Friday, January 24, 2014
Neil deGrasse Tyson: 'You need a tandem social moral code to go along with it'
"Renowned astrophysicist and StarTalk Radio host Neil deGrasse Tyson has some pretty wild ideas for how we should improve the human body, but he turns serious as he explains how we should appreciate the fragility and finiteness of life."
Business Insider
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I agree with his comments on death. & BO. & the re-growth of limbs.
A genetic cure and a moral code for decreased B.O? I'm down.
Flowers. Yea, great idea!
Dr. Tyson would do well to consider whether a person impoverished takes consolation in knowing that every dollar he has means so much more to him.
Another Obama magic thinker.
If I may . . . a meditation on life:
We have a fireplace and the other night I was putting on more firewood. I saw something tiny on the hearth moving towards me and I gave it a quick brush with the back of my hand. The whole event took only a tiny fraction of a second. There was no deliberation on my part.
It then occurred to me that a tiny, little spider was trying to escape a horrible death by immolation and I made absolutely certain that that was how he would die. The emotion I felt was pity for the poor, helpless spider. I felt pity after I destroyed him, not before.
I believe in God, but not the God of Abraham and certainly not some God/Guy who died to hit the reset button.
Anyway, it took a day or so after the death-from-above event before it occurred to me that spiders are ugly, not at all nice creatures, and that he'd have done unspeakably horrible things to me, if only he could have.
Life's a bitch, and then you die.
It says that in the Bible, probably.
Robbie Burns Night approaches!!!!
"To a Mouse."
Dig it!
After seeing this, I'd like to explore the Canadian Rockies before I die.
And what does your social moral code say about attacks on
small, defenseless planets?
Hey, how did Death get in there? I didn't see Death in the video, he's not credited nor referenced by the host, but he's there lurking in a freeze frame?
Dunh dunh dunnnnh.
I think that we get emotional about life and death and don't think it through. We all know how we react to the idea of living much longer than we can expect to now.
Leaving all that emotion aside... I think that his premises are wrong.
1) Do we appreciate life because it is short?
No. I don't think we do. Someone given news of a terminal disease, and perhaps the very elderly, maybe, or someone who has a scare may think about and appreciate every moment of every day, but we don't live death, we live life, and we're darn good at wasting it.
I don't get up and go to school because life is short or even because if I'd waited much longer I'd have felt I was too old, but because I'd like a job. Do I want a job because life is short? No. Do I want a job *soon* because life is short? No. I want a job to relieve financial pressure on the family as soon as I can... which has nothing to do with an end date on my life. I'd like to afford "stuff", which has nothing to do with an end date on my life. All the reasons that I do something instead of nothing are reasons that have nothing to do with an end date on my life.
No one says, I want to be a wage slave before I die. They say, I want to get my own place, I want to eat or get a car, I want nice things, I'd like to travel.
Bucket lists are popular, but mostly in theory or as a parlor game. We all have things we'd like to do: go to Europe or Hawaii, learn to play guitar, get our pilot's license, visit an old friend, save for retirement... Some people do these things and make a point of it, most people keep it at "someday" and call it good.
If anything we're prone to live in the moment and *not* plan ahead.
If we lived a very long time the result may well be the opposite of what deGrasse imagines. If I could expect to be well and active 100 years from now, perhaps I'd actually plan ahead better because I'd be thinking long term. I might invest because I'd feel more confident that it would do me some good. The benefits of delayed gratification would seem even more sure and perhaps I'd work harder and have even more lofty goals.
He also suggests that if we didn't die that every person ever born would still be alive.
The man is a scientist... he knows better. I'm not talking about accident, disease and war. I'm talking about how reproduction responds to incentives and how reproduction responds to the pressure of a woman's very limited fertile years. (At least he didn't suggest that eternal women would have thousands of children!)
My feeling is that he had an emotional reaction to the idea of extending human life and found emotional reasons to explain it instead of approaching it analytically.
My feeling is that he had an emotional reaction to the idea of extending human life and found emotional reasons to explain it instead of approaching it analytically.
Lol. But you did that in your very preceding paragraph!
Every woman talks about reproduction as an inexplicable "urge". Well, speaking analytically, the one thing I notice about this "urge", is it seems to respond to her own incentives surrounding the spawn's success. This tracks down through the species, as well. Animals with very low odds of any of their offspring surviving have huge broods. Those with much better odds, have fewer.
And then there are highly educated women, whose odds of ensuring their offsprings' survival are so high, that they barely manage to breed at replacement level (2.1 kids).
Sometimes you get women who are so highly educated, successful, or blessed with wealth (inherited or otherwise) that they delay "procreation" indefinitely. Until indefinitely becomes almost never. Or better yet, they become like men and wonder if there's much of a point in terms of a "mission" to do it. Their own gratification is gratifying enough, that you lose sight of the idea of making more people to gratify you.
BTW, loved your idea that harder work ensures better income. That was very, how might one say it…? Oh yeah! It was cute!
In all seriousness, people want to live for three reasons: To fulfill a mission, to have fun or to pursue a sense of wonder. People who already have those things need no desire of wage slavery, but they still might become bored. Or stupid enough to avoid boredom. (Amazing what ignorance can do for kindling one's sense of wonder).
"The man is a scientist... he knows better. I'm not talking about accident, disease and war. I'm talking about how reproduction responds to incentives and how reproduction responds to the pressure of a woman's very limited fertile years."
Good pick up, Synova
"BTW, loved your idea that harder work ensures better income. That was very, how might one say it…? Oh yeah! It was cute!"
I loved how the fact I never said that makes no difference at all.
deGrasse suggested some variation of "if we lived forever we'd never get out of bed" so by "work harder" I only meant *work harder*... as opposed to being a layabout because we had no time constraints.
You did actually watch the video, right?
Post a Comment