How would this apply to social issues do you think? It seems that this is a poor way to be on the front of social change? If this strategy was widely applied, would we ever have seen the 15th and 19th amendments to the Constitution here in the US?

On a more personal basis, I'm polyamorous, but if I followed your framework, I would have to reject polyamory as a viable relationship model. Yes, the elite don't have a lot of data on polyamory, but although I have researched the good and the bad, and how it can work compared to monogamy, but I don't think that I would be able to convince the elite of my opinions.

Thanks for the reply. I'm a bit unsure about this anymore. After wedrifrid's comment, I gave a few open source text-to-speech programs a try, but didn't really like the output. I tried it on What do we mean by Rationality and noticed right away that it's hard to get, when listening, the "structure" of something like those first indented definitions.

I guess I'm now responding based on a completely different approach. Perhaps a human reader could add in slight prefaces to various sections, like, "We mean: Definition 1: Epistemic rationality... and also, Definition 2: Instrumental rationality..."

This might help. Still not sure if I think this project/suggestion would be feasible and if it'd actually be that helpful. For something more "intense" like going through the sequences, I wonder if audio format would allow for the same rate of comprehension as reading text. I'd love to use it when driving... but wonder how much I really retain when driving.

For a while I had a dream of having a different person for every major character, but for an amateur project this presents many problems. The first being geography, it's unlikely we can all meet in one place for this. The second being scheduling, it's hard for many people with other full-time obligations to meet regularly and consistently without "it's my job" working as a good excuse. The common response/solution is to have different parts recorded separately and sent in to be recombined, but that leads to two new problems.

First, tone. Without people there in the same room to play off each other the different readings can be jarringly out of character with each other. Secondly, it's vastly more post-production to recombine everything (which I'll get into next).

Alternating chapters would be great, but I think I'm going to decline for now, partially for the reasons you mentioned. Having a consistent tone is probably a good thing, and I would have a very hard time telling someone I couldn't use their reading. For someone to spend $100 (or more?) on recording equipment and several hours reading and be then told it's no good seems... cruel. But also for two other reasons (I'm all about two's today)

1. Post-production. This is the majority of the work. It took me about 2 hours to put together the 17 minutes of the pilot. I expect this to go down drastically as I get better with the tools, but post-production will always be more than half the total time spent because I have to go back and re-listen to the audio in it's entirety while pausing repeatedly and making tweaks/changes/removing flubbed lines/inserting clips.

2. Reading is the fun part. I really enjoy the actual reading into the mic part of this. :) So while it's time consuming, it's something I would consider to be fun in it's own right. If someone else were to send in audio of them reading then I still get all the work of post-production without the fun of reading aloud to compensate for it.

Hopefully this isn't burning any bridges, and in the future if I'm able to work things differently or realize I really need help I'll still be able to come back and ask for some. I do appreciate the offer.