So-and-so (you know who you are), thanks for your question. As you can probably tell, this is a subject that I'm excited about, and anytime someone expresses interested in it I have to pounce.
There's actually a lot of thought going on now among different groups and public figures about living forever. Just a few days ago in the news there were a number of articles about a Russian multi-millionaire Dmitry Itskov's quest, plan, and timeline, to live forever. Here is one, from a quick Google News search, that unfortunately doesn't seem to contain his timeline, but gives a lot of the story. And I know you've heard of Ray Kurzweil, who has been a champion of living indefinitely for quite a while, who now works for Google. Ray Kurzweil is a co-founder of the Singularity University. I bring these up to illustrate that there are smart people thinking about, as well as money going into, this subject.
Aubrey De Grey is another influential individual in this area, having helped start the Methuselah Foundation -- fitting because he famously sports a Methuselah-style beard -- and later the SENS Foundation, short for Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. As far as I know he is not a theist, but he gave one of the keynote talks at the 2013 conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and was quite friendly towards us Mormons, and seems generally respectful of religion in general. (Video)
(Bunch of links. I'm not necessarily endorsing any of them. Except the MTA. ;-) )
If you look in to what some of these various people envision as humanity's future you'll find that there are different, perhaps complimentary, visions. I think that Aubrey De Grey's approach may be more near-term in terms of both achieveability and, importantly, public acceptance, so I'll kind of focus on that. I really recommend looking up some of his videos -- a YouTube search gives plenty, and some of these are short and sweet. If you're interested in a longer video, I'll push you towards the MTA conference keynote video. It was a great talk; he gave a good overview of the subject, and tried to create a shared vision with religious people.
Aubrey De Grey's number one goal is to prevent the suffering that people experience from diseases of old age. And when we describe this as our goal it makes a lot of sense. As he describes in the MTA video, if we eliminate the causes of damage to our bodies experienced during aging, or repair the damage before it becomes pathogenic then we prevent the diseases of old age. This bring us back to the original graphic. If we can stop or repair the age-related damage done before someone gets Alzheimers, or wears out her knees, or (hopefully for me) loses his hair, then we haven't lengethed the older years of reduced capacity and suffering, but we have added years of capability and vigor.
As a side effect, De Grey would say, people stop dying from getting old. Of course this doesn't stop people from dying of accidents or germs, for example; but humanity has been addressing these problems, too, by things like self-driving cars, airbags, building codes, vaccines, and basic sanitation. I expect that as we continue to lengthen lifespan that human life will become more valuable to us, and we will continue to look for better ways to prevent these other causes of death. Or we'll all get so bored of living so long that we'll all commit suicide. But I also hope that life will get more interesting as we progress.
I know many people hold to the necessity of dying, even suffering. I admit there's something kind of romantic about holding one's head high as one enters the twilight of one's life and prepares to meet the inevitable. But I think we have to be honest -- aging sucks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying. I've been lucky to not have seen much death in my life, but I watched both of my grandfathers in the last years of their lives. One, whom I lived close to before his death, I was able to see in just the last few days before his death. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
I've become old enough and aware enough to learn of friends' parents and others dying from things like cancer. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
So, back to Aubrey De Grey: If we can achieve what he and others are *right now* trying to achieve, then we will be able to prevent dying from old age. Which means that we would be able to live indefinitely, meaning we could have reasonable confidence we wouldn't die from old age, but we never could be sure the Sun won't blow up and kill us, or aliens won't try to colonize our planet, or a piano drops on our head, or our neighbor gives us an anthrax letter. We will just have confidence that nothing in particular *has* to kill us.
Probably he is too optimistic. Probably the causes and required fixes for aging are more complex than anybody realizes, and we won't cure aging anywhere near when people like Aubrey De Grey think we will. But I feel compelled by my Mormonness to believe that we will eventually get to this point, because of the principle of Eternal Progression, or what Ray Kurzweil might call the Law of Accelerating Returns.
If we never can repair damage to the human body then that must mean that there is some barrier or filter that prevents us from getting to that point, whether man-made or due to complexity (which I think is finite, though I'm no mathematician nor philosopher). The scriptures are full of stories of people who were damned at some point, due to their wickedness. And this is always a possibility. The natural man can prove to be the great filter that damns us. But we must always have faith that if we keep God's commandments and use the means that the Lord has provided for us that we can continue to progress beyond the level we are at, which tells me that no matter how complex the problem, it's just a matter of time and faith.
I have faith in a future resurrection. I really do. It takes a lot of the fear out of growing old and dying, because I believe that it's not the end of me, or the end of my family and friends. I hope I will not die. I think it's possible I will not die. But if I do, well, c'est la vie, and I hope my kids never die, and they will seek after their dead, and I will be resurrected to be with them, and my parents too, and my grandparents too.
OK. Whew. I think I addressed the first two lines of your question. Let me take a breather.
Do we have to die? Or, in other words, is it necessary for us to experience death?
My first thought is no, because I can envision myself living indefinitely, or if not me, at least someone. But I can still die in 100 years, or maybe 1000, or maybe a billion or something, but maybe eventually I'll die. I do wonder what a billion-year-old me would get out of the dying experience, and I'd hope by then I could make it painless.
Related to this I want to ask, is it necessary to suffer? I don't think so -- though I think that suffering is unavoidable. But I don't go around flagellating myself to increase my suffering, or wish that everybody could be born with genetic abnormalities or get hit by a car or something. I think it's wise to reduce suffering wherever and whenever we can, even though we learn by suffering and can have joy in painful situations. We Mormons believe in a God that weeps. God weeps because God cares, so as long as we care we have the potential to suffer. But God overcomes, and so should we.
Mormons believe that there are a number of people who never died. For example, "Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death", or the Three Nephites who, "shall never taste of death" and "shall never endure the pains of death", or John the Beloved, who, "shalt tarry until I come in my glory". So it seems that maybe death isn't a necessary experience.
Well, actually it depends on your definition of death. When Jesus pulls back the veil of the covering of his temple, and all flesh sees him together, "there shall be no sorrow because there is no death." Yet in the very next verse it says that, "An infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; and when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye...". And the death of an infant who has grown up is described quite differently than what most deaths today are.
It seems to me that these verses are describing a radical change, and not death. Or maybe we could say that death is necessary, but death only has to mean some kind of a change from our current state, not a ceasing to be alive.
I feel closer now to Mormonism and to the LDS church than I've felt for a long time. I've come to appreciate more the Book of Mormon's teachings about the natural man and its admonitions to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as a witness of God, though I usually am more on the natural man side.
So I want to emphasize that trying to eliminate aging doesn't trump charity, or take the place of keeping the commandments; it is being charitable, it is keeping the commandments.
We must not build a tower, but an ark, not a Rameumptom, but a ship to cross these great waters. We have to overcome the natural man, which is an unnatural thing, but the pattern lies in John the Beloved, when he said, "Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee." I'm mixing multiple stories here, but I hope I'm conveying my point.
Thanks for asking me questions, and getting me worked up enough to blog about something. I'll see you later.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
What Life Extension Actually Is
I posted the picture below on Facebook, and I got a comment from a friend with questions about my thoughts on the subject. I got so excited, then spent the next bunch of time writing down my thoughts and getting burned out (it's bedtime -- actually after) that I figured I should post them here.
Here is the picture:
So-and-so (you know who you are), thanks for your question. As you can probably tell, this is a subject that I'm excited about, and anytime someone expresses interested in it I have to pounce.
There's actually a lot of thought going on now among different groups and public figures about living forever. Just a few days ago in the news there were a number of articles about a Russian multi-millionaire Dmitry Itskov's quest, plan, and timeline, to live forever. Here is one, from a quick Google News search, that unfortunately doesn't seem to contain his timeline, but gives a lot of the story. And I know you've heard of Ray Kurzweil, who has been a champion of living indefinitely for quite a while, who now works for Google. Ray Kurzweil is a co-founder of the Singularity University. I bring these up to illustrate that there are smart people thinking about, as well as money going into, this subject.
Aubrey De Grey is another influential individual in this area, having helped start the Methuselah Foundation -- fitting because he famously sports a Methuselah-style beard -- and later the SENS Foundation, short for Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. As far as I know he is not a theist, but he gave one of the keynote talks at the 2013 conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and was quite friendly towards us Mormons, and seems generally respectful of religion in general. (Video)
(Bunch of links. I'm not necessarily endorsing any of them. Except the MTA. ;-) )
If you look in to what some of these various people envision as humanity's future you'll find that there are different, perhaps complimentary, visions. I think that Aubrey De Grey's approach may be more near-term in terms of both achieveability and, importantly, public acceptance, so I'll kind of focus on that. I really recommend looking up some of his videos -- a YouTube search gives plenty, and some of these are short and sweet. If you're interested in a longer video, I'll push you towards the MTA conference keynote video. It was a great talk; he gave a good overview of the subject, and tried to create a shared vision with religious people.
Aubrey De Grey's number one goal is to prevent the suffering that people experience from diseases of old age. And when we describe this as our goal it makes a lot of sense. As he describes in the MTA video, if we eliminate the causes of damage to our bodies experienced during aging, or repair the damage before it becomes pathogenic then we prevent the diseases of old age. This bring us back to the original graphic. If we can stop or repair the age-related damage done before someone gets Alzheimers, or wears out her knees, or (hopefully for me) loses his hair, then we haven't lengethed the older years of reduced capacity and suffering, but we have added years of capability and vigor.
As a side effect, De Grey would say, people stop dying from getting old. Of course this doesn't stop people from dying of accidents or germs, for example; but humanity has been addressing these problems, too, by things like self-driving cars, airbags, building codes, vaccines, and basic sanitation. I expect that as we continue to lengthen lifespan that human life will become more valuable to us, and we will continue to look for better ways to prevent these other causes of death. Or we'll all get so bored of living so long that we'll all commit suicide. But I also hope that life will get more interesting as we progress.
I know many people hold to the necessity of dying, even suffering. I admit there's something kind of romantic about holding one's head high as one enters the twilight of one's life and prepares to meet the inevitable. But I think we have to be honest -- aging sucks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying. I've been lucky to not have seen much death in my life, but I watched both of my grandfathers in the last years of their lives. One, whom I lived close to before his death, I was able to see in just the last few days before his death. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
I've become old enough and aware enough to learn of friends' parents and others dying from things like cancer. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
So, back to Aubrey De Grey: If we can achieve what he and others are *right now* trying to achieve, then we will be able to prevent dying from old age. Which means that we would be able to live indefinitely, meaning we could have reasonable confidence we wouldn't die from old age, but we never could be sure the Sun won't blow up and kill us, or aliens won't try to colonize our planet, or a piano drops on our head, or our neighbor gives us an anthrax letter. We will just have confidence that nothing in particular *has* to kill us.
Probably he is too optimistic. Probably the causes and required fixes for aging are more complex than anybody realizes, and we won't cure aging anywhere near when people like Aubrey De Grey think we will. But I feel compelled by my Mormonness to believe that we will eventually get to this point, because of the principle of Eternal Progression, or what Ray Kurzweil might call the Law of Accelerating Returns.
If we never can repair damage to the human body then that must mean that there is some barrier or filter that prevents us from getting to that point, whether man-made or due to complexity (which I think is finite, though I'm no mathematician nor philosopher). The scriptures are full of stories of people who were damned at some point, due to their wickedness. And this is always a possibility. The natural man can prove to be the great filter that damns us. But we must always have faith that if we keep God's commandments and use the means that the Lord has provided for us that we can continue to progress beyond the level we are at, which tells me that no matter how complex the problem, it's just a matter of time and faith.
I have faith in a future resurrection. I really do. It takes a lot of the fear out of growing old and dying, because I believe that it's not the end of me, or the end of my family and friends. I hope I will not die. I think it's possible I will not die. But if I do, well, c'est la vie, and I hope my kids never die, and they will seek after their dead, and I will be resurrected to be with them, and my parents too, and my grandparents too.
OK. Whew. I think I addressed the first two lines of your question. Let me take a breather.
Do we have to die? Or, in other words, is it necessary for us to experience death?
My first thought is no, because I can envision myself living indefinitely, or if not me, at least someone. But I can still die in 100 years, or maybe 1000, or maybe a billion or something, but maybe eventually I'll die. I do wonder what a billion-year-old me would get out of the dying experience, and I'd hope by then I could make it painless.
Related to this I want to ask, is it necessary to suffer? I don't think so -- though I think that suffering is unavoidable. But I don't go around flagellating myself to increase my suffering, or wish that everybody could be born with genetic abnormalities or get hit by a car or something. I think it's wise to reduce suffering wherever and whenever we can, even though we learn by suffering and can have joy in painful situations. We Mormons believe in a God that weeps. God weeps because God cares, so as long as we care we have the potential to suffer. But God overcomes, and so should we.
Mormons believe that there are a number of people who never died. For example, "Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death", or the Three Nephites who, "shall never taste of death" and "shall never endure the pains of death", or John the Beloved, who, "shalt tarry until I come in my glory". So it seems that maybe death isn't a necessary experience.
Well, actually it depends on your definition of death. When Jesus pulls back the veil of the covering of his temple, and all flesh sees him together, "there shall be no sorrow because there is no death." Yet in the very next verse it says that, "An infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; and when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye...". And the death of an infant who has grown up is described quite differently than what most deaths today are.
It seems to me that these verses are describing a radical change, and not death. Or maybe we could say that death is necessary, but death only has to mean some kind of a change from our current state, not a ceasing to be alive.
I feel closer now to Mormonism and to the LDS church than I've felt for a long time. I've come to appreciate more the Book of Mormon's teachings about the natural man and its admonitions to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as a witness of God, though I usually am more on the natural man side.
So I want to emphasize that trying to eliminate aging doesn't trump charity, or take the place of keeping the commandments; it is being charitable, it is keeping the commandments.
We must not build a tower, but an ark, not a Rameumptom, but a ship to cross these great waters. We have to overcome the natural man, which is an unnatural thing, but the pattern lies in John the Beloved, when he said, "Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee." I'm mixing multiple stories here, but I hope I'm conveying my point.
Thanks for asking me questions, and getting me worked up enough to blog about something. I'll see you later.
So-and-so (you know who you are), thanks for your question. As you can probably tell, this is a subject that I'm excited about, and anytime someone expresses interested in it I have to pounce.
There's actually a lot of thought going on now among different groups and public figures about living forever. Just a few days ago in the news there were a number of articles about a Russian multi-millionaire Dmitry Itskov's quest, plan, and timeline, to live forever. Here is one, from a quick Google News search, that unfortunately doesn't seem to contain his timeline, but gives a lot of the story. And I know you've heard of Ray Kurzweil, who has been a champion of living indefinitely for quite a while, who now works for Google. Ray Kurzweil is a co-founder of the Singularity University. I bring these up to illustrate that there are smart people thinking about, as well as money going into, this subject.
Aubrey De Grey is another influential individual in this area, having helped start the Methuselah Foundation -- fitting because he famously sports a Methuselah-style beard -- and later the SENS Foundation, short for Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. As far as I know he is not a theist, but he gave one of the keynote talks at the 2013 conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and was quite friendly towards us Mormons, and seems generally respectful of religion in general. (Video)
(Bunch of links. I'm not necessarily endorsing any of them. Except the MTA. ;-) )
If you look in to what some of these various people envision as humanity's future you'll find that there are different, perhaps complimentary, visions. I think that Aubrey De Grey's approach may be more near-term in terms of both achieveability and, importantly, public acceptance, so I'll kind of focus on that. I really recommend looking up some of his videos -- a YouTube search gives plenty, and some of these are short and sweet. If you're interested in a longer video, I'll push you towards the MTA conference keynote video. It was a great talk; he gave a good overview of the subject, and tried to create a shared vision with religious people.
Aubrey De Grey's number one goal is to prevent the suffering that people experience from diseases of old age. And when we describe this as our goal it makes a lot of sense. As he describes in the MTA video, if we eliminate the causes of damage to our bodies experienced during aging, or repair the damage before it becomes pathogenic then we prevent the diseases of old age. This bring us back to the original graphic. If we can stop or repair the age-related damage done before someone gets Alzheimers, or wears out her knees, or (hopefully for me) loses his hair, then we haven't lengethed the older years of reduced capacity and suffering, but we have added years of capability and vigor.
As a side effect, De Grey would say, people stop dying from getting old. Of course this doesn't stop people from dying of accidents or germs, for example; but humanity has been addressing these problems, too, by things like self-driving cars, airbags, building codes, vaccines, and basic sanitation. I expect that as we continue to lengthen lifespan that human life will become more valuable to us, and we will continue to look for better ways to prevent these other causes of death. Or we'll all get so bored of living so long that we'll all commit suicide. But I also hope that life will get more interesting as we progress.
I know many people hold to the necessity of dying, even suffering. I admit there's something kind of romantic about holding one's head high as one enters the twilight of one's life and prepares to meet the inevitable. But I think we have to be honest -- aging sucks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying. I've been lucky to not have seen much death in my life, but I watched both of my grandfathers in the last years of their lives. One, whom I lived close to before his death, I was able to see in just the last few days before his death. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
I've become old enough and aware enough to learn of friends' parents and others dying from things like cancer. No. There's really nothing romantic about it.
So, back to Aubrey De Grey: If we can achieve what he and others are *right now* trying to achieve, then we will be able to prevent dying from old age. Which means that we would be able to live indefinitely, meaning we could have reasonable confidence we wouldn't die from old age, but we never could be sure the Sun won't blow up and kill us, or aliens won't try to colonize our planet, or a piano drops on our head, or our neighbor gives us an anthrax letter. We will just have confidence that nothing in particular *has* to kill us.
Probably he is too optimistic. Probably the causes and required fixes for aging are more complex than anybody realizes, and we won't cure aging anywhere near when people like Aubrey De Grey think we will. But I feel compelled by my Mormonness to believe that we will eventually get to this point, because of the principle of Eternal Progression, or what Ray Kurzweil might call the Law of Accelerating Returns.
If we never can repair damage to the human body then that must mean that there is some barrier or filter that prevents us from getting to that point, whether man-made or due to complexity (which I think is finite, though I'm no mathematician nor philosopher). The scriptures are full of stories of people who were damned at some point, due to their wickedness. And this is always a possibility. The natural man can prove to be the great filter that damns us. But we must always have faith that if we keep God's commandments and use the means that the Lord has provided for us that we can continue to progress beyond the level we are at, which tells me that no matter how complex the problem, it's just a matter of time and faith.
I have faith in a future resurrection. I really do. It takes a lot of the fear out of growing old and dying, because I believe that it's not the end of me, or the end of my family and friends. I hope I will not die. I think it's possible I will not die. But if I do, well, c'est la vie, and I hope my kids never die, and they will seek after their dead, and I will be resurrected to be with them, and my parents too, and my grandparents too.
OK. Whew. I think I addressed the first two lines of your question. Let me take a breather.
Do we have to die? Or, in other words, is it necessary for us to experience death?
My first thought is no, because I can envision myself living indefinitely, or if not me, at least someone. But I can still die in 100 years, or maybe 1000, or maybe a billion or something, but maybe eventually I'll die. I do wonder what a billion-year-old me would get out of the dying experience, and I'd hope by then I could make it painless.
Related to this I want to ask, is it necessary to suffer? I don't think so -- though I think that suffering is unavoidable. But I don't go around flagellating myself to increase my suffering, or wish that everybody could be born with genetic abnormalities or get hit by a car or something. I think it's wise to reduce suffering wherever and whenever we can, even though we learn by suffering and can have joy in painful situations. We Mormons believe in a God that weeps. God weeps because God cares, so as long as we care we have the potential to suffer. But God overcomes, and so should we.
Mormons believe that there are a number of people who never died. For example, "Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death", or the Three Nephites who, "shall never taste of death" and "shall never endure the pains of death", or John the Beloved, who, "shalt tarry until I come in my glory". So it seems that maybe death isn't a necessary experience.
Well, actually it depends on your definition of death. When Jesus pulls back the veil of the covering of his temple, and all flesh sees him together, "there shall be no sorrow because there is no death." Yet in the very next verse it says that, "An infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; and when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye...". And the death of an infant who has grown up is described quite differently than what most deaths today are.
It seems to me that these verses are describing a radical change, and not death. Or maybe we could say that death is necessary, but death only has to mean some kind of a change from our current state, not a ceasing to be alive.
I feel closer now to Mormonism and to the LDS church than I've felt for a long time. I've come to appreciate more the Book of Mormon's teachings about the natural man and its admonitions to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as a witness of God, though I usually am more on the natural man side.
So I want to emphasize that trying to eliminate aging doesn't trump charity, or take the place of keeping the commandments; it is being charitable, it is keeping the commandments.
We must not build a tower, but an ark, not a Rameumptom, but a ship to cross these great waters. We have to overcome the natural man, which is an unnatural thing, but the pattern lies in John the Beloved, when he said, "Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee." I'm mixing multiple stories here, but I hope I'm conveying my point.
Thanks for asking me questions, and getting me worked up enough to blog about something. I'll see you later.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
How To Give A (Bad) Sacrament Meeting Talk
Some years ago while I was in college I began struggling with attending church. I never wanted to stop going to church -- years of habit and the socialization ensured that -- but I often didn't enjoy my time there on Sundays.
To be truthful, the struggles I had with church enjoyment were really just one aspect of a larger whole. The bishop we had was wonderful, and I had a lot of respect and admiration for him. I had good friends with whom I attended church. Still, church was an easy focus for an outlet of stress.
Talks given in church were especially unenjoyable. Often enough things that people said, or the way they presented themselves, or how they structured their talks, would grate on me. I found little things here and there to keep myself busy, such as counting to 1023 on my fingers in binary.
One day I got the idea to write down the things people did in their talks that I didn't like, in the form of a sarcastic how-to outline for giving talks. I named it the Speaker's Bible. I enjoyed the activity so much that I folded the paper and kept it in my suit pocket for next week. Then, for the next weeks or months, as things would grate on me, I would add another line to my outline.
Eventually I moved on. Church is much more tolerable now. Enjoyable, actually. For a few years, though, I kept that paper in my suit pocket, and brought it out for the personal chuckle. It disappeared for years, though.
Recently I found it in a box or something around the house. It is kind of special to me, not because I want to refer to it to be a better speaker, but because of the period of my life that it represents. On the whole I make no statement whether I now agree or disagree with anything in particular in it. I feel like posting it, anyway, just for fun.
I've reproduced it pretty much exactly, except for a few capitalizations, and one misused apostrophe, which I just noticed. Apostrophes are not used for pluralization.
To be truthful, the struggles I had with church enjoyment were really just one aspect of a larger whole. The bishop we had was wonderful, and I had a lot of respect and admiration for him. I had good friends with whom I attended church. Still, church was an easy focus for an outlet of stress.
Talks given in church were especially unenjoyable. Often enough things that people said, or the way they presented themselves, or how they structured their talks, would grate on me. I found little things here and there to keep myself busy, such as counting to 1023 on my fingers in binary.
One day I got the idea to write down the things people did in their talks that I didn't like, in the form of a sarcastic how-to outline for giving talks. I named it the Speaker's Bible. I enjoyed the activity so much that I folded the paper and kept it in my suit pocket for next week. Then, for the next weeks or months, as things would grate on me, I would add another line to my outline.
Eventually I moved on. Church is much more tolerable now. Enjoyable, actually. For a few years, though, I kept that paper in my suit pocket, and brought it out for the personal chuckle. It disappeared for years, though.
Recently I found it in a box or something around the house. It is kind of special to me, not because I want to refer to it to be a better speaker, but because of the period of my life that it represents. On the whole I make no statement whether I now agree or disagree with anything in particular in it. I feel like posting it, anyway, just for fun.
I've reproduced it pretty much exactly, except for a few capitalizations, and one misused apostrophe, which I just noticed. Apostrophes are not used for pluralization.
SPEAKER'S BIBLE
- Introduction
- "For those of you who don't know me..."
- Describe how you had a hard time preparing your talk
- "Bro X asked me to speak on..."
- Express your feelings of inadequacy
- "This topic is hard because..." / "This topic is broad..."
- Recite talk preparation story
- Give the Webster's definition for your talk
- Give Talk
- Ask people to follow along
- Tell stories
- "I think this story is good because...."
- Make stories very long. Long stories keep the audience's attention marvelously and mean you have less to prepare and mess up on.
- Intersperse periodically that you feel inadequate
- Do NOT take consideration for other people's positions and dispositions in life. If they think differently or have different struggles that is their problem... Deal with it.
- Do NOT let people recognize their potential. If they do, they may not think you are so far above them.
- Make sure you must turn many pages to find a quote in a book. This uses up time you are forced to speak.
- Use the word "just" ubiquitously.
- "I just want to...", "I just think..."
- Use the word "um" like it's going out of style.
- Play on people's emotions
- For girls - put our hand on your chest to emphasize how emotionally messed up you are.
- For guys - give long pauses for the same effect.
- This makes the audience think that they need to be emotional too. That's what we want.
- Make up dumb, long analogies.
- The ward members don't understand the Gospel without monopoly or football analogies.
- Conclusion
- Thank your friends for coming to hear you speak.
- Go Overtime!! (Important)
- Bear testimony about something totally unrelated.
- Make sure Christ isn't explicitly mentioned.
- If the ward members can't make the connection, they are too dumb.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Facial Hair
I have a beard.
I don't like having a beard.
Every once in a while I get the idea that I want to grow out my facial hair into a beard. Currently it's just a straight beard, nothing fancy, though I have grown goatees in the past. I never grow them very long, though, because I always pull at and play with the hair, and it is irritating. Invariably I shave before too long.
I like facial hair on other guys. Not all the time. Plenty of guys look great without hair. Some facial hair just doesn't look good. But there are a lot of guys with a lot of beards and other that look great.
Last week in church we had a high councilor come to speak. He came in sporting a nice looking beard, and as I've been letting mine grow out I felt some kinship with him. We were the only two with facial hair in the room. Just a short way into his talk he stopped and said he should apologize for his beard, that the stake presidency was not in the habit of sending high councilors on speaking assignments with facial hair, and that he only had it to get in the spirit of a planned pioneer reenactment trek he was going to participate in soon.
What?
Why did he feel he needed to apologize for his beard? What's wrong with having a beard? It was neatly trimmed, and looked just fine on him. And what did the stake presidency have to do with his beard?
I've heard from several people that people in some callings, such as bishop, or temple worker, are asked to be clean shaven. I don't understand the policy. I don't even know if it's a policy, or just some guy's opinion. And I'm saddened by it.
Some people like to say, "Well, Jesus had long hair.", or, "Brother Brigham had a beard." It's a fun argument, but I think this misses the point. The point is not that so-and-so looked a certain way and so I can too. The real point is that I am the one who can choose how I want to groom my body. When I groom myself in a modest way, in a clean way, in a neat way, and in a non-prideful way, why should anyone think there is a problem with that? And why should that person tell me to change -- or revoke privileges if I don't?
Today at church the bishop (who is a great guy and a great bishop!) came up to me to say hi, and asked about my beard. I like the attention of people asking about my beard. But now I'm starting to wonder what people really think. They smile, but I wonder. Two years ago when I grew a beard someone asked my wife if I was OK.
(Could have asked me, by the way. Beards don't make people bite.)
I was going to shave last week. My beard is long enough that I've been annoying myself by pulling and stroking the hair. Now I don't want to shave it. I think I want to grow it a while longer to let my kids know that it's OK to have a beard.
I don't like having a beard.
Every once in a while I get the idea that I want to grow out my facial hair into a beard. Currently it's just a straight beard, nothing fancy, though I have grown goatees in the past. I never grow them very long, though, because I always pull at and play with the hair, and it is irritating. Invariably I shave before too long.
I like facial hair on other guys. Not all the time. Plenty of guys look great without hair. Some facial hair just doesn't look good. But there are a lot of guys with a lot of beards and other that look great.
Last week in church we had a high councilor come to speak. He came in sporting a nice looking beard, and as I've been letting mine grow out I felt some kinship with him. We were the only two with facial hair in the room. Just a short way into his talk he stopped and said he should apologize for his beard, that the stake presidency was not in the habit of sending high councilors on speaking assignments with facial hair, and that he only had it to get in the spirit of a planned pioneer reenactment trek he was going to participate in soon.
What?
Why did he feel he needed to apologize for his beard? What's wrong with having a beard? It was neatly trimmed, and looked just fine on him. And what did the stake presidency have to do with his beard?
I've heard from several people that people in some callings, such as bishop, or temple worker, are asked to be clean shaven. I don't understand the policy. I don't even know if it's a policy, or just some guy's opinion. And I'm saddened by it.
Some people like to say, "Well, Jesus had long hair.", or, "Brother Brigham had a beard." It's a fun argument, but I think this misses the point. The point is not that so-and-so looked a certain way and so I can too. The real point is that I am the one who can choose how I want to groom my body. When I groom myself in a modest way, in a clean way, in a neat way, and in a non-prideful way, why should anyone think there is a problem with that? And why should that person tell me to change -- or revoke privileges if I don't?
Today at church the bishop (who is a great guy and a great bishop!) came up to me to say hi, and asked about my beard. I like the attention of people asking about my beard. But now I'm starting to wonder what people really think. They smile, but I wonder. Two years ago when I grew a beard someone asked my wife if I was OK.
(Could have asked me, by the way. Beards don't make people bite.)
I was going to shave last week. My beard is long enough that I've been annoying myself by pulling and stroking the hair. Now I don't want to shave it. I think I want to grow it a while longer to let my kids know that it's OK to have a beard.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thank You, LibreOffice!
Thank you, LibreOffice -- to all the developers, infrastructure maintainers, et al. who have given us your office suite.
I hope you continue to find success and enjoyment in your work.
I hope you continue to find success and enjoyment in your work.
Monday, November 22, 2010
And the Terrorists have Won
They not only can fly planes into buildings, but now they've got us scurrying around like ants fighting each other.
here
In what world is this appropriate?
And it doesn't end there. Taking a child's shirt off, grabbing, then examining a breast cancer survivor's prosthetic breast, breaking a man's bag of urine after he warned of the likelihood of breakage. Seriously?
And this gem, from the head of the TSA:
You mean, after they're all done assaulting us we can complain?
Nice.
here
An ABC News employee said she was subject to a "demeaning" search at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday morning.
"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," she said. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."
In what world is this appropriate?
And it doesn't end there. Taking a child's shirt off, grabbing, then examining a breast cancer survivor's prosthetic breast, breaking a man's bag of urine after he warned of the likelihood of breakage. Seriously?
And this gem, from the head of the TSA:
Pistole said he is "very aware" of the concerns raised by passengers and said if anyone feels their privacy was violated, they can file a complaint on the TSA's website or ask for a supervisor at the airport.
You mean, after they're all done assaulting us we can complain?
Nice.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Is Sugar Prohibited by the Word of Wisdom?
Yesterday I read an article at the New Scientist website that looked into studies that has found that sugar and junk food can have some effects on the brain similar to morphine, suggesting that the subjects may become addicted to sugar. Of one study of rats it said:
Of a separate study done by a different group it said:
Interesting.
Yesterday afternoon, after reading the New Scientist article, I attended a regional conference held by the LDS church, in which President Packer was one of the speakers. At one point during his talk he said something like, "We don't use harmful or addictive substances." I'm not sure of the exact wording, but using the words "harmful" and "addictive" is pretty common among leaders of the LDS church, and the subject is related to what is termed the "Word of Wisdom".
[The Word of Wisdom refers specifically to Section 89 of the Mormon book Doctrine and Covenants, in which certain dietary prescriptions and proscriptions are made, and also to the set of requirements for full church membership made by the church organization today. The two aren't exactly the same. For example, nowhere in the text of Section 89 does it mention "harmful drugs" or something similar, yet the use of drugs is explicitly considered to be a violation of the Word of Wisdom and of the requirements for full church membership. A third Word of Wisdom definition might be a more abstract and nebulous injunction to "do things that cause you to be healthy".]
Anyway, when President Packer stated that we don't use addictive substances the first though that came to my mind was sugar, since I'd just read the article about junk food addiction.
Should excessive consumption of sugar be considered to be against the Word of Wisdom? Well, it's not against the text of Doctrine and Covenants Section 89. It's not now a violation of the specific requirements for LDS church membership. It would be against the abstract injunction to be healthy, though being healthy isn't particularly novel or insightful, except perhaps the idea that God is asking us explicitly to take steps toward being healthy. It is, though, a violation of the command to avoid harmful and addictive substances.
I still eat sugar. And I did use the weasel word "excessive". Take it as food for thought. Or thought for food.
Sugar is a key ingredient in most junk food, so they offered rats sugar syrup, similar to the sugar concentration in a typical soda beverage, for about 12 hours each day, alongside regular rat feed and water. After just a month on this diet, the rats developed behaviour and brain changes that Avena and Hoebel claimed were chemically identical to morphine-addicted rats. They binged on the syrup and showed anxious behaviour when it was removed - a sign of withdrawal. There were also changes in the neurotransmitters in the nucleus accumbens, a region associated with reward.
Of a separate study done by a different group it said:
Kenny wondered whether rats that eat junk food would have a similar response to the cocaine-addicted rats he had already studied. He used three groups of rats. The first was a control group that only had access to standard rat feed. The second group could eat junk food - bacon, sausage, icing and chocolate - for only 1 hour each day with regular rat feed and water available for the rest of the time. The third group had an all-you-can-eat, around-the-clock buffet that included junk food and rat feed. After 40 days, Kenny stopped access to the junk food in both experimental groups. The rats with unlimited access to junk food essentially went on a hunger strike. "It was as if they had become averse to the healthy food," says Kenny. It took two weeks before the animals began eating as much as those in the control group.
...
The obese, unlimited junk food rats had dulled reward systems and were compulsive eaters. They would even tolerate electric shocks to their feet designed to deter them from eating junk food when the rat feed was still available shock-free. Cocaine-addicted rats behave the same way towards their drug.
Interesting.
Yesterday afternoon, after reading the New Scientist article, I attended a regional conference held by the LDS church, in which President Packer was one of the speakers. At one point during his talk he said something like, "We don't use harmful or addictive substances." I'm not sure of the exact wording, but using the words "harmful" and "addictive" is pretty common among leaders of the LDS church, and the subject is related to what is termed the "Word of Wisdom".
[The Word of Wisdom refers specifically to Section 89 of the Mormon book Doctrine and Covenants, in which certain dietary prescriptions and proscriptions are made, and also to the set of requirements for full church membership made by the church organization today. The two aren't exactly the same. For example, nowhere in the text of Section 89 does it mention "harmful drugs" or something similar, yet the use of drugs is explicitly considered to be a violation of the Word of Wisdom and of the requirements for full church membership. A third Word of Wisdom definition might be a more abstract and nebulous injunction to "do things that cause you to be healthy".]
Anyway, when President Packer stated that we don't use addictive substances the first though that came to my mind was sugar, since I'd just read the article about junk food addiction.
Should excessive consumption of sugar be considered to be against the Word of Wisdom? Well, it's not against the text of Doctrine and Covenants Section 89. It's not now a violation of the specific requirements for LDS church membership. It would be against the abstract injunction to be healthy, though being healthy isn't particularly novel or insightful, except perhaps the idea that God is asking us explicitly to take steps toward being healthy. It is, though, a violation of the command to avoid harmful and addictive substances.
I still eat sugar. And I did use the weasel word "excessive". Take it as food for thought. Or thought for food.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
First of a new series of discussions on topics related to Mormonism and Transhumanism
The following invitation is from the Mormon Transhumanist Association:
Please join us for this month's discussion on the topic of Social Change in the advent of Radical Life Extension OR How things will be when we live the as long as Methuselah.
Date: Sunday, May 30, 2010 at 9:00 pm Mountain Daylight time.
Location: SecondLife, an online environment, http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Los%20Pinos/123/7/29
The Mormon Transhumanist Association is hosting a series of open discussions on various topics relating to the intersection of Mormonism and Transhumanism. The first of these discussions will address the topic of Social change in the advent of Radical life extension. Everyone interested is eagerly invited to attend. Bring your ideas or questions to discuss, or just bring yourself and listen. After a brief introduction of the topic we will have a discussion where everyone is free to participate, share their perspectives and ask questions.
The discussion will be hosted in the online environment Second Life. An internet-connected computer with speakers and a microphone -- as either a headset or with echo cancellation -- are prerequisites, while the SecondLife software may be freely downloaded from the internet. If you do not yet have the software, download it from www.secondlife.com.
The two following TED talks may be of interest on the subject:
Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+ - Dan Buettner (2009)
Aubrey de Grey says we can avoid aging (2005)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)