Open Thread, May 11 - May 17, 2015

Gondolinian

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

In Praise of Life (Let’s Ditch the Cult of Longevity)

That article would be better titled "In Praise of Death", and is a string of the usual platitudes and circularities.

Overcoming Bias: Why Not?

Why not? Because (the article says) rationalists are cold, emotionless Vulcans, and valuing reason is a mere prejudice.

Prepping for cataclysms, neglecting ordinary emergencies

Maybe there are people who do that, but the article is pure story-telling, without a single claim of fact. File this one under "fiction".

A cryonics novel:

The New World: A Novel Hardcover – May 5, 2015 by Chris Adrian (Author), Eli Horowitz (Author)

The previous links scored 0 out of 3 for rational content, so coming to this one, I thought, what am I likely to find? Clearly, the way to bet is that it's against cryonics. There's only about a blogpost's worth of story in the idea of corpsicles just being unrevivable, so the novel will have to have revival working, but either it works horribly badly, or the revived people find themselves in a bad situation.

Click through...and I am, I think, pleasantly surprised to find that it might, in the end, be favourable to the idea. Or maybe not, there are no reviews and it's difficult to tell from the blurb:

Furious and grieving, Jane fights to reclaim Jim from Polaris [the "shadowy" cryonics company]. Revived in the future, Jim learns that he must sacrifice every memory of Jane if he wants to stay alive in the new world.

Spoiler request! How does it play out in the end?

Tomorrowland: Our Journey from Science Fiction to Science Fact Paperback – May 12, 2015 by Steven Kotler (Author)

Yep, futurological journalism. Pass.

Another of cryonics' founding generation goes into cryo, though under really bad circumstances.

Dr. Laurence Pilgeram becomes Alcor’s 135th patient on April 15, 2015

Shit happens.

Just a PSA: advancedatheist has a fixation on dehumanizing rationalists with an especial focus on rationalists 'not being able to get laid'. Here's some of his posts on this matter:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/lzb/open_thread_apr_01_apr_05_2015/c7gr

http://lesswrong.com/lw/m4h/when_does_technological_enhancement_feel_natural/cc09

http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1p/open_thread_apr_13_apr_19_2015/cams

http://lesswrong.com/lw/dqz/a_marriage_ceremony_for_aspiring_rationalists/72wr

It's best not to 'feed the trolls', so to speak.

6advancedatheist11y

I know "preppers" in Arizona who don't have any savings because they have spent all their money on this survivalist nonsense. They would do better to have put that money in the bank and applied for subsidized health insurance. The blogger agnostic does have a point about how the prepper mentality shows an abandonment of wanting to produce for and sustain the existing society, so that instead you can position yourself to become a scavenger and a parasite on the wealth produced by others if some apocalyptic collapse happens. That ridiculous Walking Dead series, which amounts to nonstop prepper porn, feeds some very damaging fantasies that I don't think we should encourage.

2CAE_Jones11y

I'm now curious: where are the essays that make actual arguments in favor of death? The linked article doesn't make any; it just asserts that death is OK and we're being silly for fighting it, without actually providing a reason (they cite Borges's distopias at the end, but this paragraph has practically nothing in common with the rest of the article, which seems to assume immortality is impossible anyway). Preference goes to arguments against Elven-style immortality (resistant but not completely immune to murder or disaster, suicide is an option, age-related disabilities are not a thing).