Most life on Earth is dormant, after pulling an 'emergency brake'(quantamagazine.org)
quantamagazine.org
Most life on Earth is dormant, after pulling an 'emergency brake'
https://www.quantamagazine.org/most-life-on-earth-is-dormant-after-pulling-an-emergency-brake-20240605/
252 comments
> The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..."
-- commonly attributed to Isaac Asimov
-- commonly attributed to Isaac Asimov
As a one-time scientist, I think Asimov may have been tricked by extreme selection bias on "That's funny..." utterances. It almost always precedes a crushing realization that you have fucked something up and probably wasted a lot of time.
You're probably days down exploring that explanation before the eventual "holy shit" (that I never really had the benefit of experiencing).
You're probably days down exploring that explanation before the eventual "holy shit" (that I never really had the benefit of experiencing).
The most exciting phrase that heralds a new discovery is not "eureka!" but "holy shit!"
The legend of “eureka” is that a fellow who had a specific problem in mind noticed something specific to his problem. Discoveries like sticky notes are not the same thing.
Yes. The "eureka" legend refers to the ancient Greek scholar Archimedes. He was tasked with determining if a gold crown commissioned by the king was pure gold, or if the goldsmith had substituted some silver. While taking a bath, Archimedes noticed that the water level rose as he got in, and he suddenly realized that the volume of water displaced must be equal to the volume of the submerged object. This gave him the insight that by measuring the volume of water displaced by the crown, and comparing it to the volume displaced by an equal weight of pure gold, he could determine the purity of the crown. Excited by his discovery, Archimedes supposedly leapt out of the bath and ran naked through the streets of Syracuse shouting "Eureka!" which means "I have found it!" in Greek.
To date, nobody has found the quote among Asimov's publishing writings [1]. Similar (but not as succinct) wordings have been identified in earlier sources, but nobody has been able to identify the exact origin of the quote.
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/03/02/eureka-funny/?amp=1
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/03/02/eureka-funny/?amp=1
Mid-1900s science fiction writers really seemed to like just randomly saying stuff and having people believe them. This isn't as bad as "Pournelle's Iron Law", but it's just as fact free, and I don't think it's good to believe fiction writers.
Since then, we've moved on and now instead believe cynical standup comedians or late night TV hosts are the ones who know the truth about everything.
Since then, we've moved on and now instead believe cynical standup comedians or late night TV hosts are the ones who know the truth about everything.
I'm all for it. People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative. Then they soak up all the grants.
> People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative. Then they soak up all the grants.
They have to put themselves in the situation to get lucky first. This person got a graduate education, and was competent enough to be selected to be doing research in what is likely a multimillion dollar lab owned by an institution, then she had the knowledge and ability to notice and be able to identify what had "accidentally" happened with a micro-organism that we barely understand.
Luck was the smallest part of this discovery. I would say that the grant money is well spent funding someone so "lucky".
They have to put themselves in the situation to get lucky first. This person got a graduate education, and was competent enough to be selected to be doing research in what is likely a multimillion dollar lab owned by an institution, then she had the knowledge and ability to notice and be able to identify what had "accidentally" happened with a micro-organism that we barely understand.
Luck was the smallest part of this discovery. I would say that the grant money is well spent funding someone so "lucky".
Everyone in science works hard. Only a few get lucky. People get scooped every day.
Source: spent years looking hard for hibernation promotion factor in P. aeruginosa ribosomes via cryo-EM. Got a PhD and worked a whole lot of 16 hour days. Never got lucky.
Source: spent years looking hard for hibernation promotion factor in P. aeruginosa ribosomes via cryo-EM. Got a PhD and worked a whole lot of 16 hour days. Never got lucky.
Many work hard designing and assembling perpetual motion machines
I can understand why, it's clearly possible. Just look at the galaxies moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Anything is possible, if you work out the magic.
But, see, that's the problem. I can't look at them...
Sure, the universe as a whole does not obey conservation of energy. That does not make it particularly useful for a generator.
It makes sense if you consider our obsevable universe as the inside of a huge black hole.
If this story were at all true, then you know very well that not everyone in science works hard. In my graduate cohort, those who did the sets first year, set themselves into research, and worked hard graduated. Those who did not left with a masters, although many found success in other fields. It was quite clearly delineated.
I'm talking about at the PI level. And yes of course a few people don't work hard, but the overwhelming majority do not differentiate themselves by how hard they work, is the point I'm trying to make. Your average PI has the skill set to take advantage of getting lucky.
Not sure what you're insinuating about the story not being true, would you like to see maps?
Not sure what you're insinuating about the story not being true, would you like to see maps?
Are you saying that people with a masters degree don't work hard?
I know some worked very hard, to not work very hard anymore.
> People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative.
Aka "fundamental attribution error" - overemphasizing internal or personal factors (such as skill or ability) while underemphasizing external or situational factors (such as luck or opportunity) when explaining someone's success or behavior. Fun fact: This bias has a tendency to leave stock traders bankrupt.
Aka "fundamental attribution error" - overemphasizing internal or personal factors (such as skill or ability) while underemphasizing external or situational factors (such as luck or opportunity) when explaining someone's success or behavior. Fun fact: This bias has a tendency to leave stock traders bankrupt.
> People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative.
This is literally the opposite of the situation put forth in the article. Accidental discoveries are accidental discoveries.
> Then they soak up all the grants.
What use does a machine learning model have for a grant? This seems like something that is uniquely useful to humans.
This is literally the opposite of the situation put forth in the article. Accidental discoveries are accidental discoveries.
> Then they soak up all the grants.
What use does a machine learning model have for a grant? This seems like something that is uniquely useful to humans.
If the emergent behaviour was to desire more and more corpus, then grant money would allow the AGI to purchase IP to consume
Maybe AI won't forget bacteria in the ice, but like us, it is really good at finding patterns, but at a massive scale. Instead of an accident it could find the hibernation mechanism from another angle.
And if AGI becomes a thing, it might go "Hey, this is funny" in weird ways after it has ingested enough data.
I love the novel Colossus because almost 60 years ago it portayed realistically how a nascent AGI could behave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_(novel)
And if AGI becomes a thing, it might go "Hey, this is funny" in weird ways after it has ingested enough data.
I love the novel Colossus because almost 60 years ago it portayed realistically how a nascent AGI could behave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_(novel)
I think ML is likely to be material to us making many more such discoveries. So much of the current constraint is not in the knowledge to identify the interesting pattern, but the capacity to look for it at scale.
Yeah but you missed the point op was making
That seems an uncharitable view of the reply.
The search space is huge, we sometimes find needles in haystacks by accident, isn’t it exciting that we have tools now that can systematically check every piece of hay?
The search space is huge, we sometimes find needles in haystacks by accident, isn’t it exciting that we have tools now that can systematically check every piece of hay?
ML search is more about ‘averages’ based on samples.
Innovations like these are more about ‘shocks’ that surface fitting cannot capture.
Note universal approximation theorem applies only to smooth surfaces.
Innovations like these are more about ‘shocks’ that surface fitting cannot capture.
Note universal approximation theorem applies only to smooth surfaces.
Not always. Quantile regression exists. And you can develop "no match" categories.
Quantile regression is also about averages.
Averages are formulated as measures of centrality in the L2 norm ("straight line" distance), sum(values) / count(values). Quantile regression uses modifications the L1 norm ("city block" distance); if median (50%) then it is a measure of centrality. Not everything is an average. If you're interested, this is a good (but math heavy) treatment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantile_regression#Computatio...
But the better the mean surface is fitted (in a generizable way), the easier it is to spot outliers.
Well said.
Perhaps. I was thinking along the lines of MarkBurns response - ML will allow us to efficiently look in those places we might otherwise only have searched by accident.
If ops point was rather that “accident”/“luck” are uniquely human… I don’t agree. Luck is when probability works out in your favour - and that can happen all the time with any sort of probabilistic search, which is rife in ML.
If ops point was rather that “accident”/“luck” are uniquely human… I don’t agree. Luck is when probability works out in your favour - and that can happen all the time with any sort of probabilistic search, which is rife in ML.
I've been reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb". But it's really about the process of discovery in nuclear physics. And most of the discoveries were made by accident.
Stephen B Johnson's "How we got to now" was enlightening on the topic of discovery for me (https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/how-we-got-now)
But if you don't study the math and physics hard, you will not be able to understand that you may have found something, valuable. It would be like Pearls Before Swine.
I've been using the humble refrigerator/freezer for accidental bacterial science experiments all my life.
(I vividly remember as a kid leaving a slice of bread in the refrigerator as a for-credit experiment until it grew interesting green mold to study)
(I vividly remember as a kid leaving a slice of bread in the refrigerator as a for-credit experiment until it grew interesting green mold to study)
Very similar pattern to the recent stories about grokking (someone leaving a model training for too long by accident, then discovering something unexpected when realizing the accident)
not necessarily, machine learning can make more accidents faster
This reminds me of the fact that humans used to be able to hibernate (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117993/) and (https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35033907/early-hum...)
From glancing over, it does not really seem a confirmed fact, but a hypothesis.
"They chose to spend the worst part of the year trying to sleep through it inside of relatively safe caves, and to do that, they sacrificed nutrition and vitamin D from the sun."
Also it does not really matter for your vitamin D levels, if you are outside in winter in the north or in a cave. The sun is too low for the body to produce Vitamin D anyway (only the Inuit for example do not need sun, to produce Vitamin D btw. )
And that they lacked nutrition in winter can also just mean, that there simply was not much food in the winters, which is kind of expected, before humans developed storage and preservation technologies?
"They chose to spend the worst part of the year trying to sleep through it inside of relatively safe caves, and to do that, they sacrificed nutrition and vitamin D from the sun."
Also it does not really matter for your vitamin D levels, if you are outside in winter in the north or in a cave. The sun is too low for the body to produce Vitamin D anyway (only the Inuit for example do not need sun, to produce Vitamin D btw. )
And that they lacked nutrition in winter can also just mean, that there simply was not much food in the winters, which is kind of expected, before humans developed storage and preservation technologies?
> only the Inuit for example do not need sun, to produce Vitamin D btw
As far as I can tell, they need vitamin D just like any other life form and can only synthesise it from the sun, just like all other lifeforms on Earth.
They might have adapted to reduced amounts of available vitamin D though[0], because they don't have much of it available to them in the first place and because there's really no other source than producing your own from the sun, or eating things that have produced it from the sun. So they have a vitamin D deficiency, but it's less severe than for most people.
[0]https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/etudinuit/2016-v40-n2-etu...
As far as I can tell, they need vitamin D just like any other life form and can only synthesise it from the sun, just like all other lifeforms on Earth.
They might have adapted to reduced amounts of available vitamin D though[0], because they don't have much of it available to them in the first place and because there's really no other source than producing your own from the sun, or eating things that have produced it from the sun. So they have a vitamin D deficiency, but it's less severe than for most people.
[0]https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/etudinuit/2016-v40-n2-etu...
Don't they (traditionally) also have a much higher meat intake than average, which supplies vitamin D?
They particularly prized whale and seal blubber - very good vitamin D sources. Also present in the livers of the fish they'd eat raw.
Humans cannot synthesise vitamin D, but we can acquire it through diet from other sources, including particularly fresh fish, which are abundant in Inuit diets.
Note that numerous of the sources listed here are fortified (that is, have additional vitamin D added), however it does occur naturally in some sources as well:
<https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietar...>
Note that numerous of the sources listed here are fortified (that is, have additional vitamin D added), however it does occur naturally in some sources as well:
<https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietar...>
> The major natural source of vitamin D is synthesis of cholecalciferol in the lower layers of the epidermis of the skin, through a photochemical reaction with Ultraviolet B (UV-B) radiation from sun exposure or UV-B lamps.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D
Yeah, very poor wording on my part as I was addressing the false claim in GP that only sunlight-based synthesis would provide vit-D. Diet is an alternate source. More in my other follow-up response.
I said that they couldn't have another way to synthesise vitamin D than sunlight, it can only be synthesised by sunlight. So for the Inuit, vitamin D mostly comes from diet.
The claim I was responding to was "they [unlike other humans] don't need sun to produce vitamin D". They do, they just don't rely much on this source because it doesn't work in their environment.
The claim I was responding to was "they [unlike other humans] don't need sun to produce vitamin D". They do, they just don't rely much on this source because it doesn't work in their environment.
Fair enough.
We both could have communicated more clearly :-/
We both could have communicated more clearly :-/
It might seem like a cheat, but healthy humans can photosynthesize (metaphorically) vitamin D. It's one of the free lunches our bodies have, if you ignore sun damage.
See: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40604537>.
Agreed, and what I was trying to say was that sunlight isn't the exclusive route.
Agreed, and what I was trying to say was that sunlight isn't the exclusive route.
What? I’ve never heard claim of this, we require sunlight (UV) as input but yes we do synthesize it. I mean the human body can’t spontaneously create anything, but it can take precursors and make various vitamins, proteins, and fats… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Biosynthesis
Obvious omission from my prior comment: in the absence of sunlight. I'd hoped that would be clear from context, it's an oversight on my part.
That is, either sunlight or dietary supplementation will provide the essential vitamin/hormone D (its biological function is ... interesting).
Which is to say, deprivation of either sunlight or dietary sources of themselves is not sufficient to induce vitamin D deficiency. There's also the fact that as an oil-based vitamin, can be, and is, stored for prolonged periods in body tissues. That's a sharp contrast to the water-soluable vitamin C of which excess is excreted in urine.
This was responding specifically to the prior claim "they need vitamin D just like any other life form and can only synthesise it from the sun" (emphasis added) by seszett here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40594479> The apparent claim that sunlight is necessary for acquisition of vitamin D is incorrect.
Periodic hypersupplementation of D can be effectively processed and retained by the body. By contrast, hyperdosing of vitamin C is a waste of resources as the excess is not retained and is flushed out. I've read previously that long-term injections of vitamin D have been effectively used, see:
"Lasting Moderate Increases in Serum 25-Hydroxvitamin D Levels and Shorter-Term Changes in Plasma Calcium " <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28492140/>
"Vitamin D Injections: Benefits, Side Effects, and Who Is a Candidate? " <https://healthnews.com/nutrition/vitamins-and-supplements/vi...>
(Neither of these is the specific item I'd had in mind, though both describe similar procedures and efficacy.)
(Overconsumption of various vitamins and minerals can be harmful in other ways as well, I'm not a doctor (not even of philology) and moreover I'm not your doctor.)
That is, either sunlight or dietary supplementation will provide the essential vitamin/hormone D (its biological function is ... interesting).
Which is to say, deprivation of either sunlight or dietary sources of themselves is not sufficient to induce vitamin D deficiency. There's also the fact that as an oil-based vitamin, can be, and is, stored for prolonged periods in body tissues. That's a sharp contrast to the water-soluable vitamin C of which excess is excreted in urine.
This was responding specifically to the prior claim "they need vitamin D just like any other life form and can only synthesise it from the sun" (emphasis added) by seszett here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40594479> The apparent claim that sunlight is necessary for acquisition of vitamin D is incorrect.
Periodic hypersupplementation of D can be effectively processed and retained by the body. By contrast, hyperdosing of vitamin C is a waste of resources as the excess is not retained and is flushed out. I've read previously that long-term injections of vitamin D have been effectively used, see:
"Lasting Moderate Increases in Serum 25-Hydroxvitamin D Levels and Shorter-Term Changes in Plasma Calcium " <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28492140/>
"Vitamin D Injections: Benefits, Side Effects, and Who Is a Candidate? " <https://healthnews.com/nutrition/vitamins-and-supplements/vi...>
(Neither of these is the specific item I'd had in mind, though both describe similar procedures and efficacy.)
(Overconsumption of various vitamins and minerals can be harmful in other ways as well, I'm not a doctor (not even of philology) and moreover I'm not your doctor.)
I might have believed a urban legend then. I will look into that.
That first article from BMJ 1900 reads a bit like Gulliver tales. The second article is about hominids 400k years ago, quite long ago
400k years ago is not "quite long ago" on an evolutionary time scale.
Sure, when you're looking at bacteria vs humans these guys are like our twins. But these non-homo hominins were not even our ancestors, they are close to Denisovans
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12788
Our last common ancestor was ~990k years ago (table 1). That's quite long ago in human development
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12788
Our last common ancestor was ~990k years ago (table 1). That's quite long ago in human development
High serotonin, cold exposure, low sunlight. Almost makes you think one could hibernate. But then, to what purpose? Would likely shorten the lifespan, increase risk for cancer
Space exploration seems like the obvious candidate to me.
> Instead of complaining about what we’re missing when we’re asleep, maybe we can experience it as a process that connects us to all life on Earth, including microbes sleeping deep in the Arctic permafrost.
I'm quite happy to know that "microbes sleeping deep in the Arctic permafrost" are asleep. I'd rather not have to think what might happen when they wake up.
I'm quite happy to know that "microbes sleeping deep in the Arctic permafrost" are asleep. I'd rather not have to think what might happen when they wake up.
It's an interesting idea, why do humans and other species sleep? Maybe it is simply because they can. If there's no good reason to be awake, then sleep. Save your energy for a better time to be awake. That doesn't answer why we have dreams however.
People literally die if they go long enough without sleep, and of course everybody knows the cognitive impairment that even a moderate amount of sleep debt causes.
That said, saving energy is certainly one part of it – and what else could a diurnal species do in the darkness anyway? (And similarly for animals adapted to night or twilight activity).
That said, saving energy is certainly one part of it – and what else could a diurnal species do in the darkness anyway? (And similarly for animals adapted to night or twilight activity).
They might start releasing enormous amounts of CO2 and methane.
imo microbes/viruses carefully evolved after countless encounters of antibiotics and other stuff that we have now may have the same or greater danger level
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die
Wow. This is nature's mechanism for lazy evaluation.
Nobody seems to be mentioning the therapeutic possibilities. I'd love to be able to make a bacterial infection dormant. Or a tumor.
Tumors might be difficult, since afaik, cancer cells aren't working correctly by definition.
Also, the classic issue with tumors, is that they're your own body, and it's hard to selectively target them. Any treatment that hibernates tumor cells is likely hibernate normal cells, and be incompatible with life; unless you get really lucky.
I'm having visions of old people freezing their bodies and inducing "dormancy" so they can wake up when the world is a better place. I would invest in that company.
The real trick is being somebody that a future generation will go to the trouble of defrosting.
If we found a crypt of a hundred well-preserved mummies from a few thousand years ago who for all we could tell were basically peasants in their lifetimes, not grand or interesting people, and we had the ability to revive them into the modern world, I still think we would. The "interest" factor of future generations reviving cryonics customers when it's possible to do so is like the weakest factor in trying to predict whether cryonics will work at all.
Because one crypt and some humans would be a curiosity. But a cluster of crypts containing thousands or even millions of those old weird people who will be likely just a burden to a way more advanced society? I am sceptical.
Large groups of people in society already hate immigrants. What makes you think they would welcome useless old and sick people from long ago? They're like immigrants, but worse!
Face reality: when you've been on ice long enough that your friends and immediate family are dead, nobody wants you anymore. You will never be defrosted, and if you're lucky at some point your remains will be given a burial. It's more likely you'll be unceremoniously cremated like medical waste.
Face reality: when you've been on ice long enough that your friends and immediate family are dead, nobody wants you anymore. You will never be defrosted, and if you're lucky at some point your remains will be given a burial. It's more likely you'll be unceremoniously cremated like medical waste.
> were basically peasants in their lifetimes, not grand or interesting people
What are you saying - the lives of ordinary people are the holy grail in archaeology and history as they are more difficult to investigate and construct. A king's remains and belongings tell you little about the actual society.
What are you saying - the lives of ordinary people are the holy grail in archaeology and history as they are more difficult to investigate and construct. A king's remains and belongings tell you little about the actual society.
We're not talking about remains and belongings, we're talking about people. Bringing back a king, who was likely literate and learned, would be more valuable to me than a random peasant or slave, though I'd still want to bring them back too. I'd also have someone like Archimedes over a king. But anyway, it sounds like you don't disagree that there'd be plenty of motivation to bring even the peasants back.
(You're probably familiar with the book Montaillou? For passersby, it's a neat insight into the minds of ordinary people from hundreds of years ago.)
(You're probably familiar with the book Montaillou? For passersby, it's a neat insight into the minds of ordinary people from hundreds of years ago.)
> Bringing back a king, who was likely literate and learned
A king would know about his society as much as how much do the Ivy League educated, WASP US presidents would know about the actual US society.
A king would know about his society as much as how much do the Ivy League educated, WASP US presidents would know about the actual US society.
That's probably a motivating factor for defrosting your first few hundred/thousand mummies, but would the "interest" factor still be there for the millionth mummy?
I think it would. No, probably not the highest priority for the society doing it, but something that would continue along regardless. A quick google tells me that over 11,000 dinosaur fossils have been found so far, people still seem interested in finding more. But there are other reasons besides direct interest of the present society, especially at that scale. A few: interest of those having been revived now wanting to revive their waiting friends/family/time-mates, humanitarian reasons (Europe alone has absorbed millions of refugees in the last several years), and, turning a little from pure thought experiment of mummies to currently frozen people, potential contractual reasons. (Though notably Alcor only has a couple hundred frozen corpses/brains, and less than a couple thousand members signed up for the procedure.)
The real trick is the world being a better place.
That's a fool's errand. The trick is to make sure your body is continually controlled by some kind of computer that will wake you up when a set of conditions is met, so you don't need to rely on future humans. You also need to make sure your cryopod is stored someplace where troublemakers won't find it and turn it off.
The best thing I can think of is putting your cryopod in a lava tube on the Moon, powered by a small nuclear reactor or maybe a large RTG.
The best thing I can think of is putting your cryopod in a lava tube on the Moon, powered by a small nuclear reactor or maybe a large RTG.
"The best thing I can think of is putting your cryopod in a lava tube on the Moon, powered by a small nuclear reactor or maybe a large RTG."
And then hope nothing critically fails for centuries ...
Unless we have perfectionized robots by the time you go into the cryopod, you might as well bet on humans. And if we "perfectionized robots", that do not fail all the time, we already would have a very different world.
And then hope nothing critically fails for centuries ...
Unless we have perfectionized robots by the time you go into the cryopod, you might as well bet on humans. And if we "perfectionized robots", that do not fail all the time, we already would have a very different world.
Robots? We're talking about cryopods here, not something that needs a robot where you need to operate accurately in 3D space. It just needs an electronic control system to monitor conditions and control some machinery, similar to a washing machine or microwave oven.
We already know how to make redundant computer control systems, like for aircraft. It's not that hard. They don't "fail all the time" either. Sure, your crappy Windows computer does, but no one with a brain uses that for anything safety-critical.
We already know how to make redundant computer control systems, like for aircraft. It's not that hard. They don't "fail all the time" either. Sure, your crappy Windows computer does, but no one with a brain uses that for anything safety-critical.
And you would trust that thing "similar to a washing machine" to run perfectly well for centuries?
And not that hard? Are you aware of Murphy's law?
Basically, give anything enough time and all the possible things that can go wrong, will go wrong. So your windows powered cyopod breaks after 1 year at most. And your embedded tiny verified OS manages 100 years, hurrey. But dead is dead.
And not that hard? Are you aware of Murphy's law?
Basically, give anything enough time and all the possible things that can go wrong, will go wrong. So your windows powered cyopod breaks after 1 year at most. And your embedded tiny verified OS manages 100 years, hurrey. But dead is dead.
You could have multiple failsafes, and after a part of them fail, you dehibernate automatically. We have systems that work well with such approach - planes being the most notable example - multiple redundancies, and when sth critical fails, you land asap. Works most of the time.
> you dehibernate automatically
You what now? :) I think you watched too many scifies and started to believe that the plot devices are reality. “Hybernation” is a thing in movies because the writers wanted to write stories involving humans and long space travel. It is not a working technology in reality. It might become one day, but your RTG powered cocoon is not going to invent and perfect it for you while you are asleep.
You what now? :) I think you watched too many scifies and started to believe that the plot devices are reality. “Hybernation” is a thing in movies because the writers wanted to write stories involving humans and long space travel. It is not a working technology in reality. It might become one day, but your RTG powered cocoon is not going to invent and perfect it for you while you are asleep.
And then you wake up on the moon in a lava tube too early with a partly failing system and hope that everything else still somewhat works? With current technology level I definitely would rather bet on humans.
Looking at current human society, I don't think that's a very good bet.
If you wake up too early in a lava tube on the Moon, you then use the tools and spare parts you hopefully were smart enough to pack and repair your cryo-pod and then go back to sleep.
If you wake up too early in a lava tube on the Moon, you then use the tools and spare parts you hopefully were smart enough to pack and repair your cryo-pod and then go back to sleep.
You wake up in the middle of the moon and then what?
I mean, it's been going on for over fifty years[0].
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundatio...
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundatio...
If too many not so old people would use it, the effects might be not great:
https://xkcd.com/989/
https://xkcd.com/989/
I have a feeling most people rushing to be first in line to freeze themselves for non-terminal-illness-reasons are probably not high productivity individuals.
Possible. And the interesting question will be, why anyone would want to wake them up one day and care for them? Because they signed a contract today with a company that might go out of buisness in 10 years? Good luck to them, I guess.
It's still sci-fi I think but we're getting a bit closer. This came out the other day. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40400591
[deleted]
What if they wake up and the world is a worse place?
You're making a big bet that people in the far future will look at your preserved body as a resource to cherish, not one to be exploited.
You're making a big bet that people in the far future will look at your preserved body as a resource to cherish, not one to be exploited.
I recall reading a Jack Vance novel where cannibals used cryogenic sleepers as a convenient supply of preserved food.
It won't be very useful if you're already old, more practical approach would be to freeze yourself in your youth until they find a way to stop ageing.
You could unfreeze yourself when they figure out how to reverse aging.
Reversing maybe harder than slowing and you would have to wait longer.
How does one unfreeze oneself
Very slowly, to avoid the crystals forming suddenly.
I think microwave is the answer. Though you may end up with a cold heart.
What does science say? I strongly believe what freezes the body will (not just figuratively) pull the plug on the brain.
You don't need to freeze yourself, you just have children, that is how life goes on.
Just ask any parent who had worthless kids how well that works out in practice. Sure, you might get lucky and have good kids, but lots of parents don't, and it's not always their fault.
I think any parent who thinks of their child as "worthless" has got to be at least partially at fault for whatever pathologies follow from that kind of attitude.
Their kids might be really nice?
Sure, they might be. But they also might not be. The odds really aren't that great, from what I've seen in my life.
Imagine you had an opportunity to make an investment. The performance odds of this investment are: 1) a 10% change of making 10 times your money, 2) a 60% chance of doubling your money, and 3) a 30% chance of losing ALL your money (not just the investment amount, but going completely bankrupt) and having your life completely ruined. Would you take that investment?
Of course these numbers are made up, but from what I've seen in life, it's probably not that far off: there's a non-zero, and fairly significant chance, of having a really awful kid that really screws up your life. If you're highly risk-averse, it's understandable I think why you might want to pass. Remember, estimates for sociopathy in the general population are 5-10%.
Imagine you had an opportunity to make an investment. The performance odds of this investment are: 1) a 10% change of making 10 times your money, 2) a 60% chance of doubling your money, and 3) a 30% chance of losing ALL your money (not just the investment amount, but going completely bankrupt) and having your life completely ruined. Would you take that investment?
Of course these numbers are made up, but from what I've seen in life, it's probably not that far off: there's a non-zero, and fairly significant chance, of having a really awful kid that really screws up your life. If you're highly risk-averse, it's understandable I think why you might want to pass. Remember, estimates for sociopathy in the general population are 5-10%.
My concern is more with my life, not life itself.
Well, it's not a permanent thing apparently.
Part of life, yes. Just not the part we care about.
I'd short it.
Makes me wonder if organisms on Mars (if they ever existed) used such a mechanism
Sshhh. Noone tell the proles that it's perfectly natural to have a bit of slack where many individuals in complex systems are doing nothing and, far from being a leech on society, it is actually essential to keeping the overall system alive.
Are the proles in your metaphor also capable of indefinitely suspending half of all their starvation-level resource consumption? Are they doing it as stochastic insurance against a population-level extinction event, which they are capable of recovering from? This is a mind-numbingly poor extension of this article's actual contents.
Probably not. Which is why the rest of the population should fund their (very modest) consumption until they're ready to be productive again rather than force them into some risky low paid job like delivering pizzas on a push bike so they can generate profits for investors who use those profits to heat their swimming pools and cool down their massive houses. Or lately plough into AI planet heating credits.
The population-level extinction event is coming if we don't change course.
The population-level extinction event is coming if we don't change course.
I don't follow. You agree these people are nothing like the bacteria in the story... and that's why they should be treated like them? And also you need to relay your dislike heated swimming pools I guess?
i feel seen
To me, seems like this is what we describe today as a “comatose” state. Is the individual “brain dead” or did the person sustain so much damage that it required an “emergency brake”.
The body and mind is healing itself but today’s scientists and doctors cannot fully quantify it. Only using “primitive” tools (EEGs, CT, MRI) which only allow us to see through a tiny keyhole of what is a vast number of possibilities.
The body and mind is healing itself but today’s scientists and doctors cannot fully quantify it. Only using “primitive” tools (EEGs, CT, MRI) which only allow us to see through a tiny keyhole of what is a vast number of possibilities.
> To me, seems like this is what we describe today as a “comatose” state. Is the individual “brain dead” or did the person sustain so much damage that it required an “emergency brake”.
I’m not sure what you are talking about, but “comatose” and “brain dead” are two very different states. If you are brain dead you are not comatose.
I’m not sure what you are talking about, but “comatose” and “brain dead” are two very different states. If you are brain dead you are not comatose.
When you get caught up on the hustle of modern society and lose yourself in modern technology, it's so easy to forget that you are a part of a larger whole and there is more life on Earth besides human.
For some reason knowing that other animals exist just for the sake of existing and even sleep off when life gets harder gives a new perspective. I feel that we humans use too much knowledge and complicate problems even when there's a simple solution. I think that our bodies are highly intelligent and humans intrude a lot in it's natural functioning by inventing too much techniques and methods. Like I want to stay awake, drink coffee. Drink coffee, get insomnia. Insomnia leads to unhappiness. Take insomnia meds, get withdrawals. Generating more problems along the way while forgetting what the solutions were even for in the first place. If we just listened to our bodies signs, it pretty much tells us why you you are lethargic and need coffee in the first place.
Sometimes we should just trust nature to do it's work. This article was a refreshing read.
For some reason knowing that other animals exist just for the sake of existing and even sleep off when life gets harder gives a new perspective. I feel that we humans use too much knowledge and complicate problems even when there's a simple solution. I think that our bodies are highly intelligent and humans intrude a lot in it's natural functioning by inventing too much techniques and methods. Like I want to stay awake, drink coffee. Drink coffee, get insomnia. Insomnia leads to unhappiness. Take insomnia meds, get withdrawals. Generating more problems along the way while forgetting what the solutions were even for in the first place. If we just listened to our bodies signs, it pretty much tells us why you you are lethargic and need coffee in the first place.
Sometimes we should just trust nature to do it's work. This article was a refreshing read.
Had a very similar thought this morning.
With the amount of technology today, we should be the happiest, wealthiest generation alive.
My grandmother, born in the 1920s, still experienced hunger as a child, fled from the Russians through the ruins of bombed out cities, and, up until not too long ago, had to make a fire in order to have warm water for the bathtub. But I’ve never heard the word “depression” from her even once. Then you look at today’s younger generations, and you see it everywhere.
When you bought a roll of bread 40 years ago, you would be entering a shop owned by the baker. You would be getting a roll that was made by hand with local ingredients. And the woman at the counter would be friendly and relaxed, and she would be earning enough doing this simple job to have a normal family. Today, when I want to buy a roll, I enter a shop that heats up rolls that they get from an industrial scale bakery. It costs about 5 to 10 times as much. And the woman standing at the counter is of the lowest socioeconomic status, because the salary she gets for her work is barely enough to afford her some tiny apartment.
I would be able to except that many things just don’t change, and every generation has its problems. But if we believe the mantra that progress in technology makes us happier and wealthier than those that came before, I think we’re kidding ourselves. That, to me, seems more and more like a modern form of organized religion. And I’m not sure who the priests are.
With the amount of technology today, we should be the happiest, wealthiest generation alive.
My grandmother, born in the 1920s, still experienced hunger as a child, fled from the Russians through the ruins of bombed out cities, and, up until not too long ago, had to make a fire in order to have warm water for the bathtub. But I’ve never heard the word “depression” from her even once. Then you look at today’s younger generations, and you see it everywhere.
When you bought a roll of bread 40 years ago, you would be entering a shop owned by the baker. You would be getting a roll that was made by hand with local ingredients. And the woman at the counter would be friendly and relaxed, and she would be earning enough doing this simple job to have a normal family. Today, when I want to buy a roll, I enter a shop that heats up rolls that they get from an industrial scale bakery. It costs about 5 to 10 times as much. And the woman standing at the counter is of the lowest socioeconomic status, because the salary she gets for her work is barely enough to afford her some tiny apartment.
I would be able to except that many things just don’t change, and every generation has its problems. But if we believe the mantra that progress in technology makes us happier and wealthier than those that came before, I think we’re kidding ourselves. That, to me, seems more and more like a modern form of organized religion. And I’m not sure who the priests are.
At least as measured by suicide rates in the US your grandmothers likely generation new quite well what depression was even if the word didn’t matter. Between the 1920s and the end of WW2 the suicide rate per 100000 was lowest at 15 but reached almost 22.
The pandemic rate which caused (rightly) lots of angst and introspection was 14.3.
We should investigate what is causing increased levels of depression currently but we shouldn’t assume it was absent in other generations when we do it.
https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-us-suicide-rates-since-19...
The pandemic rate which caused (rightly) lots of angst and introspection was 14.3.
We should investigate what is causing increased levels of depression currently but we shouldn’t assume it was absent in other generations when we do it.
https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-us-suicide-rates-since-19...
Point taken. Can’t get more textbook survivorship bias. :)
> At least as measured by suicide rates in the US your grandmothers likely generation new quite well what depression was even if the word didn’t matter.
They knew what suffering was, and arguably did more of it. But very few of them thought of it as a primarily medical problem, one requiring intervention by professionals, medicine, and so on. People who think of their problems in this newer way handle them differently, and not always better.
They knew what suffering was, and arguably did more of it. But very few of them thought of it as a primarily medical problem, one requiring intervention by professionals, medicine, and so on. People who think of their problems in this newer way handle them differently, and not always better.
Should have let the op continue their victim blaming tirade. Was just getting good.
I think there is a lot to unpack in your anecdote about the baker vis-a-vis happiness vs proliferation of depression in modern life.
If I had to summarize my own thoughts about it, it’s ownership, community/relationships, and hardships/challenges that can be overcome through hard work.
Modern technology counter intuitively gives us very little agency everything is owned by faceless/soulless corporations, technology “connects us” in unparalleled ways but also isolates us, and while life has and likely will always be hard for the majority there is a feeling of invisible prisons enabled through technology that no amount of hard work can overcome.
If I had to summarize my own thoughts about it, it’s ownership, community/relationships, and hardships/challenges that can be overcome through hard work.
Modern technology counter intuitively gives us very little agency everything is owned by faceless/soulless corporations, technology “connects us” in unparalleled ways but also isolates us, and while life has and likely will always be hard for the majority there is a feeling of invisible prisons enabled through technology that no amount of hard work can overcome.
I agree. Especially the ownership thing.
Tangent:
I remember my mother, in the 1980s, getting a parking ticket. So she had to go to the local police officer. We were a tiny town, a village almost. But there was a police station. And the officer was in charge of this case. He talked to my mother. She explained. And he ended up saying that in this case, he’d be willing to make an exception.
Fast forward to today. I drive to school in the morning. There’s a van at the side of the road. It’s not even police; some kind of contractor. Out on the road, there’s a fancy radar/speed trap thing. They probably paid €100,000 of taxpayer money for it, plus a servicing contract. Were probably promised that it’s gonna pay for itself within two years. And now the two dudes sit inside the van. The machine is doing the work. Tickets are being sent out automatically by a computer system. And there is literally nobody who owns the process.
It is an abstract machinery, turning citizens into objects.
My mother and the policeman, as a result of the encounter, had reached an understanding. They became partners in the higher principle. There was a true connection between the citizens and the state. The state had a face, and there was a local representative who was in charge.
Today, the state has no face. Even the judges in the legal system just act as tiny wheels in the machinery. It’s hard to find anyone whoever owns anything. Much less owns up to anything.
Tangent:
I remember my mother, in the 1980s, getting a parking ticket. So she had to go to the local police officer. We were a tiny town, a village almost. But there was a police station. And the officer was in charge of this case. He talked to my mother. She explained. And he ended up saying that in this case, he’d be willing to make an exception.
Fast forward to today. I drive to school in the morning. There’s a van at the side of the road. It’s not even police; some kind of contractor. Out on the road, there’s a fancy radar/speed trap thing. They probably paid €100,000 of taxpayer money for it, plus a servicing contract. Were probably promised that it’s gonna pay for itself within two years. And now the two dudes sit inside the van. The machine is doing the work. Tickets are being sent out automatically by a computer system. And there is literally nobody who owns the process.
It is an abstract machinery, turning citizens into objects.
My mother and the policeman, as a result of the encounter, had reached an understanding. They became partners in the higher principle. There was a true connection between the citizens and the state. The state had a face, and there was a local representative who was in charge.
Today, the state has no face. Even the judges in the legal system just act as tiny wheels in the machinery. It’s hard to find anyone whoever owns anything. Much less owns up to anything.
The opening scene of American Gangster Denzel Washington’s character is the driver/right hand man for Bumpy Johnson. They go into a store and Bumpy has a heart attack, Denzel calls for help, and Bumpy just says “forget it frank, there’s no one in charge.”
And so it is when PayPal or coinbase accounts get frozen, or social media accounts get suspended without notice or explanation, Gmail accounts get hacked or deleted in freak occurrences. Good luck getting any help, there’s no one in charge, the best you can hope for is social media shamming which only works when you already have influence.
And so it is when PayPal or coinbase accounts get frozen, or social media accounts get suspended without notice or explanation, Gmail accounts get hacked or deleted in freak occurrences. Good luck getting any help, there’s no one in charge, the best you can hope for is social media shamming which only works when you already have influence.
There is someone in charge of PayPal (and sort of Coinbase), it's their regulator.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
I think there are 2 aspects to the anecdote about your grandma.
Firstly, no one spoke about depression, because it as a condition was not recognized. It doesn't mean people didn't feel depressed.
Secondly, this time supporting your argument, perhaps when people go through terrible things in their childhood, they grow resilient towards adversity. If you know things can get a lot worse, you don't really worry about minor things.
Firstly, no one spoke about depression, because it as a condition was not recognized. It doesn't mean people didn't feel depressed.
Secondly, this time supporting your argument, perhaps when people go through terrible things in their childhood, they grow resilient towards adversity. If you know things can get a lot worse, you don't really worry about minor things.
Maybe it's not about the things we have, but about the hope we have. You run away, you change, you survive things because you have hope in a better future. You even work to make a better future for your kids. You have hope. What hope have those people today?
Or phrased differently: she struggled for her survival. It's a very physical one-off challenge that you can master (or not).
That's inherently very different to realizing that the golden era has basically passed and it's only gonna get worse from here, societally speaking.
None of the inherent issues our societies has had were solved. They've just become worse with every decade, inequality in particular has gotten worse with every technological advance, and it'd expect it to get meaningfully worse with LLMs now, too.
A select few will still get meaningfully richer, but - on average - their prospects for their future are a complete dumpster fire.
You (leobg) are likely right that people a few hundred years ago probably wouldn't have become depressed like Gen Z, Alpha and likely soon Beta too... But they'd probably long since taken up their arms, wiping out a good chunk of the population and consequently redistributing wealth to the survivers. Do you honestly think that'd be better for us?
That's inherently very different to realizing that the golden era has basically passed and it's only gonna get worse from here, societally speaking.
None of the inherent issues our societies has had were solved. They've just become worse with every decade, inequality in particular has gotten worse with every technological advance, and it'd expect it to get meaningfully worse with LLMs now, too.
A select few will still get meaningfully richer, but - on average - their prospects for their future are a complete dumpster fire.
You (leobg) are likely right that people a few hundred years ago probably wouldn't have become depressed like Gen Z, Alpha and likely soon Beta too... But they'd probably long since taken up their arms, wiping out a good chunk of the population and consequently redistributing wealth to the survivers. Do you honestly think that'd be better for us?
Historically, the people taking up arms certainly did NOT distribute wealth if they won. Rather, the leaders of any successful rebellion just became the new elite and the poor remained the poor but with new leadership.
You're looking at it very 1-dimensionally.
The war leaders certainly didn't literally distribute wealth to the conscripted people. Instead you had plundering, with the winners simply taking things and the dead were ... Well, outta the picture, consequently the survivors had the opportunity to become skilled craftsman and marry after their return, as most didn't survive (even if their side won).
Let's say a farmer family's children were all conscripted. 5 left and 2 returned. Before the war, 4 had few prospects. After the war, both will have prospects, one to succeed the farm and the other one as the husband to another farm that didn't have anyone return.
The war leaders certainly didn't literally distribute wealth to the conscripted people. Instead you had plundering, with the winners simply taking things and the dead were ... Well, outta the picture, consequently the survivors had the opportunity to become skilled craftsman and marry after their return, as most didn't survive (even if their side won).
Let's say a farmer family's children were all conscripted. 5 left and 2 returned. Before the war, 4 had few prospects. After the war, both will have prospects, one to succeed the farm and the other one as the husband to another farm that didn't have anyone return.
That’s not how it was among the Germanic peoples at least. They followed people who were called “gold-giver”. It was seen as the responsibility of the leader to bring wealth to his followers in exchange for their loyalty and courage. I think Christianity changed that expectation to some degree.
> It was seen as the responsibility of the leader to bring wealth to his followers in exchange for their loyalty and courage.
Replace the word wealth with prosperity and the same applies for your later example. The leader is just someone you can’t see, touch, or hear so is harder to displace.
Replace the word wealth with prosperity and the same applies for your later example. The leader is just someone you can’t see, touch, or hear so is harder to displace.
You mean like kids looking forward to growing up. But once you’re grown up, or even old, there just isn’t anything to look forward to anymore?
While I agree with what a lot of what you said, there is a lot of survivorship bias in a single anecedote. My Grandma also has a very similar story, born in 1920s, fled from the Russians, no depression. But there is family from the same time period that committed suicide. Then for every one suicide there were 10 people that lived out of the bottle. So even though no one talked about depression it was there.
Is she still alive? I can recommend interviewing her about the past and recording it. There may come a time where you will be glad to have those recordings. Or your children/grandchildren. Also, given the right prompting, you may learn things about her that you have never seen before.
She is, and mentally very sharp too. That is a great idea, will do that.
They don’t have to be perfect. With Wisper and LLMs it’s easy to later filter out the interesting parts. Or even to turn it into some kind of personal memoir booklet.
> But I’ve never heard the word “depression” from her even once. Then you look at today’s younger generations, and you see it everywhere.
Reminds me of Act 2 from this “This American Life” episode. Sub “Toska” for “depression” and maybe you’ll see things in a different light.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/822/transcript
Reminds me of Act 2 from this “This American Life” episode. Sub “Toska” for “depression” and maybe you’ll see things in a different light.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/822/transcript
> With the amount of technology today, we should be the happiest <...> generation alive.
Only if you think that wealth is what makes people happy, but we just need to take a look at all the unhappy wealthy people all around us to see that that is not the case. Poverty can make people unhappy of course, especially the stress that comes from uncertainty. But prosperity alone is not sufficient for happiness. Generations of social researchers and philosophers have thrown themselves at this problem.
Only if you think that wealth is what makes people happy, but we just need to take a look at all the unhappy wealthy people all around us to see that that is not the case. Poverty can make people unhappy of course, especially the stress that comes from uncertainty. But prosperity alone is not sufficient for happiness. Generations of social researchers and philosophers have thrown themselves at this problem.
Where did you get the "amount of technology" = "wealth" from parent's comment?
With the current amount of technology we could put a roof over people's head, provide clean water and safe foods and medicines. This has nothing to do with owning a Lamborghini or eating a Michelin star restaurant, which would indeed count as superfluous wealth that doesn't actually improve happiness.
With the current amount of technology we could put a roof over people's head, provide clean water and safe foods and medicines. This has nothing to do with owning a Lamborghini or eating a Michelin star restaurant, which would indeed count as superfluous wealth that doesn't actually improve happiness.
Technology makes possible things cheaper and impossible things possible, which is a form of wealth. At any rate, both money and technology can make us materially comfortable. But the reason “money can’t buy happiness” is that a large part of happiness comes from connections with people, to society, and perhaps even to nature. Another large part comes from one’s meaning or purpose. Neither of those can be bought or technologied.
I'd wager a lot of it comes down to the difference between material wealth vs. a wealth of time. That's the one thing money can't buy.
Except that money DOES buy time. When I have money, I can convert it to time to do things I enjoy. When I don't have money, I need to spend my time to get money in order to survive. I find the statement that "money can't buy time" something that only a fairly wealthy person would believe, and not at all accurate in practice.
> I find the statement that "money can't buy time" something that only a fairly wealthy person would believe, and not at all accurate in practice.
Most people with money are old, because that's how you get money in general: provide value over a long period of time. But they would probably all trade that money for being 22 again, and having a lifetime ahead.
Most people with money are old, because that's how you get money in general: provide value over a long period of time. But they would probably all trade that money for being 22 again, and having a lifetime ahead.
I would agree with the statement that money can't buy time that has already passed, because nothing can do that. Money can definitely buy time in the present moment, though.
Someone asked a substitute teacher if she would make that trade, and she said she wouldn’t, not unless she could retain what she knew now. So, buy a renewed youth? Sure. But do 22 again as a 22 year old? Nope.
Now that I’m “over the hill”, I see what she meant. Being 44 is similar to the difference between 11 and 22; not as drastic, but the stuff I understand about life I would not even be able to communicate to 22 year old me. Definitely would not want to relive my 20s.
“Life starts at 40” is not just cope, there’s some truth in there, too.
Yes, but you're not 70 and wealthy. 44 is still pretty young[0].
[0] this may be cope
[0] this may be cope
Maybe this is just because we culturally overvalue the individual. Maybe technology helps us survive and have 'more' on a macro level but causes problems on a micro level, and maybe we are more geared 'naturally' than we believe to sacrifice our micro for a good human macro. I think about ants that sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony, surely without the same reasoning we would do something similar for[1].
[1]: https://www.science.org/content/article/exploding-ants-sacri...
[1]: https://www.science.org/content/article/exploding-ants-sacri...
Leo Tolstoy, What I Believe:
Just like the winegrowers, who, living in a garden not cultivated by them, had to understand and feel that they were in immeasurable debt to the landlord, people must also understand and feel that from the day of their birth until their death, they are always in immeasurable debt to someone: to those who lived before them, to their contemporaries, and to those yet to come; to that which was, is, and will be the beginning of everything. They must understand that with every hour of their life, as they accept life, they reinforce this obligation that binds them to life and its origin, and that therefore, the person who denies this obligation and lives for themselves, in trying to preserve their personal life, ultimately destroys it.
This is precisely what Christ repeated many times.
The true life is only that which continues the past life and contributes to the salvation of the present and future life.
Just like the winegrowers, who, living in a garden not cultivated by them, had to understand and feel that they were in immeasurable debt to the landlord, people must also understand and feel that from the day of their birth until their death, they are always in immeasurable debt to someone: to those who lived before them, to their contemporaries, and to those yet to come; to that which was, is, and will be the beginning of everything. They must understand that with every hour of their life, as they accept life, they reinforce this obligation that binds them to life and its origin, and that therefore, the person who denies this obligation and lives for themselves, in trying to preserve their personal life, ultimately destroys it.
This is precisely what Christ repeated many times.
The true life is only that which continues the past life and contributes to the salvation of the present and future life.
Evolutionary biology and game theory can offer insight here. Ants are genetically identical which drives this behavior.
Interesting! I didn't know that
Actually I remembered that wrong, ants aren’t identical, in fact they may be less related than siblings because the queen could have mated with more than one male. Sorry!
There is an evolutionary biology and game theory perspective on this but it’s more complex than the case of genetic clones.
There is an evolutionary biology and game theory perspective on this but it’s more complex than the case of genetic clones.
"With the amount of technology today, we should be the happiest, wealthiest generation alive."
I actually think we are.
I actually think we are.
> It costs about 5 to 10 times as much.
Is that true, the mass produced bread is more expensive?
Is that true, the mass produced bread is more expensive?
Difficult to calculate, with inflation and everything. But I do remember from the 1980s that a roll of bread was ~2 Euro cents (5 Pfennig), nominally. And now it’s ~20.
With industrial baking, modern fertilizers, farming automation, global container shipping, and all of that, one would reasonably expect it to have gotten significantly cheaper.
With industrial baking, modern fertilizers, farming automation, global container shipping, and all of that, one would reasonably expect it to have gotten significantly cheaper.
This is overly simplistic thinking. Of Course increases in technology isn't the only factor determining aggregate societal well being or happiness or whatever. But it would be naive and disingenuous to suggest anything other than it being monotonic at the very least.
This also asks for a search for better social technology, as opposed to asserting that we must slow down the search for better physical technology because the social technology isn't keeping up.
This also asks for a search for better social technology, as opposed to asserting that we must slow down the search for better physical technology because the social technology isn't keeping up.
We invented technology and methods to make things that are meant to be difficult, easy (like food, transportation, mating, surviving). So now we have to invent more technology and methods to find an equilibrium for the system that we broke and barely understand, so we continue to break it and abstract away the instability, understanding it less and less. I mean, what is the purpose of the stock market? housing/mortgage market? An upvote? The cookie banner and ad tracking industry?
- Maintaining and increasing high level wealth, also Control
- Control, also profit
- Control, albeit in a less direct form than housing also data and profit
- The pretense of caring about privacy issues, so politics and control
- Profit/control
If you ask, "why?" for almost anything in today's society it'll come down to money/power, which are functionally mostly the same thing.
Exceptions exist sure, but they are called exceptions for a reason.
My perspective at least, i'm sure others think differently.
- Control, also profit
- Control, albeit in a less direct form than housing also data and profit
- The pretense of caring about privacy issues, so politics and control
- Profit/control
If you ask, "why?" for almost anything in today's society it'll come down to money/power, which are functionally mostly the same thing.
Exceptions exist sure, but they are called exceptions for a reason.
My perspective at least, i'm sure others think differently.
The purpose of the stock market isn't "control". If you wanted control of something you owned you wouldn't be interested in selling it. This is why some fascists were opposed to capitalism, they thought corporate owners should be running them like kings and not selling it for money.
It's to reduce risk by letting other people share in funding a venture.
It's to reduce risk by letting other people share in funding a venture.
Admittedly the original intended purpose of the stock market might not have been control but that's certainly a big feature of it now.
Unless you are already ultra wealthy there is little to gain from individuals entering the stock market directly.
It's a vehicle for those with power and/or money to gain more power/money by siphoning it from everyone who isn't them.
Sure, some people make money, in the same way people in a casino make money.
The house, however, always wins.
Unless you are already ultra wealthy there is little to gain from individuals entering the stock market directly.
It's a vehicle for those with power and/or money to gain more power/money by siphoning it from everyone who isn't them.
Sure, some people make money, in the same way people in a casino make money.
The house, however, always wins.
> there is little to gain from individuals entering the stock market directly.
There is approximately 8% a year to gain from entering it. Just buy VTSAX.
There is approximately 8% a year to gain from entering it. Just buy VTSAX.
Fair enough, that is on me.
What i actually meant was there is little to gain for individuals who aren't already relatively wealthy.
For those living at or below the poverty line, 8% of nothing is nothing.
It isn't until you get to those who can afford to lock up reasonable sums of money for multiple years to benefit practically from that 8%.
What i actually meant was there is little to gain for individuals who aren't already relatively wealthy.
For those living at or below the poverty line, 8% of nothing is nothing.
It isn't until you get to those who can afford to lock up reasonable sums of money for multiple years to benefit practically from that 8%.
The point of the housing market is so you can buy a house without anyone except the seller having to like you enough to interact with you. The alternative is a popularity contest, which doesn't work out for unpopular people or minorities, and doesn't encourage production of new houses.
> I think that our bodies are highly intelligent and humans intrude a lot in it's natural functioning by inventing too much techniques and methods. Like I want to stay awake, drink coffee. Drink coffee, get insomnia. Insomnia leads to unhappiness. Take insomnia meds, get withdrawals. Generating more problems along the way while forgetting what the solutions were even for in the first place. If we just listened to our bodies signs, it pretty much tells us why you you are lethargic and need coffee in the first place.
This has come into hyper clarity for me ever since transitioning to minimalist shoes/sandals ten years ago and foregoing all caffeinated beverages this past December.
It's actually quite insane to think about how accessible coffee is and how much of our modern economy relies on people consuming it.
Consulting, big law, investment banks and lots of blue collar jobs (for example) rely on workers pulling 12+ hour days to do what mostly amounts to eye-watering amounts of paperwork. Given that sleep naturally becomes an afterthought when working under these conditions and showing any signs of weakness is frowned upon, coffee, sodas and energy drinks are all but required to function.
Similar deal with shoes. Feet are incredibly complex systems that are designed to withstand lots of abuse. Unfortunately, big shoe companies built their fortunes off of selling shoes that are great for sports but terrible for everyday use. Instead of pushing more minimal shoes that counteract weakening feet while being simpler to make, they push orthotics and shoes with more advanced technology and thicker sole stack.
It's depressing to think about, so I try not to!
This has come into hyper clarity for me ever since transitioning to minimalist shoes/sandals ten years ago and foregoing all caffeinated beverages this past December.
It's actually quite insane to think about how accessible coffee is and how much of our modern economy relies on people consuming it.
Consulting, big law, investment banks and lots of blue collar jobs (for example) rely on workers pulling 12+ hour days to do what mostly amounts to eye-watering amounts of paperwork. Given that sleep naturally becomes an afterthought when working under these conditions and showing any signs of weakness is frowned upon, coffee, sodas and energy drinks are all but required to function.
Similar deal with shoes. Feet are incredibly complex systems that are designed to withstand lots of abuse. Unfortunately, big shoe companies built their fortunes off of selling shoes that are great for sports but terrible for everyday use. Instead of pushing more minimal shoes that counteract weakening feet while being simpler to make, they push orthotics and shoes with more advanced technology and thicker sole stack.
It's depressing to think about, so I try not to!
Caffeine isn't an invention of modern industrial society, we've been boiling every caffeinated plant we could find for thousands of years. I would still drink it if I didn't have to work for a corporate employer. In fact I enjoy it much more on my days off when I get to make art. I don't mean to get too defensive of it, but I find it quite strange when people lump caffeinated drinks in with completely artificial aspects of life.
Caffeine (and coffee) are not inventions of modernity, but hyper-caffeinated drinks, like energy drinks and sodas, most definitely are. Also, coffee consumption has increased over time, like this article shows: https://perfectdailygrind.com/2024/04/us-consumption-hits-20...
Sure but that's different from total abstinence.
+1 for minimalist footwear. I keep telling anyone who will listen, “isn’t it crazy that we don’t have foot shaped shoes?” And then we wonder why we have bunions, knee pain, and tight hips when we sit sedentary at a desk all day in our not-foot-shaped shoes.
I highly recommend reading The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul. It was written in the ‘60s about how technology influences the direction of humanity and all the unintended consequences that come from that, and how we turn to more technology to solve those problems. It was a very prescient book.
I highly recommend reading The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul. It was written in the ‘60s about how technology influences the direction of humanity and all the unintended consequences that come from that, and how we turn to more technology to solve those problems. It was a very prescient book.
In that vein, I highly recommend Katy Bowman's "Move Your DNA," and "Whole Body Barefoot." Bowman's biomechanical analysis of modern movement, furniture, and the built environment has changed the way I walk, sit, and carry things.
There's some further thought-provoking discussion in a recent conversation with Daniel Scmachtenberger [1] talking about what you suggest.
[1] Moving from Naive to Authentic Progress: A Vision for Betterment - https://youtu.be/tmusbHBKW84
[1] Moving from Naive to Authentic Progress: A Vision for Betterment - https://youtu.be/tmusbHBKW84
I don't quote The Bible often but I think we can have some space for a quote here:
"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?" Matthew 6:26
"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?" Matthew 6:26
A systematic study of birds would find that many do indeed starve to death.
And quickly too, the small ones live on a metabolic knife edge and can go down in as little as two days.
Here in the valley of Oregon, we don’t get snow often or for very long, but one late winter/early spring we suddenly got 1-2 feet snow cover for at least 3 days. I’ll never forget the few dozen birds I saw dead on the side of the roads because they couldn’t get to food.
Here in the valley of Oregon, we don’t get snow often or for very long, but one late winter/early spring we suddenly got 1-2 feet snow cover for at least 3 days. I’ll never forget the few dozen birds I saw dead on the side of the roads because they couldn’t get to food.
So do people - at least those lucky enough not to be part of a reasonably affluent industrial society.
You do realise that metaphors are never perfect?
You do realise that metaphors are never perfect?
[deleted]
I do enjoy scientific debunkment of religious quotes.
After the Notre Dam fire someone on Twitter was claiming a miracle because the golden (statues I think?) had survived. Someone then pointed out that the melting point of gold is several hundred degrees above the temperature of a wood fire.
After the Notre Dam fire someone on Twitter was claiming a miracle because the golden (statues I think?) had survived. Someone then pointed out that the melting point of gold is several hundred degrees above the temperature of a wood fire.
> melting point of gold is several hundred degrees above the temperature of a wood fire
A grand miracle indeed
A grand miracle indeed
Is the goal of humanity to replicate infinitely and love as long as possible regardless of anything else ?
Because that's what cancers do and it never end well for the host
Because that's what cancers do and it never end well for the host
I don't think anyone said or implied that
In what way does cancer "love"?
I'm curious, what does that quote really mean? I can attempt to draw a few conclusions, but I'm not quite sure of either and they can also almost be the opposite of each other.
Most verses aren't intended to be read alone, they weren't written that way originally. The indexes were added later. The whole section (25-34) is about not worrying. With the summary being "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
I don't know that I know what it means, but I'll tell you a thought it brought to mind.
A while ago I was having a discussion, and someone asserted that synthetic fertilizers are necessary because composting doesn't scale.
And my reaction was, surely composting scales to an entire biosphere - like, empirically we know this, right? There was a massive biosphere long before there was a Fritz Haber. Surely it's that we don't have the required technology and wisdom to create supply chains that can run as closed loops and accept inputs that aren't so rich and concentrated?
I don't want to argue this point, there are definitely good counterarguments that could be made, but I'm just trying to illustrate the shift in perspective I think the commenter may have been going for rather than change the topic.
A while ago I was having a discussion, and someone asserted that synthetic fertilizers are necessary because composting doesn't scale.
And my reaction was, surely composting scales to an entire biosphere - like, empirically we know this, right? There was a massive biosphere long before there was a Fritz Haber. Surely it's that we don't have the required technology and wisdom to create supply chains that can run as closed loops and accept inputs that aren't so rich and concentrated?
I don't want to argue this point, there are definitely good counterarguments that could be made, but I'm just trying to illustrate the shift in perspective I think the commenter may have been going for rather than change the topic.
> surely composting scales to an entire biosphere
By definition, yes.
> There was a massive biosphere long before there was a Fritz Haber.
There are about five times more humans today than there were when Fritz Haber invented his process.
The question is not “will there be an ecosystem”. Of course there will be. The question is are you ok with 4 out of 5 person potentially starving to death.
> Surely it's that we don't have the required technology and wisdom…
Synthetic fertilizers is the required technology and accepting that is the wisdom.
By definition, yes.
> There was a massive biosphere long before there was a Fritz Haber.
There are about five times more humans today than there were when Fritz Haber invented his process.
The question is not “will there be an ecosystem”. Of course there will be. The question is are you ok with 4 out of 5 person potentially starving to death.
> Surely it's that we don't have the required technology and wisdom…
Synthetic fertilizers is the required technology and accepting that is the wisdom.
> Synthetic fertilizers is the required technology and accepting that is the wisdom.
Again, I don't want to get into a debate about agriculture, I'm trying to discuss the quote, but these are the types of assumptions I'm suggesting are worth questioning.
The question is, are there ways to exert less control and get better outcomes? I'm not suggesting we let 80% of people starve. I'm suggesting we not be obsequious to the logic of the technology we've already built, when deciding on what to build next. (I elaborate in a cousin comment.)
Consider that in the extreme, if you have a linear supply chain with Haber-Bosch on one end and a landfill on the other - when you scale to enough people, you will also have mass starvation. Haber-Bosch isn't a "wisdom we accept" or "the" definitive technology. It has tremendous application, but it isn't magic. We're not simply done innovating in this area.
Again, I don't want to get into a debate about agriculture, I'm trying to discuss the quote, but these are the types of assumptions I'm suggesting are worth questioning.
The question is, are there ways to exert less control and get better outcomes? I'm not suggesting we let 80% of people starve. I'm suggesting we not be obsequious to the logic of the technology we've already built, when deciding on what to build next. (I elaborate in a cousin comment.)
Consider that in the extreme, if you have a linear supply chain with Haber-Bosch on one end and a landfill on the other - when you scale to enough people, you will also have mass starvation. Haber-Bosch isn't a "wisdom we accept" or "the" definitive technology. It has tremendous application, but it isn't magic. We're not simply done innovating in this area.
The argument doesn't quite work imo because farmers are actively working against the normal ecosystem - we don't want the normal plants to grow there, we want our desired crops. With enough production for us to feed the world and to give farmers a living wage.
I still think it's doable (but not if we also want to feed many times our mass in lifestock), but it's not easy.
I still think it's doable (but not if we also want to feed many times our mass in lifestock), but it's not easy.
I don't want to argue the point (but I also am not dismissing your points, the position I put forward is definitely not unassailable), but I think there's an opportunity to make my original point better here, which is; sometimes we get trapped in the logic of our own systems and fail to think outside the box. Is it monoculture or low-N culture really required? Or is it a local optimum we lack the imagination to see beyond?
What got you here might not get you there. You can go really far with a monolithic web app running on top of a relational database. But if you scale far enough, you'll need to pull some pieces out and hook them up to databases with relaxed constraints.
There are good engineering reasons for us to do things the way we do them, and maybe it was the only feasible way for us to get to this point. But presumably if we continue to grow, we will enter a different phase with a different set of tradeoffs. That phase will probably involve exerting less control, it will probably also involve worse unit economics, but may also scale further with fewer externalities.
What got you here might not get you there. You can go really far with a monolithic web app running on top of a relational database. But if you scale far enough, you'll need to pull some pieces out and hook them up to databases with relaxed constraints.
There are good engineering reasons for us to do things the way we do them, and maybe it was the only feasible way for us to get to this point. But presumably if we continue to grow, we will enter a different phase with a different set of tradeoffs. That phase will probably involve exerting less control, it will probably also involve worse unit economics, but may also scale further with fewer externalities.
Farmers also want to have a large swaths of a monoculture plant, because it is easy then to mechanize. That goes, as you say, against the normal ecosystem. Permaculture gardens look much different, but you can't easily mechanize that.
Yes, and the more manual labor it needs, the more time intensive it is, the harder it is for someone to make a living.
It's interesting how people come and mock without having any framework of understanding the thing. It's almost like a lost language.
Consider air - it is immaterial, the spirit/principle/reason/meaning/pattern of things. It's also the vehicle for speech, and when we stop breathing it we die.
I don't think the quote (or the broader text) means a single concrete thing - it's saying something about how the world works, and should be applicable in multiple ways. Under appreciated rabbit hole!
Maybe they do have a framework, allowing them to mock it? There must be a reason why there are so many holy writings on this remote little planet.
A purpose of a religious text is to control people. They do that through well-known ways. It says “blah-blah, but look at this fallacy you aren’t aware of, so believe in god”, at different zoom levels. Every one of these is trivially deconstructible cause their main target was uneducated masses which had no scrutiny. Those who had it were religiously “educated” and accounted for. Religions that didn’t do that didn’t survive. That’s the framework of understanding. This thing wasn’t written by “god”, it’s a work of a few scammers, sadly the biggest in our history.
It seems to me that your stand is analogous to anarchists' about law and government. Sure, there's a tyrannical aspect that can get out of hand, but it's far from the whole story.
I don’t think this is a good analogy, since laws and government don’t tell you how the world works, it’s either observable without explanation or left unexplained. In religion there’s no whole story, it all made up. It may contain some real life parts, but it could do so without religious parts. Real life stories doesn’t make it more credible in sentences containing “god”. In fact, the quote of this subthread is wrong, false, debunked. There’s no need to look at it in context, cause whatever role it plays in it can’t make it look good. Looking at falsehoods “in context” and referring to “deeper knowledge and proper understanding” is a beloved theme of religious manipulation.
I think the disconnect is that you seem to consider religious texts as a dry statements of fact. That doesn't make any sense, they're clearly not that.
Would you say the same about great works of fiction, or old fairy tales that for some reason keep grabbing our attention and we repeat them for generations? That they're just falsehoods because duh, frogs obviously can't talk? Or can they have some deeper meaning? Stating facts is not the only way to describe the world.
Would you say the same about great works of fiction, or old fairy tales that for some reason keep grabbing our attention and we repeat them for generations? That they're just falsehoods because duh, frogs obviously can't talk? Or can they have some deeper meaning? Stating facts is not the only way to describe the world.
> Would you say the same about great works of fiction, or old fairy tales
Do you thing religious followers, such as Matthew, see god/heaven/etc as being merely a metaphor?
> That they're just falsehoods because duh
per previous poster: "laws and government don’t tell you how the world works"
works of fiction doesn't purport to either. They might have morals, or subtexts, as much of the contents of the Bible does - but some things in there are meant to be at least partially literal, such as the existence of a divine being that created the world.
What's the greater message behind "God takes care of lesser creatures" when there's no proof of such a thing? That things will generally turn out alright if you don't plan ahead (demonstratably bad advice)..
Do you thing religious followers, such as Matthew, see god/heaven/etc as being merely a metaphor?
> That they're just falsehoods because duh
per previous poster: "laws and government don’t tell you how the world works"
works of fiction doesn't purport to either. They might have morals, or subtexts, as much of the contents of the Bible does - but some things in there are meant to be at least partially literal, such as the existence of a divine being that created the world.
What's the greater message behind "God takes care of lesser creatures" when there's no proof of such a thing? That things will generally turn out alright if you don't plan ahead (demonstratably bad advice)..
> Do you thing religious followers, such as Matthew, see god/heaven/etc as being merely a metaphor?
No, I'm not suggesting that. The alternatives to just reporting facts are more than "merely a metaphor".
> works of fiction doesn't purport to either. They might have morals, or subtexts
Disagree - I think they distill patterns from the factual and present them in the form of stories, encoded in the structure of the story. If you're a materialist you might say that the story is less true than the factual manifestations of the patterns, I'd say it's more true; and that it's telling something about the world.
> What's the greater message
We're debating if zero even exists, don't ask me about analysis ;)
No, I'm not suggesting that. The alternatives to just reporting facts are more than "merely a metaphor".
> works of fiction doesn't purport to either. They might have morals, or subtexts
Disagree - I think they distill patterns from the factual and present them in the form of stories, encoded in the structure of the story. If you're a materialist you might say that the story is less true than the factual manifestations of the patterns, I'd say it's more true; and that it's telling something about the world.
> What's the greater message
We're debating if zero even exists, don't ask me about analysis ;)
Actually the purpose of that whole chapter is about not being a hypocrite, being authentic, not being greedy, and having faith. It's a quick < 5-minute read.
Yeah, a bunch of dudes created a book (which costed a fortune or two before typewriter age) to tell everyone to be good just for the sake of it. As plausible as it can get. /s
It’s a medieval gaslightenment and it would be great if people kept it private at least.
PS. purpose is different from meaning, the latter is just a medium for purpose and may be arbitrary.
It’s a medieval gaslightenment and it would be great if people kept it private at least.
PS. purpose is different from meaning, the latter is just a medium for purpose and may be arbitrary.
I feel the same sometimes about people's opinions. Alas, people can say what they want.
[deleted]
It has been taken in a variety of ways. See the "Analysis" section on the Wikipedia page [1] for it for a few examples.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:26
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:26
What “real” meaning do you think here? It says look, birds live somehow and you’re a man, much more important being to the guy in the sky. So don’t worry and continue to pay, he’s on it.
You have to bust your ass to live while the bird just lives freely with helpings from God, despite man supposedly being made in God's image and stuff.
I think it's a misguided sentiment of its time, we know today that birds also bust ass in their own birdy ways to live. We all bust ass.
I think it's a misguided sentiment of its time, we know today that birds also bust ass in their own birdy ways to live. We all bust ass.
the heavenly step-dad doesn't care when they die of starvation either.
xyst(6)
crakenzak(1)
>it's so easy to forget that you are a part of a larger whole and there is more life on Earth besides human.
Humans actually utilize quite a big chunk of the biomass.
Humans actually utilize quite a big chunk of the biomass.
It depends how you count it, whether you include plants etc. Humans are only 0.01% of all biomass, but humans and livestock completely dominate the "mammals" category.
Funnily enough, the livestock population weighs about twice as much as the human population.
Funnily enough, the livestock population weighs about twice as much as the human population.
Humans and livestock completely dominate not only the "mammals" category, but the entire "terrestrial vertebrates" category.
There are only a few other terrestrial animals of comparable biomass with humans, e.g. ants and termites.
There are only a few other terrestrial animals of comparable biomass with humans, e.g. ants and termites.
[deleted]
anal_reactor(2)
Cant wait to see what types of bacteria and viruses are dormant in permafrost that is thawing /s
"Biologists discovered a widespread protein that abruptly shuts down a cell’s activity — and turns it back on just as fast."
Maybe we need this for dogs, so their lifespan isn't substantially squandered when their owners are at work.
Maybe we need this for dogs, so their lifespan isn't substantially squandered when their owners are at work.
This feels quite distopian.
Turning your pets on and off to accomodate your lifestyle? Yeah, that doesn't sound great. I'm sure there'd be a huge market for it though.
Is the value of a dog's life subjectively tied to the enjoyment of the owner? May as well shut down when the owner is asleep too... or, get a robot dog instead.
I think you and most of the other commentators are not reading the suggestion the way it was intended.
Dogs are usually very social. If they are left alone they will often be very unhappy. I think what was being suggested was that if a dog that was going to be left alone for half the day each work day could be "turned off" during that time so it would not experience those hours of loneliness it would make the dog's life happier.
Dogs are usually very social. If they are left alone they will often be very unhappy. I think what was being suggested was that if a dog that was going to be left alone for half the day each work day could be "turned off" during that time so it would not experience those hours of loneliness it would make the dog's life happier.
I'm not a fan of having a single dog... I think you should usually have at least two a few years apart..
Right now we have 4, spaced apart about 3-4 years.
Right now we have 4, spaced apart about 3-4 years.
#In a Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong franchise on the outskirts of Phoenix, Rat Thing number B-782 comes awake. Fido is waking up because the dogs are barking tonight. There is always barking. Much of the barking is very far away. Fido knows that faraway barks are not as important as close barks, and so he often sleeps through these. But sometimes a faraway bark will carry a special sound that makes Fido excited, and he can't help waking up. He is hearing one of those barks right now. It comes from far away but it is urgent. Some nice doggie somewhere is very upset. He is so upset that his barking has spread to all the other doggies in the pack.
Fido listens to the bark. He gets excited, too. Some bad strangers have just been very close to a nice doggie's yard. They were in a flying thing. They had lots of guns. Fido doesn't like guns very much. A stranger with a gun shot him once and made him hurt. Then the nice girl came and helped him.
These are extremely bad strangers. Any nice doggie in his right mind would want to hurt them and make them go away. As Fido listens to the bark, he sees what they look like and hears the way they sound. If any of these very bad strangers ever come into his yard, he will be extremely upset.
Then Fido notices that the bad strangers are chasing someone. He can tell they are hurting her by the way her voice sounds and the way she moves.
The bad strangers are hurting the nice girl who loves him!
. . .
At first, the only trace that B-782 leaves of his passage is a dancing trail of sparks down the center of the franchise ghetto. But once he makes his way out onto a long straight piece of highway, he begins to leave further evidence: a spume of shattered blue safety glass spraying outward in parallel vanes from all four lanes of traffic as the windows and the windshields of the cars blow out of their frames, spraying into the air like rooster tails behind a speedboat.
As part of Mr. Lee's good neighbor policy, all Rat Things are programmed never to break the sound barrier in a populated area. But Fido's in too much of a hurry to worry about the good neighbor policy. Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.
https://hell.pl/agnus/anglistyka/2211/Neal%20Stephenson%20-%...
Fido listens to the bark. He gets excited, too. Some bad strangers have just been very close to a nice doggie's yard. They were in a flying thing. They had lots of guns. Fido doesn't like guns very much. A stranger with a gun shot him once and made him hurt. Then the nice girl came and helped him.
These are extremely bad strangers. Any nice doggie in his right mind would want to hurt them and make them go away. As Fido listens to the bark, he sees what they look like and hears the way they sound. If any of these very bad strangers ever come into his yard, he will be extremely upset.
Then Fido notices that the bad strangers are chasing someone. He can tell they are hurting her by the way her voice sounds and the way she moves.
The bad strangers are hurting the nice girl who loves him!
. . .
At first, the only trace that B-782 leaves of his passage is a dancing trail of sparks down the center of the franchise ghetto. But once he makes his way out onto a long straight piece of highway, he begins to leave further evidence: a spume of shattered blue safety glass spraying outward in parallel vanes from all four lanes of traffic as the windows and the windshields of the cars blow out of their frames, spraying into the air like rooster tails behind a speedboat.
As part of Mr. Lee's good neighbor policy, all Rat Things are programmed never to break the sound barrier in a populated area. But Fido's in too much of a hurry to worry about the good neighbor policy. Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.
https://hell.pl/agnus/anglistyka/2211/Neal%20Stephenson%20-%...
You should check out a company called Loyal — they’re making lifespan increasing drugs for dogs of all sizes!
I love how this story follows the magic pattern of so much of innovation and discovery - an accident. It's refreshingly human and not a mode of discovery that machine learning is going to completely take away from us.