Re: How do you calm down the hot-heads?

From: BJKlein (bjk@imminst.org)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 15:55:22 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Sullivan: "COG: Creatine may boost memory and intelligence"

    Robert Said:

    >So by preserving the meme that one "will" die, you don't have
    >to break the entire christianity/death/salvation meme-set.

    Robert, just curious, but by preserve the 'death' meme, are you suggesting
    an afterlife awaits us after death? Or, is death simply oblivion? Or, am I
    missing some other option you have in mind?

    Thanks for clarifying this for me. I hope I'm not asking a question that's
    been asked a hundred times before.

    Bruce J. Klein
    http://www.imminst.org

    ==========================

    >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Alex Future Bokov asked about how to
    >spread the memes without blowing "belief" fuses...
    >
    > > It's not particularly good memetics to use the L-word (life extension) in
    > > front of faculty members.
    >
    >Well, citing an article in Science will have a pretty good impact
    >on any serious faculty member [1]. As will pointing out the number
    >of companies now working on aging [2]. And a serious attack
    >on the conditions associated with aging (such as Aubrey has
    >developed [3]) will tend to silence the objections of those
    >more educated in medicine. Its not a question of "if" but "when".
    >
    > > Let alone make fun of Christianity... especially in
    > > Texas of all places. They don't believe me.
    >
    >One way to spin this is to point out that we aren't talking about
    >"immortality" (that is what tends to blow the "belief" fuses I
    >think). Much better to point out that we are talking about extending
    >healthful life (gerotologists call this making the longevity
    >curve "rectangular"). As Damien pointed out in the Spike and Robert
    >Freitas pointed out at a recent Alcor conference [4] (and was obvious
    >to me back at Extro3 so many years ago...) you cannot beat the hazard
    >function (at least not as humans are currently instantiated). Probably
    >the best you can do is something like 2000-7000 years unless you
    >really push on the hazard function by reengineering the human body
    >with nanotechnology and even then it is still very very difficult
    >to trump the hazard function.
    >
    >(So by preserving the meme that one "will" die, you don't have
    >to break the entire christianity/death/salvation meme-set.
    >One simply replaces the concept of a death that may be prolonged
    >and painful with the image of a much longer life -- where one gets
    >to enjoy ones great-great-great grandchildren and a probable end
    >which might be painful but will probably be quick, e.g. car accident
    >or something similar).
    >
    >Now the thousands of years concept may be a stretch. I once did a
    >calculation on the best estimates I could find of loss of brain
    >neurons and the numbers I got were much less (hundreds of years if I recall).
    >So unless we get stem cell replacement of neurons on a regular basis all
    >bets may be off much sooner (so long as one doesn't mention "uploading").
    >
    > > Anybody have suggestions on how I could communicate the need for nuance,
    > > diplomacy, and picking one's battles to these well-meaning but slightly
    > naive
    > > youngsters? Some example, some object lesson that would resonate with
    > people
    > > who overestimate the degree to which the 'normal' world gets the big
    > picture?
    >
    >A very, very long time ago, I took a course as part of my "enlightenment"
    >process -- one of the things that stuck in my mind was the statement:
    > "Never destroy someone's belief system unless you are committed to
    > replacing it".
    >(Or something to that effect.) The emphasis is on your personal commitment
    >to *replacing* the belief system -- a very very hard thing to do -- one
    >must essentially reprogram a human mind which probably has years of
    >experience.
    >
    >It is a very powerful concept. People construct their lives around their
    >beliefs. Why? Because their beliefs have allowed them to survive until the
    >current day. Destroy someones beliefs and you might as well have cast them
    >adrift in a Class 5 hurricane [5]. So it is relatively important to present
    >ideas in a way that is compatible with pre-existing belief systems. As new
    >ideas become more commonplace (consider for example the impact the Matrix
    >series will have on society) then the older ideas will be discarded
    >(witness gay bishops being elected by the Anglican church for example).
    >
    >[I'm not stating that the Matrix led to the election of a gay bishop --
    >they are separate vectors -- I'm simply commenting on how beliefs can
    >and will change over time -- but it is very difficult to "force" the
    >process.]
    >
    >
    >Robert
    >
    >1. Martin, G. M., LaMarco, K, Strauss, E., Kelnder, K. L.
    > "Research on Aging: The End of the Beginnning"
    > Science 299(5611):1339-1341 (29 February 2003).
    > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5611/1339
    >2. http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Aging/AntiAgingCompanies.html
    >3. http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/IBGcase.htm
    >4. http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DeathIsAnOutrage.htm
    >5. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtml



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 16:03:38 MDT