approve of it, and I am more likely to get ugly and most certainly not sympathetic.
If you thought he was a curmudgeon...
Dennis Mangan often tells it like it is in California in his Mangan's Miscellany. He has made especially strong comments on the illegal aliens. It is not curmudgeonliness, [Is there such a word? There is now.] he is completely justified as witness this:
From Fox News, Tongue Tied,
OK, Arnold, it's time for your Terminator act.
From Fox News, Tongue Tied,
Where Would We Be Without Higher Education?
Hysterical activists at an unnamed university in Chula Vista, Calif., are harassing an op-ed columnist and the paper that published his work because what he wrote was deemed racist toward illegal immigrants, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.
Student Nathaniel Pownell's opinion piece in The Southwestern College Sun called for a crackdown on benefits for illegal aliens and stated, "It is time to burn the leaches (sic) off our society and crack down on the people who flagrantly take advantage of America's wealth and prosperity."
Campus Socialists and the Chicano activist group MEChA were described as weeping openly when they read the piece. Robin McCubbin, a faculty adviser for the student socialist group called it "a racist attack and call for violence."
McCubbin told the paper: "Even if it's legal, is there any justification for it appearing in a newspaper for our campus?"
MEChA faculty adviser Margarita Andrade-Robledo made the mistake of coming to the defense of the U.S. Constitution and was subsequently ousted by the MEChA board.
OK, Arnold, it's time for your Terminator act.
Yes, until.....
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
the government discovers it can buy votes to keep itself in power, and the hundred years campaign of the socialists finally pays off in a press educated solely by left/liberals.
Founders' Quote Daily
"Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one." --James Madison
the government discovers it can buy votes to keep itself in power, and the hundred years campaign of the socialists finally pays off in a press educated solely by left/liberals.
Friday, February 25, 2005
To further the discussion
Dennis Mangan has replied to my post on the continuing discussion of longevity. I have a tremendous respect for Dennis in that he continues the discussion in the context of issues and does not resort to name calling or inappropriate ad hominum attacks. It is a real pleasure to participate with him in this exchange.
I will first answer some specific points, and then make some general observations.
Specifically:
Dennis said:
And if I wanted to relearn p-chem I could readily do it, provided i were willing to exert the effort. So I doubt that there are real limits to learning.
I reply:
Dennis, ten years makes a big difference. There are currently real limits to learning, and I suspect they are related to aging.
Dennis said:
I can only say that if someone is waiting for those miserable grandparents to die one is making a mistake. Best to do something about it now, like move or uninvite them.
I reply:
It isn't that simple. We have very entangled relationships with our forebearers, emotionally. There are many themes given during our upbringing to honor our parents and by implication our grandparents. In fact, our sense of our own humanity may be tied up in our approach to them. From experience I will say that seeing a parent or grandparent for what they are is a most difficult task, and generally beyond anyone who has not had to do so because of the pathology generated.
Dennis said:
Refining what I said about planning for the future, I mean to say that much of the depression typical of old age comes from the knowledge that near death is a certainty. With that gone, people will be able to make plans which they could not before.
I reply:
As one who has suffered from clinical depression, there are many causes. Boredom, irreconcilable conflict, total destruction of self-esteem, to name a few. Most people who contemplate near death are not depressed. It is the young or middle-aged that become depressed. Death is a release. Many times in my life, I would have welcomed Death though I did not seek it.
Dennis said:
I think it a shame that Bill says, more or less, that at the age of 62 he would go quietly if necessary. I turn 50 next month, and I often feel that my life is just beginning. I certainly haven't accomplished anything near what I believe I'm capable of, and I would like the opportunity to do some of those things.
I reply:
That Dennis wants the time to do what he thinks he is capable of is fine for me. I look back on a long list of personal accomplishment and feel satisfied. Perhaps that is the key in this discussion. How satisfied a person is with what they have done. As I once said in my post on the wonderful fur coat, I have had the experiences of several life-times. My current ambition is to see my children succeed, see at least one grandchild (a short-term unlikely event), and produce a legacy for my children. 1 & 3 are pretty possible. #2 is not so easy. If I die tomorrow, I can say that I loved my wife, I loved my children, and I did the best I knew how for everyone.
General comments:
One of the senses I get from this discussion is that there is a feeling that Dennis is arguing that major extension of life span is no different from what we currently do to cure disease and disability. In one sense, he may be right, in that if one uses the approach that any change in the unaltered progress of events is increasing longevity. From a statistical viewpoint that is correct, all the advances and many more, including simple public health measures increase the aversge life expectancy. However, I am not arguing whether other measures are of the same nature, which for the record I do not, which I stated in my earlier post, but rather I am arguing that the consequences of drastically increased longevity will not be the wonderful world that is postulated, but acually quite different.
I can imagine that in the relatively near future, say 50-100 years, we may have a different attitude for this issue. But as of now, which is what counts, I am not thrilled with the idea of another 50 years.
I will first answer some specific points, and then make some general observations.
Specifically:
Dennis said:
And if I wanted to relearn p-chem I could readily do it, provided i were willing to exert the effort. So I doubt that there are real limits to learning.
I reply:
Dennis, ten years makes a big difference. There are currently real limits to learning, and I suspect they are related to aging.
Dennis said:
I can only say that if someone is waiting for those miserable grandparents to die one is making a mistake. Best to do something about it now, like move or uninvite them.
I reply:
It isn't that simple. We have very entangled relationships with our forebearers, emotionally. There are many themes given during our upbringing to honor our parents and by implication our grandparents. In fact, our sense of our own humanity may be tied up in our approach to them. From experience I will say that seeing a parent or grandparent for what they are is a most difficult task, and generally beyond anyone who has not had to do so because of the pathology generated.
Dennis said:
Refining what I said about planning for the future, I mean to say that much of the depression typical of old age comes from the knowledge that near death is a certainty. With that gone, people will be able to make plans which they could not before.
I reply:
As one who has suffered from clinical depression, there are many causes. Boredom, irreconcilable conflict, total destruction of self-esteem, to name a few. Most people who contemplate near death are not depressed. It is the young or middle-aged that become depressed. Death is a release. Many times in my life, I would have welcomed Death though I did not seek it.
Dennis said:
I think it a shame that Bill says, more or less, that at the age of 62 he would go quietly if necessary. I turn 50 next month, and I often feel that my life is just beginning. I certainly haven't accomplished anything near what I believe I'm capable of, and I would like the opportunity to do some of those things.
I reply:
That Dennis wants the time to do what he thinks he is capable of is fine for me. I look back on a long list of personal accomplishment and feel satisfied. Perhaps that is the key in this discussion. How satisfied a person is with what they have done. As I once said in my post on the wonderful fur coat, I have had the experiences of several life-times. My current ambition is to see my children succeed, see at least one grandchild (a short-term unlikely event), and produce a legacy for my children. 1 & 3 are pretty possible. #2 is not so easy. If I die tomorrow, I can say that I loved my wife, I loved my children, and I did the best I knew how for everyone.
General comments:
One of the senses I get from this discussion is that there is a feeling that Dennis is arguing that major extension of life span is no different from what we currently do to cure disease and disability. In one sense, he may be right, in that if one uses the approach that any change in the unaltered progress of events is increasing longevity. From a statistical viewpoint that is correct, all the advances and many more, including simple public health measures increase the aversge life expectancy. However, I am not arguing whether other measures are of the same nature, which for the record I do not, which I stated in my earlier post, but rather I am arguing that the consequences of drastically increased longevity will not be the wonderful world that is postulated, but acually quite different.
I can imagine that in the relatively near future, say 50-100 years, we may have a different attitude for this issue. But as of now, which is what counts, I am not thrilled with the idea of another 50 years.
We started from the right place
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
From this statement,we see the Founding Fathers did not accept the idea of slavery. for the next 80-some years the country would be in constant tension over this issue. It was not until 1863 that we finally had a clear statement in a practical sense on the issue.
For folks on both sides, the Civil War is over. The North won. In this case might and morality were congruent. To the Black supremicists, give it up. To the South shall rise again group, no it won't. To the guilt-ridden left/liberal axis, the modern generation owes nothing to the decendents of slaves. To the entitled Blacks, you will have to earn your way in the world to have any self respect. Quit envying Oreos and condemning them. They figured out how it really works.
Founders' Quote Daily
"[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." --James Madison
From this statement,we see the Founding Fathers did not accept the idea of slavery. for the next 80-some years the country would be in constant tension over this issue. It was not until 1863 that we finally had a clear statement in a practical sense on the issue.
For folks on both sides, the Civil War is over. The North won. In this case might and morality were congruent. To the Black supremicists, give it up. To the South shall rise again group, no it won't. To the guilt-ridden left/liberal axis, the modern generation owes nothing to the decendents of slaves. To the entitled Blacks, you will have to earn your way in the world to have any self respect. Quit envying Oreos and condemning them. They figured out how it really works.
Tom certainly had a point
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
Thomas Jefferson was quite afraid of the power of the courts. It was either in his term or the preceding one of John Adams that the precedent was established that the Supreme Court of the United States could determine the constitutionality of law. For almost 150 years, he seemed a scare-monger. But with the Lemon decision in 1943, the Supremes opened the gates to some major changes in the power structure. [To Constitutional Law scholars, this may have occurred in other decisions, but my studies led me to Lemon, so it is my touchstone in this issue.]
I now consider the power of the courts excessive, and Congress a coward for not addressing the issue. When the Supremes declare a law unconstitutional, it is not a signal to fall back and smite your [Congress's] collective breasts and recite Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa. CHANGE THE DAMN LAW. If the people want a particular result, it is your job to provide it. We sure as Hell pay you enough to do so.
Founders' Quote Daily
"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression...that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped." --Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was quite afraid of the power of the courts. It was either in his term or the preceding one of John Adams that the precedent was established that the Supreme Court of the United States could determine the constitutionality of law. For almost 150 years, he seemed a scare-monger. But with the Lemon decision in 1943, the Supremes opened the gates to some major changes in the power structure. [To Constitutional Law scholars, this may have occurred in other decisions, but my studies led me to Lemon, so it is my touchstone in this issue.]
I now consider the power of the courts excessive, and Congress a coward for not addressing the issue. When the Supremes declare a law unconstitutional, it is not a signal to fall back and smite your [Congress's] collective breasts and recite Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa. CHANGE THE DAMN LAW. If the people want a particular result, it is your job to provide it. We sure as Hell pay you enough to do so.
The liberal creed
16 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Wednesday Chronicle
Most thoroughly documented in P. J. O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores.
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Wednesday Chronicle
"The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." --Frederic Bastiat
Most thoroughly documented in P. J. O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores.
16 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Wednesday Chronicle
And the attempt to mold us into sheep continues unabated in the public schools.
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Wednesday Chronicle
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." --Bertrand de Jouvenel
And the attempt to mold us into sheep continues unabated in the public schools.
We haven't solved it yet
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
As PC runs rampant, so does Freedom flee.
Founders' Quote Daily
"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government." --Joseph StoryIn fact it appears that our current solution is to attack and remove any trace of religion from our consciousness. It is my judgment that as we remove the tolerance of the expression of religion from our discourse, so we are also removing freedom from our actions.
As PC runs rampant, so does Freedom flee.
Naked Villainy
As a loyal minion of the coming MWO (Mike World Order) I consider it necessary to urge you to daily read Naked Villainy. The variety of subjects and differences of view of the Maximum Leader and his ministers is always worth a daily visit or even several, as they post erratically.
[To tell the truth, this is a blog my younger son would have created if he had lived that long. I really cannot recommend it highly enough, though I don't link to it requently. I often send email responses instead.]
When comes the MWO, those who have failed to read will regret.
[To tell the truth, this is a blog my younger son would have created if he had lived that long. I really cannot recommend it highly enough, though I don't link to it requently. I often send email responses instead.]
When comes the MWO, those who have failed to read will regret.
Let Sleeping Dogs Lie
Tonight I had a literal example of this aphorism. My son has moved home due to not being able to find a job in his degreed field. He is currently looking both in his field and in any other place he can. In the meantime, he lives at home again. Along with John came Billy the Boxer, our granddog. Billy is adorable, 17 months old, and as a consequence, a challenging mix with our two 9-years-old dalmation littermates.
Getting them to settle down to sleep can be an extended process. They sleep separated in the laundry room and the entryway from the kitchen to the garage. So my wife wanted something to snack on while we polished off our wine. We decided not to, because to do so would wake up Billie and consequently Annie and Chester, who would then bark at Billy. My wife did without the snack. We let sleeping dogs lie.
Getting them to settle down to sleep can be an extended process. They sleep separated in the laundry room and the entryway from the kitchen to the garage. So my wife wanted something to snack on while we polished off our wine. We decided not to, because to do so would wake up Billie and consequently Annie and Chester, who would then bark at Billy. My wife did without the snack. We let sleeping dogs lie.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Longevity discussion continued
As promised over a week ago, here is the continuation of my discussion with Dennis Mangan on the desirability of greatly extended longevity.
First of all, Dennis pointed out that I was sloppy in my use of context, in essence equating longevity and immortality. Quite right, so I will confine the context to longevity, defined as a doubling of the current normal lifespan for an individual.
Based on the reading I have done in this area over the years, starting with medical school neuroanatomy, it appears that memory and training, which is a particular example of motor neuron memory, is based on connection patterns in the brain. It has also been shown that over time areas of the brain are recruited for other mental activities if they are not used for a time. If one looks at the memory patterns in older persons, and in people with stroke, the early past is far more clear than the present, and in some extreme cases, the present is never permanently remembered. Dennis is thinking specifically of rejuvenating Alzheimer’s patients. Yes that would make their current life far better and is a worthy thing of itself. But what I am considering here is that there is a finite limit to what we can learn. And it may be that at some point we are incapable of learning new things. It certainly seems harder to do so as I age. So what happens at age 150 when my brain is stagnant in a perfectly healthy body?
For that matter, what leads to emotional maturity? Is it possible that continual rejuvenation will prevent psychological and emotional maturation? From work I did as a biofeedback therapist and psychologist, I can state there is a definite physical feedback component to mental processes. Also consider that nerves in the brain myelinate throughout life, and it has been speculated that this is the cause for mature persons to think more generally than younger persons, they are making more and better connections with their knowledge. Would continual rejuvenation prevent this? What happens when we are 150 and everything is myelinated that can be?
Dennis focuses on the economic advantages that might accrue, and under a free-market assumption, he is quite right. But I was trying to point out some other things as well. I would expect something like major prolongation of productive life to be far too tempting to politicians for them to leave it to the market. But the two solutions politicians always seem to find are either who has pull or give it to everyone. I used these two situations along with the idea of sale to the highest bidder. Despite Dennis’s enthusiasm for an elongated life-span, I don’t know that very many people would want it or if they got it, would enjoy it. Having perfectly healthy bodies at age 50 or 90 and a mind that is below average or just at average, appears to me to be a recipe for problems. Remember over half the people are at or below average in intelligence. Scenarios for longevity never seem to consider the impact on them, only on the desirability for the intellectual elite.
I think Dennis missed the point I was trying to make with the examples of Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh. He states that something was lost with the death of Ernst Mayr. I was trying to point out that we will also retain the undesirable people, as well as keep the desirable people. To Dennis, keeping Ernst Mayr around for another fifty years or more is worth any price he imagines might be paid. (Actually in longevity discussions, one almost gets the idea there are no downsides ever acknowledged) But what about the families where the grandparents have made life miserable for years for everyone? Now that goes on for another 50 years? Somebody or a group of somebodies is/are paying a very high price for longevity.
First here is the paragraph he refers to:
Do the proponents of extremely long lives think they can change human nature or much of man's genetically programmed behavior and physiology? Do they think perfect health will automagically create better (in their preferred sense of better) humans? For every genius there are millions of non-geniuses. What is the benefit to them to live longer?
Longevity is not the same as penicillin, nor philosophical systems, nor technical things. It is a major change in the rules by which we live our lives, and as such will have very drastic consequences. I think Dennis is trying to dismiss the issue by saying it is not about utopia, it is about living longer. But I submit that most longevity fans present it in a utopian light, and don’t simply call it living longer. Dennis’s own enthusiasm belies his dismissal of the utopian tendency. To put a finer point on it, human nature being what it is, living longer will give us more time to get on each others nerves, to have the same people in positions of power much longer, and can lead to some pretty stagnant cultures or else very horrific wars. Positive dynamics in cultures from my reading of history come with change not stability. Doubling the lifespan will create excessive stability with the same ideas from the same proponents being around so much longer. [As a side note, what happens to populations when the death rate is cut in half? Exponential growth. Consider the impact of that.]
Dennis should think about the causes of depression. As for the choice, once one opts in, if one is using nanotechnology, it is probably not possible to opt back out. Choice will be no better informed for this option than for any others people make. The problem is that this choice is far more difficult to envision the consequences, as witness this discussion.
As a laboratory scientist, I would think Dennis would be familiar with the findings on telomeres on chromosomes. Lifespan appears to be correlated with their length. I have read high level papers indicating that there is a “natural” lifespan based on telomere length of around 100 years. Dennis’s use of natural in his response is not the same as mine. He wants to make my use appear as if the primitive version of lifespan were what I meant. No. Natural in the sense I am using it is the lifespan of good health that our genetic constitution will support. In some it is 100 years, in most it is now between 70 and 85 or so. Civilization has increased lifespan by overcoming sickness, not by rejuvenating the body. Overcoming sickness and debility is allowing our “natural” lifespan to become more apparent and achievable.
I think that depression is far more complex than not planning for the future. Plus, planning for the future when it is 100 years hence, requires skills almost none of us have. That Dennis would go for another 50 years is fine. Quite truthfully, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t. I have had a very full life and a lot of accomplishments for the 62 years of it, and there is really very little left that I consider critical to my happiness to achieve. Another 50 years would put me in a very difficult cultural situation. When I consider the changes in technology and attitudes and values over the last 50 years, would I be able to cope in another 50?
I think the vision of those with the desire for longevity is that it will produce a longer life just like what they have now. My antithesis is that a longer life will have far greater risk of being miserable than happy, because of necessity it will NOT be as life is now, and the techniques of longevity may not be compatible with remaining the persons we are.
As promised over a week ago, here is the continuation of my discussion with Dennis Mangan on the desirability of greatly extended longevity.
First of all, Dennis pointed out that I was sloppy in my use of context, in essence equating longevity and immortality. Quite right, so I will confine the context to longevity, defined as a doubling of the current normal lifespan for an individual.
Regarding the issue of memory and personality, and the fact that the brain is a physical organ which of necessity will need rejuvenation just like any other organ, I'll be the first to admit that there will be problems. But also, I think that Bill is using some dubious "facts" about the relation between brain and mind to establish his points. For example his assertions about newer memories being more volatile or using up available memory strike me, a brain non-expert, as being far from scientific fact. And even if they were fact, we lose memories all the time, and while we can and do bemoan that, we do not say that it changes our identity or personality. It strikes me that brain rejuvenation would actually go a long way towards helping it. For example it was recently reported that Alzheimer's-like plaques in the brains of mice were reduced by an experimental treatment. So it's not clear to me that brain rejuvenation will result in memory loss.
Based on the reading I have done in this area over the years, starting with medical school neuroanatomy, it appears that memory and training, which is a particular example of motor neuron memory, is based on connection patterns in the brain. It has also been shown that over time areas of the brain are recruited for other mental activities if they are not used for a time. If one looks at the memory patterns in older persons, and in people with stroke, the early past is far more clear than the present, and in some extreme cases, the present is never permanently remembered. Dennis is thinking specifically of rejuvenating Alzheimer’s patients. Yes that would make their current life far better and is a worthy thing of itself. But what I am considering here is that there is a finite limit to what we can learn. And it may be that at some point we are incapable of learning new things. It certainly seems harder to do so as I age. So what happens at age 150 when my brain is stagnant in a perfectly healthy body?
For that matter, what leads to emotional maturity? Is it possible that continual rejuvenation will prevent psychological and emotional maturation? From work I did as a biofeedback therapist and psychologist, I can state there is a definite physical feedback component to mental processes. Also consider that nerves in the brain myelinate throughout life, and it has been speculated that this is the cause for mature persons to think more generally than younger persons, they are making more and better connections with their knowledge. Would continual rejuvenation prevent this? What happens when we are 150 and everything is myelinated that can be?
To all of that I reply that we face the same issues with any technology, health-related or otherwise. Right now most economic goods are sold to the highest bidder; and if longevity confers unfair advantages on the economically successful, well so does a computer and a modem. The fact that I am computer literate is partly because I can afford a computer and took the effort to learn it. That is not available to many in the Third World, but I do not think it a moral imperative to provide them with one. Health care costs money too, and it is a direct form of longevity extension. So, to the extent that longevity extension is a current reality (because healthy people live longer), it goes to people who have the money, drive, and intelligence to utilize it. I've noted several times on this blog that higher IQ confers greater health and hence longevity. So this phenomenon exists already. If it is a problem, and it may be, then extreme longevity presents us with nothing new.
Dennis focuses on the economic advantages that might accrue, and under a free-market assumption, he is quite right. But I was trying to point out some other things as well. I would expect something like major prolongation of productive life to be far too tempting to politicians for them to leave it to the market. But the two solutions politicians always seem to find are either who has pull or give it to everyone. I used these two situations along with the idea of sale to the highest bidder. Despite Dennis’s enthusiasm for an elongated life-span, I don’t know that very many people would want it or if they got it, would enjoy it. Having perfectly healthy bodies at age 50 or 90 and a mind that is below average or just at average, appears to me to be a recipe for problems. Remember over half the people are at or below average in intelligence. Scenarios for longevity never seem to consider the impact on them, only on the desirability for the intellectual elite.
Bill's remarks about immortal Maureen Dowds and Rush Limbaughs I find puzzling. We have to deal with irritating people constantly right now. Are we just waiting for them to die off? Or does Bill mean that if I want to live to be 200 that I have no such right, that I have to die because I irritate people? (As I undoubtedly do. Hey, the more the merrier.) When people die, something irretrievable is lost, as was my point re: Ernst Mayr.
I think Dennis missed the point I was trying to make with the examples of Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh. He states that something was lost with the death of Ernst Mayr. I was trying to point out that we will also retain the undesirable people, as well as keep the desirable people. To Dennis, keeping Ernst Mayr around for another fifty years or more is worth any price he imagines might be paid. (Actually in longevity discussions, one almost gets the idea there are no downsides ever acknowledged) But what about the families where the grandparents have made life miserable for years for everyone? Now that goes on for another 50 years? Somebody or a group of somebodies is/are paying a very high price for longevity.
Bill asks if human nature can be changed. Of course not, but I don't see the relevance. When penicillin was discovered and mass-produced we did not ask that question. Neither did we when Christianity or democracy or personal computers were invented. Longevity is not about utopia; that's for the communists and lefties to debate. It's about living longer.
First here is the paragraph he refers to:
Do the proponents of extremely long lives think they can change human nature or much of man's genetically programmed behavior and physiology? Do they think perfect health will automagically create better (in their preferred sense of better) humans? For every genius there are millions of non-geniuses. What is the benefit to them to live longer?
Longevity is not the same as penicillin, nor philosophical systems, nor technical things. It is a major change in the rules by which we live our lives, and as such will have very drastic consequences. I think Dennis is trying to dismiss the issue by saying it is not about utopia, it is about living longer. But I submit that most longevity fans present it in a utopian light, and don’t simply call it living longer. Dennis’s own enthusiasm belies his dismissal of the utopian tendency. To put a finer point on it, human nature being what it is, living longer will give us more time to get on each others nerves, to have the same people in positions of power much longer, and can lead to some pretty stagnant cultures or else very horrific wars. Positive dynamics in cultures from my reading of history come with change not stability. Doubling the lifespan will create excessive stability with the same ideas from the same proponents being around so much longer. [As a side note, what happens to populations when the death rate is cut in half? Exponential growth. Consider the impact of that.]
As for the suicide rate, I doubt if many people kill themselves out of boredom. They do it because they are depressed. And if someone is bored, or thinks that longevity is not for him, then fine. No one is forcing anyone. And remember, all health care is longevity treatment, so that situation already exists.
Dennis should think about the causes of depression. As for the choice, once one opts in, if one is using nanotechnology, it is probably not possible to opt back out. Choice will be no better informed for this option than for any others people make. The problem is that this choice is far more difficult to envision the consequences, as witness this discussion.
Finally, Bill says that he is all for extending lifespan, but not beyond the "natural". Bill, my lifetime is already beyond that. If not for eyeglasses, vaccinations, thyroid medication, antibiotics, and civilization in general, all of which are human artifacts, I would have been dead long ago. If you would like us all to go back to hunter-gatherer society, where none but the most primitive medical care was available, then say so. But I doubt if many will want to follow that route. (BTW, "cavemen" have performed trepanning and bone splinting and used herbs, so they did have a form of medicine. And it was not "natural".)
As a laboratory scientist, I would think Dennis would be familiar with the findings on telomeres on chromosomes. Lifespan appears to be correlated with their length. I have read high level papers indicating that there is a “natural” lifespan based on telomere length of around 100 years. Dennis’s use of natural in his response is not the same as mine. He wants to make my use appear as if the primitive version of lifespan were what I meant. No. Natural in the sense I am using it is the lifespan of good health that our genetic constitution will support. In some it is 100 years, in most it is now between 70 and 85 or so. Civilization has increased lifespan by overcoming sickness, not by rejuvenating the body. Overcoming sickness and debility is allowing our “natural” lifespan to become more apparent and achievable.
… But briefly put, in my experience much of what is depressing to people comes from not being able to plan for the future. Right now, if I felt that I could live another 50 to 150 years I'd go for it. In a nutshell, it seems to me that only suicidal depressives or those in intolerable health or pain or loneliness want to die. Why not a longer and healthier life? It's what I want.
I think that depression is far more complex than not planning for the future. Plus, planning for the future when it is 100 years hence, requires skills almost none of us have. That Dennis would go for another 50 years is fine. Quite truthfully, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t. I have had a very full life and a lot of accomplishments for the 62 years of it, and there is really very little left that I consider critical to my happiness to achieve. Another 50 years would put me in a very difficult cultural situation. When I consider the changes in technology and attitudes and values over the last 50 years, would I be able to cope in another 50?
I think the vision of those with the desire for longevity is that it will produce a longer life just like what they have now. My antithesis is that a longer life will have far greater risk of being miserable than happy, because of necessity it will NOT be as life is now, and the techniques of longevity may not be compatible with remaining the persons we are.
The modern version is...
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
Chirac can kiss my ......
Founders' Quote Daily
"There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses.
And he can double the reward on my head!" --John Hancock
Chirac can kiss my ......
Hamilton was a political babe in the woods
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
He had no vision of log-rolling. Everyone is guided by the interests of his county and all agree to rape the taxpayers wallet to provide all of the interests. Common good is never mentioned on the way to buying votes.
Founders' Quote Daily
"When you assemble from your several counties in the Legislature, were every member to be guided only by the apparent interest of his county, government would be impracticable. There must be a perpetual accommodation and sacrifice of local advantage to general expediency." --Alexander Hamilton
He had no vision of log-rolling. Everyone is guided by the interests of his county and all agree to rape the taxpayers wallet to provide all of the interests. Common good is never mentioned on the way to buying votes.
What he didn't foresee...
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
was that when law became too complex or law became injust, it is indistinguishable from the use of FORCE and in fact is used to justify it.
Do the letters RICO ring a bell? Or perhaps Sorbanes-Oaxley. Or Patriot Acts I, II,...
Founders' Quote Daily
"The instrument by which it [government] must act are either the AUTHORITY of the laws or FORCE. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty!" --Alexander Hamilton
was that when law became too complex or law became injust, it is indistinguishable from the use of FORCE and in fact is used to justify it.
Do the letters RICO ring a bell? Or perhaps Sorbanes-Oaxley. Or Patriot Acts I, II,...
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
New Link
I have just posted a new link to my blog roll, Neil Craig's "A Place to Stand." Neil is a Scotsman from Glasgow (makes him a distant relative), who has a decidedly conservative view. However, it is a different view and most interesting. Check it out.
Neil has kindly placed this blog in his blog roll and it is a pleasure to reciprocate.
Neil has kindly placed this blog in his blog roll and it is a pleasure to reciprocate.
Unless you are...
23 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-08
Wednesday Chronicle
Jewish, Christian, or Conservative.
Federalist Patriot No. 05-08
Wednesday Chronicle
"[T]he liberty of man to search for truth ought not to be fettered, no matter what orthodoxies he may challenge." --Felix Frankfurter
Jewish, Christian, or Conservative.
We certainly do now
23 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-08
Wednesday Chronicle
Do the initials JFK ring a bell? Or MSM, or......
Federalist Patriot No. 05-08
Wednesday Chronicle
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight Eisenhower
Do the initials JFK ring a bell? Or MSM, or......
Rather prescient was our George Washington
23 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-08
Wednesday Chronicle
Certainly looks that way to me--plenty of licentiousness and plenty of arbitrary power.
Federalist Patriot No. 05-08
Wednesday Chronicle
"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington
Certainly looks that way to me--plenty of licentiousness and plenty of arbitrary power.
This is too good not to post on
This item appeared in the news last week, but the details are in this article in TCS. It seems that Greenpeace wanted to mark the start of Kyoto by bringing the International Petroleum Exchange to a halt. Here are some descriptions of the outcome:
The whining of the protesters about their treatment was plain funny:
We need more of this.
It is time protesters quit getting a pass on breaking law and violating property rights in the name of some cause and free speech. It is also time to cease the persecution of the victims, as when someone retaliates or defends, that person gets jail time and/or a fine.
If a protester chains himself/herself in a tree to prevent its being cut down, that is theft. Give them fair warning and cut the tree down. They depend on our being civilized when they aren't. Let them find out that real justice is harsh. The minute the protest goes beyond a peaceful gathering on public property, start smashing heads and arresting people.
I don't have a problem with disagreement, I have a problem with it being forced on me against my will.
The trespassers were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. "They were kicking and punching men and women," said a photographer, according to The Times of London. "It was really ugly. … They followed the [Greenpeace] guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement."
"Sod off, Swampy!" shouted one tardy trader, steadying himself against the railings of the balcony of the pub across the street as his colleagues threw the protesters bodily onto the sidewalk. (Swampy was an enviro-protester who gained fame by living unbathed in a tunnel for eight months.)
Meanwhile, other traders inside the building were punching and felling men and women with a politically correct lack of sexual discrimination. Those who had already been punched onto the floor were shocked to look up and see traders trying to overturn heavy filing cabinets onto them.
A laconic spokesman for the IPE said, "We are dealing with the situation."
Twenty-nine activists were arrested by the Metropolitan Police and taken to police stations throughout London. They were later bailed. Two were taken to hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw and the other with concussion.
The whining of the protesters about their treatment was plain funny:
"The violence was instant," reported one aggrieved recipient of a rain of blows to the head. "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view."
The protesters who had violently breached private premises and attempted to halt a legitimate activity expressed themselves aggrieved with the rules of engagement. One of them told The Times, "I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot. They were Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs."
We need more of this.
It is time protesters quit getting a pass on breaking law and violating property rights in the name of some cause and free speech. It is also time to cease the persecution of the victims, as when someone retaliates or defends, that person gets jail time and/or a fine.
If a protester chains himself/herself in a tree to prevent its being cut down, that is theft. Give them fair warning and cut the tree down. They depend on our being civilized when they aren't. Let them find out that real justice is harsh. The minute the protest goes beyond a peaceful gathering on public property, start smashing heads and arresting people.
I don't have a problem with disagreement, I have a problem with it being forced on me against my will.
I get what I pay for
Blogger just ate a post that took me 15 minutes to compose. That's what I get for free.
If it were true then....
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
How much more true now. Such an accurate description of most government function.
Founders' Quote Daily
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." --Thomas Jefferson
How much more true now. Such an accurate description of most government function.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Only to rational minds
16 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Wednesday Chronicle
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Wednesday Chronicle
"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands." --Thomas Jefferson
They had never met our modern spinmeisters
The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily
Today experience can be interpreted any way. there is no such thing as an unequivocal experience.
Founders' Quote Daily
"Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred." --Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, Federalist No. 20
Today experience can be interpreted any way. there is no such thing as an unequivocal experience.
Ah, but that it were so!
14 February 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Monday Brief
The Founding Fathers apparently saw it coming but were unable to put a preventative in.
Federalist Patriot No. 05-07
Monday Brief
"But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years." --Thomas Jefferson
The Founding Fathers apparently saw it coming but were unable to put a preventative in.
Hillary
My friend the AnalPhilosopher thinks that Hillary Clinton is becoming more conservative and will be the next president. I think the likelihood of the second statement is good, but not because she is becoming more conservative.
Hillary Clinton is a political animal and wants power. She is very good at finding out what will appeal to the voters and adopting it. I think she learned a lot while First Lady on what will and will not survive politically. She is not becoming more conservative, she is simply making more conservative statements, because she realizes that unadulterated left/liberalism won't fly in 2008. She isn't changing at all, she is still the pragmatist she always has been.
Hillary Clinton is a political animal and wants power. She is very good at finding out what will appeal to the voters and adopting it. I think she learned a lot while First Lady on what will and will not survive politically. She is not becoming more conservative, she is simply making more conservative statements, because she realizes that unadulterated left/liberalism won't fly in 2008. She isn't changing at all, she is still the pragmatist she always has been.
HE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME
Once again Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, has opened his mouth in a political arena and expressed an opinion that depends on his position to be considered important. By implication his public statements unless explicitly denied imply the agreement of the membership of the ELCA. In this case I wish to make it very clear they do not represent my opinions.
The specifics:
According to The Lutheran magazine, Bishop Hanson along with
First of all The Lutheran didn't even have the respect to call the President by his title. But just how the hell does this group of wishful thinkers with blinders on think that Middle East Peace will come with Saddam Hussain pouring money into suicide bombers? This is a first, a communal cranialrectosis or is it a rectalcraniosis?
I like attending the Lutheran Church. I like the liturgy, I like the tolerance of my non-traditional theology. But it makes it really difficult to remain when I see the leader of the church say and do things that are implied in the name of the membership that cannot be true of all the membership.
The last time I was on a rant like this, I wrote an email to the Bishop and got a form reply back, then nothing. I'm not going to bother this time.
Here is the bottom line:
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. DO NOT render unto Caesar that which is God's.
The specifics:
According to The Lutheran magazine, Bishop Hanson along with
"57 religious leaders took out a full-page ad in the Jan. 21 issue of The New York Times, urging Bush to 'rededicate himself to the establishment of Middle East Peace.'"
"They wrote: 'We are increasing convinced that completing the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, rather than invading Iraq, should have been the priority for U.S. policy in the Middle East. But even now, no matter what happens in Iraq, we believe renewed U.S. leadership for Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace is essential and that resolving the conflict will dramatically reduce support for extremism worldwide...."
First of all The Lutheran didn't even have the respect to call the President by his title. But just how the hell does this group of wishful thinkers with blinders on think that Middle East Peace will come with Saddam Hussain pouring money into suicide bombers? This is a first, a communal cranialrectosis or is it a rectalcraniosis?
I like attending the Lutheran Church. I like the liturgy, I like the tolerance of my non-traditional theology. But it makes it really difficult to remain when I see the leader of the church say and do things that are implied in the name of the membership that cannot be true of all the membership.
The last time I was on a rant like this, I wrote an email to the Bishop and got a form reply back, then nothing. I'm not going to bother this time.
Here is the bottom line:
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. DO NOT render unto Caesar that which is God's.
Reflections on Lent
At the depths of winter, as we await the coming of Spring, the Christian faiths all observe the Season of Lent, the forty days and forty nights before Easter Sunday, beginning with Ash Wednesday, and then culminating with Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Traditionally Lent is a time of penance, and preparation for the coming of Easter. Most observers do penance by giving up some or several pleasures. In some cases it is more institutionalized and there are rules such as no meat on Friday (Fish in this case does not count as meat.) or even no meat at all during Lent and fasting on Fridays.
This year our church is focusing on sin and its removal by Baptism. Last Sunday the Old Testament lesson was from Genesis—the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man, from whence comes the doctrine of Original Sin. The Epistle lesson was Paul’s letter to the Romans, talking about the original sin and its expiation by Jesus. The Gospel lesson was on the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness after his baptism. Yesterday, the Gospel lesson was on Nicodemus and his questions concerning the concept of being born again through Baptism.
I have written before on Baptism, and I am not sure that the attempt to link it and Lent are consistent. I see Lent as a very valid time of reflection on personal shortcomings and a desire to do better, and a time for the remorse that comes from a good person doing wrong things. (Bad people have no remorse.) Baptism, on the other hand, is part of the rescue from our wrong ways. During Lent, it would seem to me that a true appreciation of the wrong we do requires not having the hope of its being cancelled held too evidently. The promise of a quick release from remorse robs it of its potency.
Even for those of us who do not believe in salvation through Jesus death, at least in the sense of His being the sacrifice that wipes away our sins, Lent is a proper season to observe, to take the time to reflect on our values and our shortcomings with respect to those values.
This year our church is focusing on sin and its removal by Baptism. Last Sunday the Old Testament lesson was from Genesis—the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man, from whence comes the doctrine of Original Sin. The Epistle lesson was Paul’s letter to the Romans, talking about the original sin and its expiation by Jesus. The Gospel lesson was on the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness after his baptism. Yesterday, the Gospel lesson was on Nicodemus and his questions concerning the concept of being born again through Baptism.
I have written before on Baptism, and I am not sure that the attempt to link it and Lent are consistent. I see Lent as a very valid time of reflection on personal shortcomings and a desire to do better, and a time for the remorse that comes from a good person doing wrong things. (Bad people have no remorse.) Baptism, on the other hand, is part of the rescue from our wrong ways. During Lent, it would seem to me that a true appreciation of the wrong we do requires not having the hope of its being cancelled held too evidently. The promise of a quick release from remorse robs it of its potency.
Even for those of us who do not believe in salvation through Jesus death, at least in the sense of His being the sacrifice that wipes away our sins, Lent is a proper season to observe, to take the time to reflect on our values and our shortcomings with respect to those values.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
This is reality
The New Sisyphus has a superb post on the Middle East. It leads to different conclusions than we usually do. Go read it, there aught to be a test.
If you don't see it now...
I can't resist
Mike Gilleland posted this translation and the original quote in French:
Tonight is one of those nights when my college French, which was fairly good at one point, is thinking that it is accurate in meaning, but not quite the style--so here goes:
My version is more literal, but I think that mark is less forceful than nature, and the use of "au contraire" needs to be brought out. The choice of speak much vs. use many words is more subtle, but I argue for my version (of course).
As it is the mark of great minds to say many things in a few words, so it is that of little minds to use many words to say nothing.
Comme c'est le caractère des grands esprits de faire entendre en peu de paroles beaucoup de choses, les petits esprits au contraire ont le don de beaucoup parler, et de ne rien dire.
Tonight is one of those nights when my college French, which was fairly good at one point, is thinking that it is accurate in meaning, but not quite the style--so here goes:
As it is the nature of great minds to mean many things in a few words, the small minds, on the contrary, are given to speak much and say nothing.
My version is more literal, but I think that mark is less forceful than nature, and the use of "au contraire" needs to be brought out. The choice of speak much vs. use many words is more subtle, but I argue for my version (of course).
Incoming!...
If this holds up over time, the implications for religion, science, and philosophy are unimaginable.
Thanks to Peg Kaplan for the link.
Thanks to Peg Kaplan for the link.
