3 ms·

Disappointing salad of ideas. Apparently I should be allowed to say that gay people are evil, but not that radical life extension is a really really bad and ye

by bambax 9y ago

Disappointing salad of ideas. Apparently I should be allowed to say that gay people are evil, but not that radical life extension is a really really bad and yes, in my opinion, truly evil and selfish idea. Should I be allowed to profess that humanity would be happier and less taxing on the planet if there were less of us? And should I be able to research methods to sterilize most people, and seek funding to experiment, without ever discussing the moral and practical consequences? What about radical life reduction (for others, of course)? The consequences of radical life extension should be discussed prior to implementation; I can't see what's so frustrating about that.

mundo 9y ago
The essay was not so much against "life extension is bad" as against "people who think life extension is good are bad."
- bambax 9y ago
  Fair point, but some ideas reflect on who expresses them. If you think gay people are evil, it says something about you (usually, not good). I think the same is true about life extension.
  - mundo 9y ago
    See, that sounds innocuous enough. Yet, this essay strikes a chord with me as delineating a real and serious problem. Best way I can explain why is an anecdote. The other day, someone asked if anyone could recommend a book on JS, and someone else suggested "Javascript: the good parts" by Douglas Crockford. The following exchange occurred: A: Oh, not Crockford, he's a sexist. B: Really? I hadn't heard, what'd he do? A: Ah, I forget. Turns out, the accusations against Crockford were (as far as I can tell) pretty weak and largely abandoned, but most people never read about that, they just saw the initial salvo and took it as gospel. That's where we are right now - we have gotten to the point where we take accusations of bias seriously, but not yet the point where we always make them that way. We have the power to destroy the careers of bad people, but not yet the responsibility to use it wisely or sparingly. Right now, the result of that is an understandable reticence to speak frankly about controversial topics and to hash out ideas in public, which is what the essay is describing.

by bambax 9y ago

mundo 9y ago

The essay was not so much against "life extension is bad" as against "people who think life extension is good are bad."

bambax 9y ago
Fair point, but some ideas reflect on who expresses them. If you think gay people are evil, it says something about you (usually, not good). I think the same is true about life extension.
- mundo 9y ago
  See, that sounds innocuous enough. Yet, this essay strikes a chord with me as delineating a real and serious problem. Best way I can explain why is an anecdote. The other day, someone asked if anyone could recommend a book on JS, and someone else suggested "Javascript: the good parts" by Douglas Crockford. The following exchange occurred: A: Oh, not Crockford, he's a sexist. B: Really? I hadn't heard, what'd he do? A: Ah, I forget. Turns out, the accusations against Crockford were (as far as I can tell) pretty weak and largely abandoned, but most people never read about that, they just saw the initial salvo and took it as gospel. That's where we are right now - we have gotten to the point where we take accusations of bias seriously, but not yet the point where we always make them that way. We have the power to destroy the careers of bad people, but not yet the responsibility to use it wisely or sparingly. Right now, the result of that is an understandable reticence to speak frankly about controversial topics and to hash out ideas in public, which is what the essay is describing.