Re: Question for Charlie
On 10/08/2006, at 4:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Charlie said: I'm thinking about it. :-) It warrants a considered reply. I like asking questions like this :) As long as you post your answer at some time too! I'm sitting here trying to write vows. Wedding in 3 weeks. :-o Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for Charlie
Charlie said: I'm thinking about it. :-) It warrants a considered reply. I like asking questions like this :) I'm still disappointed that I didn't get a reply from JDG to the similar question I posed about what I see as his essentialism (the one about human/chimpanzee hybrids, I mean). Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for Charlie
On 10/08/2006, at 4:02 PM, Richard Baker wrote: David said: So what, the rest of us don't get to answer it? Of course you do. I'm just especially interested in what Charlie has to say. I'm thinking about it. :-) It warrants a considered reply. Do you think morality is part of social convention then? Social convention seems to play a large part in morality. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for Charlie
David said: So what, the rest of us don't get to answer it? Of course you do. I'm just especially interested in what Charlie has to say. The freezing situation is, of course, as close a parallel as I can think up to the problem of aborting sufficiently early pregnancies, but putting at the centre of the dilemma an entity that was once an adult person (and might be again) rather than an entity that might one day be an adult person but never was previously. The way I see it, what is "acceptable" depends on what is usually done. Do you want to fill this part in, our leave us to it? No, I'd rather leave it to you to describe the set of surrounding circumstances, if any, in which it might be acceptable. Do you think morality is part of social convention then? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for Charlie
Richard Baker wrote: Suppose that we've more or less perfected cryogenic suspension. People can be deep frozen and held in that state indefinitely. Thawing is more problematic. Some percentage of frozen "people" fail to be revivified at all. Of those who are, all require five to ten years of intensive and expensive rehabilitation before the vast majority resume a normal life. While suspended, a "person" has no functional characteristics of being human at all: "their" metabolism is entirely inactive. Now, given this, under what circumstances would it be morally acceptable to pull the plug on a freezer and allow the "person" inside to thaw without further intervention to a state in which return to life is impossible? Is it ever acceptable to keep a "person" suspended indefinitely? For example, suppose Alice's husband Bob has become frozen in an accident and Alice can't afford to pay for his rehabilitation without major changes to her lifestyle. Is it acceptable for her to destructively thaw him or keep him in suspension for many decades? Rich So what, the rest of us don't get to answer it? I'd say a lot depends on what people's expectations were of being frozen. One could argue that being frozen beat being dead, so that people had no business complaining if they were thawed destructively. They still would be no worse off than before. This does seem a bit silly from the point of view of the society as a whole, though. Why bother to freeze people at all unless there was a good chance they'd be rehabilitated eventually? Although I guess you could plan to freeze them all for 500 years, and let future medicine and robot therapists deal with the problems. The way I see it, what is "acceptable" depends on what is usually done. Do you want to fill this part in, our leave us to it? Good question, though. ---David ROU In the simulation spaces of the Unborn God ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, "The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up." -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "This message was sent automatically using cron. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
