Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/24/21 in all areas

  1. The interviewer in the preceding is Eiuol.
    2 points
  2. Dealing with radiation: Optimal Radiation Shielding of Astronauts on a Mission to Mars
    2 points
  3. I would suggest that instead of a brief, concentrated rite of passage, we need an ongoing process of pointing children in the right direction by precept and example. Bad ideas do a lot to hold people back from the conceptual level. As better ideas spread, we will get better results. To the extent that we also write and talk, we will help the process along.
    2 points
  4. Yes. Space is a relationship between things, defined thereby and it is relative. Those things exist in space and at points in space. Space cannot exist "in space" or "at points in space" it IS the space. Anything whatever that can exist at or in space or exhibit any property, attribute, is something other than space. Particles, fields, potentials, probabilities, are all things or aspects of things at or in space, not properties OF space, on the contrary... the positional parameters of those things, i.e. the spatial coordinates or those things, are properties or attributes of those things, in relation to other things. No thing is a property or attribute of space. Space, position, location, extension, area, volume... these are all properties of things in relation to themselves and each other.
    1 point
  5. Is colonizing Mars a good or bad idea? For whom is it good or bad? Why is it good or bad? Elon Musk thinks it's a good idea for humanity. He says we have a choice: stay on Earth and inevitably perish in a doomsday event or become a spacefaring, multi-planet species. (See about a minute of his speech starting here at 1:44.) On the other hand, Jeff Bezos seems to think that colonizing Mars is not a good idea. Compared to Mars, he says, living on top of Mt. Everest would be a garden paradise. Perhaps Musk should try living on Everest for a year before trying to start a colony on Mars. Earth, Bezos notes, is by far the best planet for us. Bezos asks us to consider a different problem. He says that in a couple hundred years humanity's energy needs will become so enormous that we'd have to cover the planet in solar panels. So people in the future will face the choice of stasis on Earth or using the rest of the solar system to produce our energy needs. He suggests that Earth could be zoned for residences and light industry, while the heavy production would be done in space. (See about five minutes of his pitch starting at 1:40 in this video.) Clearly Musk and Bezos see virtue in making space travel more cost efficient, but they're doing it for different reasons. Musk wants to turn Mars into a second home for humanity, and Bezos wants to turn Earth into a residential utopia. I disagree with both of them. I shudder to think of the totalitarian government that would ban heavy industry from the planet's surface. And if we haven't perfected and accepted nuclear energy (or something better) within 200 years, we probably deserve stasis. And as for Musk, I believe there is value in colonizing Mars, but for the sake of expanding human knowledge and testing human potential. We shouldn't look upon a Mars colony as a way to save humanity from extinction, but as a way to experiment on ourselves as a species with physical and mental limits. Of what exactly are we capable?
    1 point
  6. That's a bit much. It certainly won't be easy, but if the first Martian colony fails I don't see how it could take life on Earth down with it. To clarify, I don't mean all of life on Earth would suffer. I mean that to the extent resources from Earth are transferred to the Mars colony, those are resources unavailable for supporting life on Earth. It might not be the most important concern, but some thought should be given to the propriety of sending Earth's valuable materials on a potentially one-way journey to Mars.
    1 point
  7. I think the GCR is typified or at least described in terms of high energy nuclei, rather than photons... heavy ions... travelling at incredibly high speeds, almost the speed of light. Space itself does not impart any drag on a free ion travelling near the speed of light, although a stray atom in space might collide with it. https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/nsrl/why-space-radiation-matters
    1 point
  8. The realization that every individual's contextual surroundings, metaphysically is becoming such that freedom to choose to live outside of a wrong society, outside of its grasping, oppressive, insipid, nanny-tyrant grip...into some pristine environment abundant enough to support a human life... not free from hard work but at least a free one ... is fast disappearing... is existentially depressing. A few centuries ago a free man could tell his village he wanted no more... and could leave... and if he ranged far enough, and was ingenious and productive enough, and with perhaps others of his ilk, he could make a living in supporting and sustaining himself and his family, and escape, if at least only for a while. A totalitarian or a socialist might try to go after him, but perhaps they would stop at only chastising him as he left. "Don't like it here? Good riddance!" Now, or very soon, there literally is no where to go Nowhere to escape the many many hands, in our pockets, bedrooms, education, entertainment, speech, economics...everywhere... "You'll own nothing... you'll all pay minimum wage and minimum tax or earn a minimum "living salary" have a minimum of health care and you'll love it"... I am disgusted and outraged beyond description at the insanity, which seems to march incessantly onward... the whole world is going from shirts to shirtsleeves. Instead of escaping our enslavers, instead of walking away peacefully from a fight with our petty screaming redfaced despots next door... who know what's best for us (and them), wielding that all mighty ballot box... must we choose to fight forever or be enslaved forever? sigh So really true freedom comes again... when... in a few millenia? Perhaps never... I know will never see the day where I or my son, or my ancestors live in a truly free society... I will be taxed, redistributed, and redtaped into submission every day of my finite life. Perhaps... there is after all an actual morality in escapism... morality in perhaps living in a video game, or with a belief in the afterlife ... if death is all that can ever set me free.. perhaps a morality based on life is profoundly misguided.
    1 point
  9. SL, Fifty or a hundred or two hundred years from now, supposing higher animal life not wiped out by nuclear exchanges, I do not think it likely at all that the earth would not be still divided into nation states, some at war with other countries or other earthly agencies of violence or in a civil war, and some of the nations still putting up walls to keep people locked in who would otherwise migrate to countries relatively more free for them. During the first few years of the new century, the 21st Century, you’d hear people say things like “Can you believe this or that horrible thing is still going on in the 21st Century?” Well, yes, a lot of us are not surprised at all. It is true that scientific and technological advances in agriculture and in disease treatment and prevention are gradually making better life possible. And it looks like those advances will continue. But human nature remains basically the same, including criminal acts and wars, lust for power, and desire to be left free of aggressions. It is highly likely that wars will continue, and the world will not be united under one government in the manner of Levin’s This Perfect Day, in which all birthrates, lifespans, education and travel are centrally controlled, all lines and quantities of production and consumption are centrally dictated, and sectarianism does not exist (supposedly). The world is not going to become so unified in state power to command no one travel to outer space were such migration to become feasible. Leaving aside such a world-wide prohibition, I anyway don’t think at all likely that outer space locations can be colonized such that a colony can become viable independently of earth, parallel the independence Paine urged as viable for the colonies here. Moreover, the population of a space colony would bring with it the human nature, including ideological diversity, it has on earth today. What knowledge space exploration, manned or unmanned, brings back or arises from the R&D is power for humans on earth, and that’s potential for good here. By space exploration and otherwise, there are tremendous discoveries and inventions that are possible between our time and the great-great grandchildren. But just as computers and robots are servants of human interests, good or bad, space explorations will be servants of human interests on earth. Steps on earth are the spring and end of human “steps that travel unlimited roads.” Those unlimited roads and the freedom necessary to their actualization require ongoing wins of freedom here and there on earth, whose life forms (here) are the center of all known life and its struggles.
    1 point
  10. I think every century is crucial in determining an 'aggregate' level of freedom on Earth. Post industrial revolution and with the emerging digital revolution and the technologies that come from them are what allows for more freedom to be gained and defended. If off planet colonization ever happens it will most likely have to come from, be seeded by , collective action. The North American colonization was precipitated by wealthy stable regimes working to exploit fertile frontiers. The societies of individuals that recognized their advantage and relative power to break away from their former regimes created the opportunity for freedom to expand. The amount of consumable capital that will need to be expended in developing frontiers in highly 'in'-fertile frontiers boogles the mind , no ?
    1 point
  11. It would appear that the next half century will be crucial in determining whether freedom lives anywhere on Earth. It also seems that space technology, and its becoming more ubiquitous and accessible to pioneers, is critical for plan B: any escape from a One World Order to the great free expanse. The next iron curtain that goes up will "surround" Earth itself, and the next space race will be between that curtain and free individual's ability to leave and sustain ourselves elsewhere. So in the sense of mental fuel I get from anticipating the welfare of my children, grandchildren, etc. going to Mars, and all the technology and infrastructure that would entail, for me, is good. Although I can't vote with my wallet for space tourism (I cannot afford it)... I'd donate a few clicks to and maybe buy some merch from a firm like SpaceX precisely because of this... and maybe Virgin Galactic as well.
    1 point
  12. Only if China could maintain its authoritarian model over such distances. History suggests otherwise. That's the beauty of any frontier.
    1 point
  13. To save mass, instead of cladding the entire ship with the idea humans should be able to run around essentially naked everywhere inside... designate only a small percentage of ship for "relaxation" areas (where people can wear jammies and slippers) and the rest of the ship requires full protection of specially designed radiation (but not pressurized) suits. Of course sensitive electrical and other equipment will need proper shielding... and the greenhouse/chicken coup as well.
    1 point
  14. I wonder if given the parameters of solar activity and its interplay with galactic radiation and the varying benefits of differences of thickness of the theoretic cladding , if there won’t be engineering in mind of interchangeable ‘cladding’ systems. ’Tow’ some extra cladding and apply when needed and then shed when it is more beneficial for thinner cladding. As obviously necessary as radiation protection is needed, isn’t still the largest hurdle to over come a means of food production or hauling capacity ? I think I’ve seen mentioned that radiation protection will be presumably ‘figured out and engineered’ well before the food issue.
    1 point
  15. Boydstun

    Age of Electricity

    Philosophy, Engineering - a life, a mind Interview of me:
    1 point
  16. Eiuol

    Physics

    Physics translated by Joe Sachs 1 - Aristotle distinguishes what is clear by nature versus clear to us. Clear to us is what is clear in terms of how we come to understand the world, in the way that dog is known before animal, which is also messy and filled with many possible conceptual distinctions. What is clear by nature is what is clear in terms of logical structure, that is, in the way that after making distinctions, nature becomes more understandable. 2 - There can be one and many at the same time in terms of potential and actual. 3 - If being is caused by something, then the cause could not have been, because there was no something that was being. That is, in my wording, being would be caused ex nihilo. What is not is not something in particular. 4 - To know something composite is to know how many things it is made of and what they are. If no animal is infinite, then its parts are always finite. My understanding is that being can't be infinite because if all substances are finite, then any parts will be finite as well. 5 - Opposites come into being from each other. A house doesn’t come into being absolutely from nothing whatever but from parts and materials. 6 - Since two independent things can’t be derived from one another, there would need to be an underlying third thing. 7 - A statue comes from bronze, not that bronze becomes a statue, because it comes from something that persists. Education comes from uneducation no longer persisting. 8 - Dogs come from dogs yet we don’t say that dogs come from animals, since animal persisted all along. The dog is animal incidentally, because animal is not a substance but a predicate in this case, which means apparently that the dog comes into being by the nature of the other dog. Animal is not a being itself, so it is not animal literally speaking that makes the dog come into being. It's no wonder then that Aristotle does not use simply a handful of animals to investigate how animals generate other animals. It is specific animals that bring about their offspring, not some broad form from beyond that literally brings the new dog into being.
    1 point
  17. Gentlemen, be sure to acknowledge to yourself explicitly what you do know: you each one, just like me (much your senior), are going to die. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Totally end. Be sure to invest your life with that background as absolute and with projects consonant with your rationally expected range of end date. Indefinitely long is not what is going to happen to your duration, and at some level, hopefully explicitly, you know that. You will die (and eventually even the species will die). And it can have been worthwhile, indeed entirely complete, to have lived your few or several decades of existence. Related, from another, recent thread: Life, finite life, is an end in itself.
    1 point
  18. Vasks, Peteris:The Fruit of Silence Astor Piazzolla - Buenos Aires Hora Cero
    1 point
  19. Boydstun

    Federal Budget

    Appropriations - FY 2022 FY = Oct. 1 through Sept. 30 Budgets and Projections Thanks to Merlin Jetton for recent remarks and for notice of the site COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET.
    1 point
  20. I've seen this a lot. Someone experiences an "existential meltdown" / a nervous or mental breakdown and they are suddenly deep into (usually mystical) philosophy. Behind the scenes is an intense focus on death, which the Russel Brand quote captures well. Apart from comedians, it happens to successful businessmen, athletes, friends, anyone. Why is it usually mystical philosophy that is pursued? Because God is Dead: God is dead. And philosophies that are mystical offer comfort, if you can buy into their premises. A more naturalistic, this-worldly-only philosophy like Objectivism is rare, but it would also be a much more potentially bitter pill to swallow at first—because what if it's too late? what if you can't make meaning? Of course everyone's answer to this experience varies, but the experience usually prefigures significant psychological change. What is going on here in philosophic terms? The best understanding I could make of it is that there is (forced) complete re-evaluation of values, of one's life, and that the judgement is negative. If one has lived by (and is embodying) what one now judges as wrong values, has one ever really lived or only meaninglessly existed? will one still have a chance to experience living? There is some complication here because, as far as I can tell, it's not only a complete re-evaluation of values that leads one to this state: Unless by this he means that the situation forcefully leads to the re-evaluation of all values. What are the two most basic motivations man can have? a love of life, of (his) values or fear of death, fear of dis-value. If one is stripped of values then all that remains is to stare into the abyss? But saying this feels like a mathematically deductive reductio ad absurdum not appropriate to this enquiry. Why the intense focus on death that many experience in the wake of an "existential meltdown?"
    1 point
  21. I only have passing knowledge of these people. But as far as tracing influences with philosophy, Spinoza seems to be a turning point of some kind. On the other hand, it might be more about romanticism starting with Goethe, and the fact that he thought of science as something different than physicists of the time, focusing on biology. It's a sign of treating living things as something great with many values and characteristics and emotions and causes. Physicists like Galileo or Newton were plenty happy with being reductionists about reality, reducing causality to primarily things bouncing around, and treating abstractions in a platonic or Christian way. When life is thought of as a complete totality, it becomes easier to worry about what would happen when that process ends. If life is an incidental feature of the soul, and when the body dies, the soul does not, then the end of life doesn't really matter much in one's existence.
    1 point
  22. As for the origin of all these things, within philosophy anyway, I wonder if a lot of it stems from Spinoza. He seemed to make it possible for philosophers to break from Christianity in a meaningful way, artists as well, without complete abandonment for some vague divinity for those who couldn't let go. But because Spinoza thought that God ultimately didn't and couldn't care about you one way or another, that leaves you wide open to the question: "if God doesn't care about me, now what?"
    1 point
  23. I had said: "But as ever, one can become fully aware not only of one’s coming nonexistence, but to its place in life." I had meant it is good to become fully aware of one's coming nonexistence square on, with no ifs, buts, or maybes, no fogginess and no denials. And its place in life is only terminal point of life. Conducting one's life never shunting awareness of the coming end is a rationality in life (and tuning one's priorities in projects and relationships with one's present expectation of the termination time of one's life---some decades from now versus two months from now---is part of that rationality). Have you by chance read the book The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker? It's been a while since I read that, but as I recall, it's quite good.
    1 point
  24. “Thou hast become dark and cannot hear me. When I die shall I not be like Enkidu? Sorrow enters my heart. I am afraid of death.”—The Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh. This awareness seems to affect people differently at different points in their life: "For some of us the fear of death manifests only indirectly, either as generalized unrest or masqueraded as another psychological symptom; other individuals experience an explicit and conscious stream of anxiety about death; and for some of us the fear of death erupts into terror that negates all happiness and fulfillment." - Staring at the Sun, Yaalom. Yaalom thinks that we find ways to 'repress' this fear, although I would distinguish between dealing with this fear by finding rational meaning that makes life worthwhile on its own and irrational attempts at finding meaning through what he calls 'immortality projects' like having children or seeking to create another kind of legacy (specifically when motivated by this fear, rather than some other reason). I quote this before, but it's relevant again: See Also 'Death of Ivan Illych': So rational values pursued, internalized and embodied lead one not to even raise these kinds of questions is my take-away. One can setup irrational 'defense mechanisms', i.e., unreal explanations and life projects engaged in out of fear of this death rather than love of life, which reality constantly presents counter evidence for, and which eventually will result in an 'existential meltdown' (Like a Jim Taggart moment). In what sense did you mean one becomes aware of the place of one's own eventual non-existence in one's life? That would be a case for what Yaalom is claiming when he says that it's important to "derepress" this fear if it has been smothered with irrational coping mechanisms.
    1 point
  25. Harry Binswanger has already made an airtight case against the FDA; go to him if you need one. Both links are damning, but don't completely overlap. Having said that, a quick visit to In the Pipeline this morning has provided two additional strikes against government control of medicine (and drugs in particular), although its author -- like most people today might -- merely hopes for reform of that unreformable, illegitimate agency. Having already expressed outrage that the agency's questionable approval of adcuanumab, a very expensive Alzheimer's drug, Derek Lowe notes some interesting fallout. I think it is more interesting than he does, especially the following:Image by Myriam Zilles, via Unsplash, license.Out in the health-insurance world, which is where any such drug launch is really going to play out, many large insurance companies are holding back on approval for payment or have said outright that they will not cover the drug. They are understandably concerned about the possibility of paying for a treatment in a huge population with a $56,000/patient/year price tag that will leave its recipients exactly as sick as they were before (if not somewhat more injured, frankly)... [bold added]Private industry to the rescue! you might hopefully add, as I did. Indeed, insurance companies might well perform safety and efficacy testing if there weren't an FDA -- and you can already see here that the profit motive would stop an ineffective drug from getting the de facto seal-of-approval of being deemed worthy of insurance coverage. Strike One was the garbage drug approval. Yes. The FDA shouldn't even be at bat: People should be free to take snake oil if they want, just as insurance companies should be free not to cover it. But it's there. Here's the next pitch, and it comes in the next few sentences of that same paragraph:... The Veteran's Health Administration is doing the same, saying that there's not enough evidence of benefit. Many of these organizations say that they're waiting on a decision from Medicare, but that's a confusing situation, too. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently advised state that their Medicaid programs must include it as a covered outpatient drug. It's the national Medicare determination that everyone's really waiting on, though. [bold added]So a questionable approval of a dubious drug by the FDA might -- despite free-market elements of our economy acting as a partial backstop -- still put everyone on the hook to pay for it. Strike Two. Aducanumab should be a last-ditch drug (or high-end snake oil) for the wealthy, but it might about to be normalized at everybody's expense, instead. And here's Strike Three:[O]n the regulatory side, this decision has been a mud bomb: rare-disease companies are wondering why they're being asked for more data when Biogen wasn't, and other companies with vague, not-really-statistically-significant Alzheimer's data are lining up to get their approvals on this basis as well. This is not a precedent the agency should have set.So much for the whole damned idea that the free market needs government to set safety standards and prevent fraud. Abolish the FDA. -- CAVLink to Original
    1 point
  26. Self-replicating with an evolutionary hint! Self-replicating protocells created in lab may be life's "missing link" “By constructing peptide droplets that proliferate with feeding on novel amino acid derivatives, we have experimentally elucidated the long-standing mystery of how prebiotic ancestors were able to proliferate and survive by selectively concentrating prebiotic chemicals,” says Matsuo. “Our results suggest that droplets became evolvable molecular aggregates – one of which became our common ancestor.”
    1 point
  27. Some ambiguity, a disparity between what I mean by "public v. private health". The public sphere IS the gvt. and gvt. regulations imposed on the society of individuals, in the definition I know. Let me reword that then: As to his stance on what the government ought have done, the context is to leave public individual's health to the public individual and go about upholding the conditions necessary for folk to act freely. This does not substantially alter in my mind what I said with the exception of the technicality of terminology. Who knows, it may even spill over into my useage more casually having given that bit of additional thought.
    1 point
  28. Yes and no. Even with an afterlife, life could still be considered meaningless.
    1 point
  29. dream_weaver

    "Rite of Passage"

    @Sebastien, your addressing this post brings to light the omission of what is a "Rite of Passage". In many cultures, this is a ceremony marking a passage from boyhood to manhood, or a transition from a girl to a woman. As conceptual beings, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology refers to various approaches young minds take when acquiring new concepts. She outlines several approaches. Perhaps what I'm asking potentially amounts to wishful thinking. Still the fact such approaches can be articulated implies a superior approach can be desired and sought after.
    1 point
  30. I would question the quality of the Objectivist content in contrast to what the talk-show host uses in bringing in and holding new listeners. The Mark Scott Show was what introduced me to Ayn Rand's materials, and I had listened to it for a long time before I made the connection. Why? Because what the guy said made sense. He talked about current issues and connected them to the relevant principles, and only then might he point out the origin of the principle under examination. In exchange he made his listeners stronger thinkers by challenging their premises and encouraging them to question their convictions in an inviting rather than threatening way.
    1 point
  31. dream_weaver If your line of argument is sound, which I think it is, instead of measuring the amount of material when deeming Objectivist content as dear or less dear, measure the number of Objectivists. If there are fewer Objectivists than conservatives, it is not because Objectivism is becoming less dear, it is because choosing Objectivism requires more courage than choosing conservativism. Therefore, those who remain strictly Objectivist will be stronger thinkers who did not fall off the map when it came time to vote either for Republican or Democrat. This is good for us. We are America's Persecuted Minority.
    1 point
  32. As far as tyranny is concerned, I personally wish for the United States to never be tyrannical. This is primarily because I myself do not want to be a victim of tyranny. But I also value the freedom of others, not because I am an altruist, but because I think it is right and just for others to be happy and free. Why would we Objectivists want capitalism if it wasn't capitalism for everybody? Our interest in a free society comes from our adherence to the truth and beauty of the idea, not because we value other people's freedom more than our own.
    1 point
  33. The Laws of Biology, Ayn Rand made a small fortune writing on her philosophy of Objectivism and integrating its principles and values in her fiction works. She personally had a lot to gain from speaking truth that she held dear. We Objectivists are not being altruists by wanting to promote her ideas. It is in our own interests for others to be happy and lead good lives. We take a sense of pride from promoting principles we deem to be sound. The fact that these principles are helpful to others does not constitute altruism. Ayn Rand always said it is not wrong to help people, as long as you know that you are not morally obligated to and that helping others is not the primary purpose of your existence. Most people on this forum and in the institutions promoting Objectivism work for a living, or if they are young, plan on working for a living. Sharing Objectivism with others is something that interests us on the side. It is in our interest. Each of us has a selfish interest in helping others learn. Otherwise, it would be impossible for an Objectivist to become a teacher. As soon as you choose helping others as a value, it is in your interest to help others. But that comes after your decision to live primarily for yourself.
    1 point
  34. What if the chances of your being alive by the time terraforming is complete is exactly 0%. When could it be possibly rational for you to contribute your money/wealth to something like that? Does it matter if you have children? Could it be rational if thinking about a future after you are gone gives you some kind of mental fuel?
    1 point
  35. Once the context were such that there was a market for passage and colony building, and free people chose to pay passage to live there (as settlers who crossed the sea to NA did), then I suppose it would at least seem "good" for those who were taking the risk and making the choice to start a new life on Mars. Unless and until free peoples do so, any "colonization" would probably be premature, involving coercion and/or taxation.
    1 point
  36. Yamasee War The tribes joined together to fight a common oppressor. To suggest that 10,000 years created a dominant trait of indomitable volition brings to mind an inverse of the use of breeding to domesticate livestock. European tribalism and north American tribalism developed different moralities, stemming from different driving mythologies, or "primitive philosophies". The Yamasee War is not something I recall from school. It popped up in a search for slave trade, native american, to flesh out a better understanding of your propositions.
    1 point
  37. Next, in a totalitarian state, spreading ideas will be actionable. (Oh, wait ...) Is there a face mask to protect against a thought pandemic? The irrational is the insane or the impossible, I believe Rand said, Michael. Try to prove in court that it was my germs you caught off a door handle. Then, that it was my negligence or malice at fault. If anyone wants, who and what stops them from going round masked their whole day and every day of their lives? Just leave me out.
    1 point
  38. I wish this were hyperbole, but ev'ry word is most assured. The drooling beast has been released. It circles 'round our hallowed ground, awaiting weak and fearful fools. They bleat and squeal before they kneel, before the beast begins to feast.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...