= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oh, to anyone who agrees with the decision but is still disturbed/looking for a 3rd option due2 those specific victims: THEY DIDN'T DIE AND WERE IN LITTLE DANGER, Eliezer told us an implausible lie to make us think. In fact, the ship was a flotillia and it sent a runner home for each developement, AND they didn't settle 15b people in a frontier system - because people had read previous centuries' good SF and heeded its warnings. Same goes for every scenario with simple precautions or hidden third options.
In response to
Three Worlds Collide (0/8)
The nature of Alderson lines, as described, means that every system is a frontier system.
Yeah, vore fetishists. Obviously almost none of them carry it out
Wusses. :P
If they sign up for cryonics they may not even die from the process, with a suitable ("Not the brain, everything but the brain!") compromise.
I wonder if it is legal to have a will (and or waiver when terminally ill) whereby you have your head frozen but your body is to be prepared as a feast for your closest friends. Kind of like a "do not resuscitate" only an emphasis on recycling.
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don't have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don't have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I have no ethical qualms about eating humans, no. Assuming it is freely given, of course (animal flesh fails ethically on that point; interspecies communication is simply not good enough to convey consent).
Other classes of objection do apply, though - having been a vegetarian for seven years or so, could my digestive system handle flesh without being upset? What about pathogens - they're bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk? I think not.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Do you have an opinion about the Body by Science book? The authors are really big fans of the low-reps-to-failure approach.
My two cents - their first principles sound seasonably sound, but the conclusions they draw from them are sometimes questionable. There were several times reading it that I almost sputtered in disbelief, thinking "dammit, that's not how it works!" Now, some of these I can accept as simplifying things for the sake of argument, others I cannot. (Sadly, I didn't keep notes of them. In retrospect I guess I should have.)
At times I felt the authors were somewhat condescending, too, especially when it concerned stretching. I got the impression that strength was the only measure of success they accepted, and any exercise form that contributes to other goals - like stretching to promote limberness - are therefore worthless.