3 ms·

>>Give me, or my family enough money, and I’d be happen to be a brain in a bucket for a fixed period of time. Who knows what could happen. Maybe I’d be dead, ma

>>Give me, or my family enough money, and I’d be happen to be a brain in a bucket for a fixed period of time. Who knows what could happen. Maybe I’d be dead, maybe I’ll be in a waking dream, or maybe nothing at all. We don’t know. That's an interesting perspective. Someone, extremely aware of what he's doing, taking one for the team--while being rewarded. Maybe the family will enjoy the $$ but at least you leave a legacy. Obviously it has to be a major experiment, the final one after all animal testing is exhausted. People sacrifice themselves to save others all the time, soldier jumping on top of grenade, people running into burning houses to save others, going to Mars etc etc

PeterStuer 8y ago
Just keep on piling ever more of the spoils of 'progress' on the 0,1%, while keeping the rest in a dog eat dog 'job hunt' struggle for survival, and you will have no shortage of 'volunteers'.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  What is an astronaut, especially the early ones ?
- torgian 8y ago
  I totally get the '0.1%' thought here, the idea being that the majority of this scientific progress will only benefit those how can afford it. Personally, I'd be hoping for more universal advancement. I hope society gets to the point where scientific advancements benefit all people, not just the minority that can afford such advancements.
  - drusepth 8y ago
    As with most advancements, it's doubtful we'll ever get to a time period where we'll discover/invent/create/do something new and suddenly it's available to everyone. All things get cheaper with time, and scale eventually propagates once-expensive things out to more of the populace. In most cases the higher origin cost funds manufacturing advancements or research to bring down other costs, which make the argument that targeting the 0.1% is actually necessary for a wider distribution later. Rather than thinking in terms of "all these crazy improvements will only be for the 0.1%", it's important to think of them on a per-advancement basis. Each one will be expensive at first, and then get cheaper; and as we start seeing cheaper things available, we will also continue to see more advancements that are inevitably targeted at the 0.1% that will also eventually fall in price, and the cycle should continue indefinitely. I don't think we'll ever hit a period where there are no more advancements to be made, which means there will always be previous iterations that are available for cheaper than the cutting edge of anything.

PeterStuer 8y ago

Just keep on piling ever more of the spoils of 'progress' on the 0,1%, while keeping the rest in a dog eat dog 'job hunt' struggle for survival, and you will have no shortage of 'volunteers'.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
What is an astronaut, especially the early ones ?
torgian 8y ago
I totally get the '0.1%' thought here, the idea being that the majority of this scientific progress will only benefit those how can afford it. Personally, I'd be hoping for more universal advancement. I hope society gets to the point where scientific advancements benefit all people, not just the minority that can afford such advancements.
- drusepth 8y ago
  As with most advancements, it's doubtful we'll ever get to a time period where we'll discover/invent/create/do something new and suddenly it's available to everyone. All things get cheaper with time, and scale eventually propagates once-expensive things out to more of the populace. In most cases the higher origin cost funds manufacturing advancements or research to bring down other costs, which make the argument that targeting the 0.1% is actually necessary for a wider distribution later. Rather than thinking in terms of "all these crazy improvements will only be for the 0.1%", it's important to think of them on a per-advancement basis. Each one will be expensive at first, and then get cheaper; and as we start seeing cheaper things available, we will also continue to see more advancements that are inevitably targeted at the 0.1% that will also eventually fall in price, and the cycle should continue indefinitely. I don't think we'll ever hit a period where there are no more advancements to be made, which means there will always be previous iterations that are available for cheaper than the cutting edge of anything.