I’ve joined a Toastmasters group to improve my public speaking. This is my first talk given in the group, the Icebreaker. I speak about being an alcoholic for three years, and then not doing that anymore.
I have been informed that I need to move a bit, add some gestures, and take my hands out of my pockets. I will be working on that next.
Rand Paul recently lifted large sections of the wikipedia entry on Gattaca during a speech. I guess this is being called plagiarism? I can’t find anything to get upset about, not even enough to quirk an eyebrow, so I won’t be commenting on that. Seriously, there are PLENTY of awful things about Rand Paul to actually attack, who cares that he didn’t write his own movie synopsis?
What does draw my ire is that people keep referring to Gattaca as a dystopia. Um… what? No.
I will preface this by saying it’s been around a decade since I last saw this movie. But I don’t think my memory’s faded to the point that I could confuse Gattaca’s society for some 1984 totalitarian nightmare. So why do people insist that Gattaca portrays a dystopia?
We already do in-vitro genetic screening to prevent the births of children with terrible deformities and handicaps. This is a GOOD thing. Why not ensure that your children get the best genes you can give them? Don’t we want the next generation to be better? Don’t we want our children to be smarter, stronger, healthier, happier, and live longer lives than we do?
And the NASA program in Gattaca was entirely correct to screen out astronauts with faulty hearts that were liable to fail under the pressure of launch and thus risk the lives of everyone on board.
Yes, it kinda sucks to be the guy born without those benefits in the future, just like it sucks to be the guy born with Down’s Syndrome in the present. But having more healthy people and less sick people doesn’t strike me as dystopic in any way.
I will grant – the main character is discriminated against terribly. Even after proving he’s as mentally capable as any other adult, in relatively good physical shape, and possessed an astounding work ethic, he still can’t get anything more than janitorial work because he was born “the old way”. He’s an in-valid and therefore he’s obviously less trustworthy, more violent, etc.
But that’s just good ol’ fashioned prejudice. It’s just a metaphor for racism. We already agree that prejudice is bad. But we don’t call movies set in the 50′s “dystopias”, despite the rampant society-wide racism/sexism. How does one jump from “prejudice is bad” to “genetic screening leads to dystopia”? Seems like an unfounded leap. Mad Men is far more of a dystopia than Gattaca.
I suspect someone who disliked genetic screening found a movie that has genetic screening and an unfairly treated main character and now they’re pointing at it and trying to say “See! Genetic Screening is Evil!” This is only one step above the old “You know who else was a vegetarian?” argument.
I’m annoyed that they are taking a good movie (and Gattaca is quite good, give it a view if you haven’t seen it) and trying to make it say something it didn’t.
My employer encourages philanthropy among their employees (which is awesome). Every year they have a week where employees are encourages to volunteer for various organizations during the work day, while still drawing full pay! Some of those organizations even come to our place of work to make this volunteering as convenient as possible. So last week, as part of one such charity endeavor, I saw in our lunch room nearly a dozen people tying two blankets together, over and over.
I don’t want to sound scrooge-like, but this seemed like an absolutely terrible charity.
To clarify: two moderately-thick pieces of cloth about 3’x3’ were placed one atop the other. The edges were then cut into strips about 1 inch wide and 4 inches long all along all four sides. The strips were then knotted together by hand, to form a single piece of cloth that was twice the previous thickness, about 2.5’x2.5’ in dimension.
I’m not one to say that poor people must dress in rags. I despise those assholes who say “Well you have a refrigerator and a cell phone, why the hell are you getting food aid?”. Poor people can have nice things too.
And perhaps there is some benefit to having a single double-thickness blanket rather than two single-thickness blankets. OK, you lose the ability to have less covering on warm nights, and you lose some square footage. But the blankets won’t get tangled up with each other, and one won’t slip off to the side or to the floor, so maybe that is worth the trade-off.
But this blanket-tying process was an incredibly time-intensive project. A pair of people would be laboring manually at these and producing maybe one every half hour. My SO pointed out that the introduction of a sewing machine would easily quintuple production, and save on lost square footage. It wouldn’t be as pretty, but I don’t think that’s as much of a concern as children shivering from the cold at night. A minor efficiency upgrade would provide warmth to 125 kids rather than 25 kids – I don’t think the aesthetics can compensate for that much lost utility.
Or one could simply give those families two blankets.
This charity seems to have provided almost NO appreciable improvement over the alternative of giving two un-joined blankets, but managed to soak up over 100 man-hours of volunteer labor. I have no idea how much good 100 man-hours of unskilled minimal labor can produce, but I’m willing to wager is more than “almost nothing”. This charity has taken away volunteer hours that could have gone to actual charities that do good. It is an Un-Charity.
I didn’t say anything (which is why I’m blogging instead) because I don’t want to be the asshole in the office. My co-workers who volunteered for this had good intentions. My employer was certainly trying to do a good thing as well. But seriously, why does it make me such a huge prick to point out that sometimes it’s important to say “fuck the intentions” and look at the actual outcomes? This is basically just way of making middle-class people feel warm and fuzzy that they’re so philanthropic, at the cost of actual philanthropy!
I can hear Robin Hanson sighing.
I said yesterday that I get the impression Daniel Abraham is not as impressed with truth and honesty as most people say they are. He almost seems to be saying there are times when it is better to suppress the truth and lie to the public, if it results in better outcomes. It even looks like he’s saying that the Freedom to Lie is an important one, and to take that away from people is to destroy a portion of our free will.
I have been called naiive for this, but I disagree with that on a cellular level. That is a freedom we’re better off without. And it’s probably just a projection of my own bias, but it leads me down an interesting path…
BE YE WARNED – HERE THERE BE SPOILERS
Daniel Abraham does look to be saying in these books that outcomes are more important than intentions. Geder is good-hearted and personally likable. He simply wants to be shown some basic human respect and left to read his speculative fiction/essays. His intentions are relatable and if not “good”, at least not blameworthy. And yet despite his good character and innocent intent he commits atrocities – nuking a city, giving power to foreign cultists, and starting a war of conquest.
Dawson’s intentions are honorable. He wants stability and order. For the law to be upheld and honor be served. He is strong-hearted and firm, even if he is a bit of an elitist prick. He is basically a good person. And yet his actions lead to a devastating civil war that almost tears his kingdom apart.
Both are cases of good intentions, but bad outcomes.
The Priests of the Goddess, on the other hand… they are painted as evil. They’re religious fanatics from the desert. They want to convert everyone and bring the world under the rule of their goddess. They worship a giant bug. They have spiders living in their blood – their flesh is literally corrupt. But what are their outcomes? They abolish falsehood and deceit wherever they go. They want to unite the world to put an end to all war. All we’ve seen them do in the narrative so far is A) reveal when others are lying, and B) use their powers as weapons of warfare – which anyone involved in a war would do… and which saved lives when employed! If Dawson hadn’t had been so stubborn they could have ended the siege in a matter of days, saving the lives of soldiers as well as preventing the death by disease and starvation of hundreds (thousands?) of serfs and peasants! Oh, and I guess they’re also hunting for a heretic that is trying to undermine them and kill their goddess, but you can’t fault them for that.
I am reminded of The Sword of Good (also available in audio). Could this series be a more in-depth exploration of that theme? Will this end up being a parable about how intentions don’t matter nearly as much as outcomes? That maybe you should shove your “good intentions” up your ass and go with the outcome that results in millions fewer people dying? I hope so. :)
The King’s Blood, by Daniel Abraham
Synopsis: A religious order works to bring their ancient evil goddess back into a high-fantasy world. Wars, intrigue, and civil revolt erupt. This is the second book in a series, preceded by The Dragon’s Path
Book Review: Daniel Abraham excels at characterization. Every single character is a vibrant, living individual, with a strong personality and internal motivations. They live beyond the mere pages of the book. His plotting is also well-thought out and intricate. The political realities of his world, combine with this characters he’s populated it with, lead inevitably to tragic outcomes. However these results are never due to contrived situations or authorial fiat, but arise naturally and unavoidably because due who the characters are. The seeds of their demise are sown deeply within themselves. There are many class conflicts and deep-rooted problems. This is intelligent fiction for intelligent readers. Unfortunately his prose is a little flat, I never truly fell in love with the world like I did in Way of Kings, or Daniel’s earlier Leviathan Wakes
(with Ty Franck). The book also suffers from Second Book Syndrome – it feels primary as a way of bringing the action from the first book to the next book without being critical or exhilarating in its own right. Compared to Dragon’s Path, the stakes in this book are less personal to the protagonists (generally), and the tension is less tense. This is a good book on its own, but not a great book. I would Recommend the previous book – The Dragon’s Path – and I want to say this one is right on the edge of Recommended, but I honestly think that will depend on the following book(s) in the series. So – provisionally Not Quite Recommended.
Book Club Review: This is another great book for book clubs. Abraham makes a lot of commentary on issues that are ripe for discussion. The conflict between the monetary power of the merchant class and the political power of the noble classes is explored. Our society has decided that the merchants are more deserving of their power, having earned it – but their mercenary dedication to profit seems to hurt us in other ways. Wouldn’t a noble class with a mandate to rule well and a strong sense of noblesse oblige work as well or better? Geder seems to represent the forces of Progressivism, being liberal and educated and very geeky, and he is responsible for atrocities and is an absolutely awful ruler. I don’t know if Abraham is as interested in the Neo-Reactionaries as I am, but Dawson seems to represent the forces of Neo-Reactionism very well. He is intelligent, honorable, and rules well and with integrity. However he’s also an elitist prick who considers the common people to be in a class slightly below human… and he ends up plunging the kingdom into a vicious civil war. Abraham is as good at taking both sides of a complicated issue as he is at portraying all sides of a complicated character.
Furthermore, based on this book and Leviathan Wakes, I get the impression he is not as impressed with truth and honesty as most people say they are. He almost seems to be saying there are times when it is better to suppress the truth and lie to the public, if it results in better outcomes. Or does he? His nuance, intelligence, and ambiguity make for great discussion, we went on for quite a while. Recommended!
I went to MileHiCon this past weekend. It was awesome. Here are details.
One of the first things I did was run into Paolo Bacigalupi, multiple-award-winning author of The Windup Girl. At the last MileHiCon I had attended, two years ago, I had tagged along as Aarron Hughes from our Book Club took him to lunch. They were talking in the hallway when I showed up, and I came over to say hi. Paolo recognized me. Allow me to emphasize – from a lunch conversation two years ago, just one fan out of dozens that day and I’m sure thousands in the intervening time – he actually recognized me and placed me as one of the people he went to lunch with. I was blown away. I am awful with names, and only slightly better with faces. Example: during the con a girl with pink hair said hi to me, and chatted with me for a few minutes. It was clear we’d met in the past few months, she knew my name, and referred to recent local cons. However I had no idea who she was, she didn’t even look familiar. I am really freakin’ bad with that sort of thing. Every now and then I still space out the names of my fellow book-club attendees, and I see them every few weeks! Paolo is brilliant and charming and I was stunned. That’s him in the red. (I’m in the center. Yes, that’s who you think it is on the right. I’ll get to that!)
Of course with Paolo at the con, I stalked him through several of his panels. Because of Con Rule #1.
1. Panel topics are irrelevant. Panelists are paramount.
A panel about the most interesting topic in the world can be a complete bore if no one of interest is on it. It can be awkward and stuttering despite the best moderator and supportive audience. Likewise, a panel about pocket lint can be fascinating and/or hilarious with the right panelists. They will be a pleasure to watch regardless of what they speak on.
A mildly bad panelist will stay quiet and not say much at all. But a really bad panelist will drown the panel with a fire-hose of concentrated boring drivel. They will not stop talking about their books, their protagonists, their worlds, their languages; without ever giving anyone a reason to care. A good panelist is interesting because s/he will reveal insights about the world, or dramatic moments from their lives, and make you care. A great panelist will do the same with charm and style. If you find a great panelist, follow them around, all their panels will be awesome.
Paolo Bacigalupi is a great panelist. At one of his panels he warned us of the coming reign of our Mutant Boar Overlords. Turns out when the Fukushima nuclear reactor went critical following the 2011 tsunami, the local farmers set all their livestock free as they evacuated the area to avoid the radiation. They couldn’t take them along, and this was less cruel than leaving them locked down to starve to death. The domestic pigs mated with the wild boars and the resultant hybrid offspring are extremely smart, very aggressive, and are overrunning the area. It’s a big problem, and authorities are hunting down radioactive boars as we speak. His delivery was hilarious, we were all entertained, and illustrative of unforeseen consequences and the perils of technology. And it tied in with his novels without being pandering or boring – I was enriched for the telling. This is what panels should be.
(btw – always sit near the front. Sometimes there aren’t any microphones, sometimes the mics fail or aren’t that good.)
I left early on Friday (went to go see a friend’s band playing at a bar), so I didn’t get to enjoy the Friday after-hours festivities, which I hear were a ton of fun. Next time!
Saturday saw me attending the Strong Women in Film & Fiction panel, with Molly Tanzer speaking. Molly is intensely interesting – she has strong, well-informed opinions, she has an amazing voice (I’m a sucker for voices), and she’s Our People. Yes – around our age, sharing our humor and geekdom, with tons of meme-inspired jokes and strong meta-awareness. Having publicly committed to talking with more girls, I went up after the panel and said hi. Which leads to Con Rule #2:
2. Don’t be afraid to engage
Authors are just like you – they want to interact with fun, interesting people. But they have an entire audience before them, there’s no good way to pick out one to talk with. Go up and introduce yourself and have something based on the last 50 minutes you spent listening to them to say to them. Don’t be too worried about annoying/irritating them, most people will let you know rather quickly if they’d prefer you weren’t around. Let them make that decision, don’t make it for them!
Needless to say, the talking went well. :) We chatted for a bit, it was fun, and I promised to show up to her reading the next day. I had to bail on a panel about patent law that I really wanted to go to, and that included Aaron (friend from book club) as a panelist. I had told him I’d go, but c’mon – cute intelligent girl takes precedence any day. I’m sure he understands.
A bit later I was walking the halls when I saw someone who looked suspiciously like Ted Chiang. Yes, THAT Ted Chiang. The best SF story author currently writing. I had been warned by Paolo yesterday that he might show up, so I was on the lookout. And I had brought my copy of Stoires of Your Life and Others. I stopped, and asked him if he was Ted Chiang (YES HE WAS!) and asked him if he would sign the book. Then I proceeded to TALK WITH TED CHIANG FOR NEARLY AN HOUR!
OK, I’ll admit it… I fanboy-ed out a bit. I was nervous and kept saying how awesome he was and how much I loved his work, and generally acted like a doofus. But he took it well, and we talked a bit about his writing process, a couple of his stories, and why he declined a nomination for Liking What You See, and had some general chatter as well. He’s obviously brilliant, but also rather reserved. He speaks quietly and seems to hold back a bit. Perhaps my enthusiasm startled him. But it was amazing. :) Here’s another pic.
Looking at these pics now, it occurs to me that we’re mirroring each other in both of them. Which is like – wtf? I don’t think I was mirroring him, because I was paying attention to the camera and couldn’t see those at my side. I don’t think he was mirroring me for the same reason, and cuz he is the high-status one in this situation. Did we just both naturally assume those postures by coincidence? Crazy.
I also went to see Ian Tregillis talk. His forthcoming book is a noir murder mystery where the murder victim is the Archangel Gabriel. Hell yeah! He read an excerpt and passed around a copy of the cover art. It’s really cool and afterward I asked if he had any extra, and if I could buy one if so. He said he did have one spare, and since I was the first to ask I could simply have it outright! And then he even agreed to autograph it for me!! At this time, it may be the only one in existence!
Also, go see him talk if you get a chance, he’s just as smart as you’d expect anyone who’d plotted out the Milkweed Trilogy to be.
Here’s a picture.
Speaking of things I got signed, this is the Ted Chiang autograph I mentioned earlier:
During one of his panels Paolo made a reference to Stuff White People Like. I pulled my copy off the shelf when I got home and had him autograph it the next day. There may be lots of signed copies of his books around, but I’m probably the only person who’s got his signature on the cover of SWPL!
And finally, here’s Cat Valente’s signature on the audio book version of Deathless. She said it’s the first time she’s signed an audiobook. Another unique item!
I could have engaged her in conversation at this point. And I SHOULD have. But I didn’t. :( I’ll get into that when I get to Sunday.
Come Saturday evening I went to a house party where I managed to continue to make new contacts, spending a lovely couple hours chatting and flirting with the delightful Danielle Burkhart and Miranda Suri. I have at this pointed had more interaction with new people in a 24-hour period than I’ve had in…. well, since I first joined the book club I guess. And back then I’d had the support of two shots of vodka and the structure of discussing a common book to help! I do believe I’m getting much better at this “being social” thing! I would have stayed later into the night, but I wanted to get back to the con by 9pm for the panel about Writing Sex with both Paolo and Cat Valente. (Cat is a good panelist as well. And since WorldCon 2012 , I’ve kinda been crushing on her).
The panel was fantastic. At one point a flaming dickbag stood up and was all “Sex is corrupting our children, m’kay? You should write words about sex and put them on a paper that children can get their hands on!” (exaggerated for effect, but that was the gist). CAT JUMPED ON HIS ASS and smacked him right now. It was awesome. Often if there’s a dick in an audience that makes an idiotic comment the panelists will just kinda nod, say something placating, and move along. It keeps the peace, but it always makes me sad to see. Cat did not take any of that shit. She stood up and told him what a fucking idiot he was, why he was wrong, and that he wanted to shut up about it now. It was glorious. My crush level increased.
This is Cat, btw, from her reading earlier in the day. She has an amazing voice. If you’ve never read anything of hers you should, very soon. Her writing is unlike anything else out there right now. She does not write prose – she writes story-length and novel-length poetry, with plot and character growth. The story she’s reading in this pic is a Western (surrealist, of course) and she had the drawl that made it stunning. Her voice sounded like the desert – dusty and merciless, and stretching to the horizon, if you could squint hard enough to make it out under the beating sun. I wish I had recorded it. It’s not fair that only a few dozen people witnessed such a thing.
But back to the Saturday sex panel. Afterwards there was a bit of a continuing discussion in the hall with the panelists, and I managed to insert myself into that once again. (I swear, there’s no better way to start a conversation with someone than to listen to them talking on a subject for 50 minutes and then continuing in that vein. Why don’t dates start like this?) So once again I was talking with Paolo, and this time I got to interact directly with Cat as well! And we were discussing sex and porn, and porn’s effects on children (specifically Paolo’s soon-to-be-teenage son).
This was an amazing day.
By Sunday, I was hurting. I went back for a third day, because I had told several people I would. But honestly, it was too much. This has led to the creation of Con Rule #3.
3. Know Your Limits
Day three was when I got the audio book signed by Cat. I could have kept talking, and it even seemed like she might welcome the distraction. I had a perfect subject as well – it was her first signed audio book… had she ever thought (or been asked) to narrate her own books? She’s got a beautiful voice. Etc etc from there. But I was low on social energy. I’d met many people, and half of them had been people I idolize, and Cat was 1. New, 2. Idolized, and 3. Crush-object. I thanked her and turned away. One step at a time.
A bit later I ran into Paolo. I chatted again for a bit, but I started to go off the rails. I rambled about my girlfriend for a bit. Why did I do that? He is not interested, it has nothing to do with anything. He politely excused himself and ran after Cat (which I would have done in his position as well). It was then that I realized I was just about out of spoons.
I just looked up that term to link it, and it seems that it’s bad form to use the “out of spoons” analogy if you are not actually dealing with a crippling chronic illness in your life. So I’ll be more aware and not appropriate that term in the future, but I’m leaving this in the post so that the word can spread and others can be enlightened as I have been.
I was asked to dinner with one of the lovely ladies from the previous day as I was leaving, but I knew I could take no more and needed to recharge. So I went home. Next time I see her she won’t be a stranger, so it won’t be nearly as much energy to chat and socialize. :) That’s the great thing about meeting new people.
In summary – I had a great time, if perhaps a bit overtaxing at the end. Next year will be even better. And this post is way too long as it is, so I’m stopping here!
I was at MileHiCon over the weekend, during which time I spoke with Paolo Bacigalupi (/shameless-name-drop). He related his legal difficulties with Night Shade Books (publisher of Windup Girl) and how glad he was that at the time he was drawing a good income from his YA series. Night Shade Books was holding his adult-SF-fiction career hostage, and he was in a much stronger position because he didn’t have to give a fuck – he had a YA career going as well.
Ted Chiang related similar (but less dramatic) circumstances. He makes a reasonable living doing freelance technical writing, which allows him to write what he wants (short stories & novelettes rather than novels), about things that interest him, and at the pace he wants, allowing him to put in the time to make his stories exactly the way he wants them. (I’ve mentioned before that Ted Chiang is the best short story writer of our times. This is one of the reasons why.)
Here’s a fascinating article – Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex?
“I find some of my female friends attractive but I’ve learned to live without sex. Emotional entanglements are too complicated,” he says. “I can’t be bothered.”
This is exactly the problem with relationships. Once you get involved with other people, they complicated your life. You can’t help but be complicated by them when you do care, and caring is dangerous. In Japan they’ve managed to almost completely replace what you traditionally needed other humans for with technology and super-stimuli. I don’t blame anyone for making that trade, sometimes I wish I could make it myself.
It’s one of the reasons I find the concept of marriage so poisonous. People should stay together for exactly as long as they wish to be together. The bondage of marriage forces people to pretend to keep giving fucks about each other after they don’t actually want to anymore. It gathers up all those complications and strangles a couple with them, and adds in a few more just to rub it in. To be truly in love with someone is to be free to leave, and choose not to. A fuck given freely is priceless, one that is extorted means nothing.
Maybe I should do this weekly, so they don’t build up like this. ><
A Bad Lip Reading of Game of Thrones. This should NOT be as funny as it is. But it is.
Donald Glover’s notes on why he’ s leaving Community are moving. I know that feel. I expect many people do.
Oprah says someone who can experience wonder can’t be an atheist. I wonder how Oprah would feel if someone said “You don’t conform to my hateful stereotype, so I don’t call you black then.”
The GOP changed the rules the House works under on Oct 1st, specifically to force a government shut down.
“the entirety of the bible is different when you know magic is real. Most miracles are just boring when you’ve got a wand. Jesus was clearly a dark wizard who used Horcruxes, seeing as he performed magic and came back from the dead. Lets look at Corinthians 15:20-26 in this context.”
Disney’s “Frozen” is based on “The Snow Queen”. Apparently the original fairy tale had a rich cast of female characters, greatly outnumbering the men.
“Disney feels it’s necessary to take a female driven, female dominated story and cut it down to one princess protagonist with a dashing male helper/love interest”
American healthcare was already socialized by Reagan.
“Up until 1986, in the USA, hospitals could turn a dying person away at the door if they didn’t have money, or refuse to treat. […]
Ronald Reagan set up hospital emergency rooms as socialized healthcare, and then…
…didn’t fund them.
It’s an unfunded mandate.”
An awesome slipstream tumblr – Welcome to Shutdown
“There aren’t two Boehners anymore. Oh, there were, for weeks, and months. Two and they kept it secret. But now there are dozens. They travel in packs. When one falls they trample him, and return later, to eat the corpse, weeping. They bathe in a fountain of bronzer, nude save for American-flag lapel pins, but none are permitted to see. “
The Horror Novel You’ll Never Have to Live
An amazing good post on what it’s like to have to a price on your life that you have to pay every month. It made me realize that we have already been living in a Bacigalupi-ian SF dystopia.
SLEEP – NOW BY PRESCRIPTION
“one of the most basic and useful human hormones got completely excluded from medicine just because it didn’t have a drug company to push it”
Record Label Picks Copyright Fight — With The Wrong Guy
Oh hell yes. Burn down every copyright abuser (and patent troll) in the world. Make them swallow their own ashes and rend their clothes in despair. There are few fates too awful for the corporate despoilers of culture.
I didn’t realize Not Literally are a Denver-based group! Go watch some of their videos and you’ll be able to recognize a lot of Denver landmarks once you’re watching for them.
This is pretty much how I was taught evolution worked in church. This is why people who learn about evolution in church think it’s a ridiculous crock of shit. You’d think it was the stupidest thing ever too.
The Anti-Libertarian FAQ (or: Why I Hate Your Freedom)
A great read, and a concise reference for those who thoughtfully disagree with Libertarianism. (Note that “concise” is relative – I spread my reading out over two days because there’s a lot to libertarianism and thus a lot to reply to). Item 4.2 was particularly interesting.
Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens. Is assassination without due process worse than kidnapping/rendition/torture without due process? Dunno, but it’s probably easier.
5 Signs the New ‘RoboCop’ Movie Might Be Terrible. This is why we can’t have nice things.
“Well done, Strike Entertainment, you’ve turned the symbol of faceless authority into douchebro shades.”
What have the Romans ever done for us?
“Wherever humans gather together, big piles of human shit will inevitably follow. Cities are great, but if you want to live in one you have to solve the feces management problem … it’s likely that you’re less than 100 feet from human feces at this very second”
The “Great Stagnation” isn’t due to an actual stagnation of science/tech developments. The developments are simply being stifled by patent owners who are comfortable with the status quo and the governmental powers who enforce those patents. Patent Trolls are only the most visible tip of this iceberg. It started back in ’80 when Reagan reintroduced mercantilism to America, and Clinton continued it.
Let’s Drop “Feed the World”
I used the “it’s necessary to feed all the people” line myself, a lot.
“there is no direct connection between U.S. corn and soy production and ending hunger elsewhere”
” increasing crop production in the U.S. won’t help feed those people because insufficient production […] is not the heart of the problem”
(the below is quoted from Alonzo Fyfe)
“A bill was proposed to declare a science laureate – a scientist recognized for their ability to foster an understanding of and appreciation of science. A great communicator of scientific facts.
There is opposition – some groups don’t want people around who can communicate scientific fact. A scientifically ignorant population serves their interests much better.
After all, poisoning people and destroying their property is easier if people don’t understand that what is poisoning them and destroying their property.”
Fuck you to: American Conservative Union & the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Rot in hell.
So many ways to die in space. Drowning in your suit.
An amazing story in Strange Horizon’s about a non-neurotypical protagonist. Sooooo tasty. I’m linking the audio version because it’s exceptionally well narrated! Link to text in comments
“Don’t you think it’s cruel, to allow children to live as you do? Given the choice, wouldn’t you prefer to be cured, at least?
No no no no no no”
Adventures in Cop-Blocking.
Exciting! Looking out for your fellow citizens. Takes a remarkable amount of courage too, just to do something as simple as record a public interaction.
(What’s this, two posts in one day? Madness!)
Yesterday I explained why I attended an anti-Monsanto rally despite being pro-GMO (generally).
It occurred to me while I was writing it that I was protesting too much. I went ahead and finished the post, because I thought it was interesting and it made a point. And also because I realized having a follow-up post on the topic I’m about to cover would be much more interesting with an example already published.
Those familiar with the “free will” and “consciousness” debates will have already come across the argument that human consciousness is basically a giant PR gambit. Decisions are made, and actions are undertaken, before we are consciously aware that we’ve made a decision. Our conscious mind doesn’t decide much of anything – it is there to put together a coherent story of why we did things that is acceptable to those around us and present it to them. And a story is far more likely to be believed by an audience if the teller believes it as well – thus a primary duty of the conscious self is self-deception.
(Incidentally, this is why hacking yourself is vital if you want to actually change anything about yourself. Simply deciding to make a change won’t alter shit. You need to bust out the tools and go to work on your subconscious, because you are not in direct control.)
There is a far simpler explanation for why I went to the anti-Monsanto rally. My SO strongly wanted to go. As the provider of the overwhelming majority of my emotional support and sexual activity, her happiness and her opinion of me is very important to my life. Attendance would raise me in her esteem, and make her happy. My abstaining would disappoint her a lot. We have several friends who likewise would approve, and very few who would disapprove more than a token amount. There was much to gain from going, and not much to lose.
By coming up with the explanation that I did (yesterday’s post), I could almost completely mitigate the negative aspects of attendance – those who would disapprove of the rally attendance would accept the excuse given and reduce the penalties for doing so. I could keep my self-image as one who is pro-tech and reasonable, while strengthening the image of one who cares about politics. More than anything else, I could keep my own self-image of those without admitting I could be swayed by something as base as what other people would like of me.
I considered not publishing yesterday’s post at all, once I figured it was likely an elaborate self-deception. But – just because it’s not my actual motivation for going doesn’t mean it’s not true. I don’t disagree with anything I said.
I do appreciate the meta-thinking training I’ve gleamed from Overcoming Bias and LessWrong. Without that I never would have noticed what my brain was doing, and I would have pigeon-holed myself further into that identity.
I don’t think he actually has the balls to do this but – if congress can’t raise the debt ceiling by midnight tomorrow, that would be a perfect opportunity for Obama to hold all of congress in No Confidence, temporarily seize its financial powers for the executive branch (for the duration of the emergency only, of course), and start handing out decrees. It’s not quite the Ides of October, but it’s close!
I’m extremely curious if neo-reactionaries would view it as a step forward or backward. I assume back, since he’d still be ruling in the name of the mob, rather than as a representative of the noble class.
