bks, JackRiddler and Descartes talk death and sports

[Luther Blissett]

Woah, just heard the part where you say you are reading from Mills' "The Power Elite" - you didn't by any chance pick that up at the A Space did you? That's where I got my copy.

Meritocracy is worth keeping around as a reference or topic of discussion or idea. I don't think we should just throw the term away. Something resembling meritocracy could be a natural byproduct of democratic socialism at some point in the future.

[Plutonia]

Enjoyed the podcast, fellas. Do you take requests?

BTW, the immortality guru bks was talking about is Aubrey de Grey. Peter Thiel of Palantir is backing his play:

Entrepreneur backs research on anti-aging

Scientist says humans could live indefinitely

Monday, September 18, 2006

A controversial scientist who hopes to help humans live for thousands of years has received a multimillion-dollar grant from a Bay Area entrepreneur.

Peter A. Thiel, co-founder and former chief executive officer of the online payments system PayPal, announced Saturday he is pledging $3.5 million "to support scientific research into the alleviation and eventual reversal of the debilities caused by aging."

The recipient will be the Methuselah Foundation, a Springfield, Va., nonprofit started and run by the most colorful scientist in aging research: Aubrey de Grey, a 43-year-old English researcher who says he hopes to "radically postpone aging, giving indefinite life spans."

In short, de Grey's thesis is that there are seven main causes of aging, and that if those can be licked, then people could live indefinitely.

Among aging experts, de Grey's reputation is so widely contested that a headline over an article last year in an MIT-based publication, Technology Review, asked: "He's brilliant, but is he nuts?" In a tongue-in-cheek letter to the magazine in response to the story, top authority on aging Richard Miller, of the University of Michigan, wrote that he would like de Grey to help him solve a similarly complex technological problem: how to make pigs fly.

...

[vanlose kid]

...Meritocracy is worth keeping around as a reference or topic of discussion or idea. I don't think we should just throw the term away. Something resembling meritocracy could be a natural byproduct of democratic socialism at some point in the future.

meritocracy, rule of the what? the meritorious? is that not aristocracy?

on edit: not saying that you're promoting aristocracy, LB, just can't see any substantial difference.

*

[Luther Blissett]

...Meritocracy is worth keeping around as a reference or topic of discussion or idea. I don't think we should just throw the term away. Something resembling meritocracy could be a natural byproduct of democratic socialism at some point in the future.

meritocracy, rule of the what? the meritorious? is that not aristocracy?

on edit: not saying that you're promoting aristocracy, LB, just can't see any substantial difference.

*

I always thought that it was rule by the most intelligent and talented. That we, if we were truly free and living in a pure democracy, whereby the people make the decisions, that we would raise up our best for instances when leadership is required?

[vanlose kid]

...Meritocracy is worth keeping around as a reference or topic of discussion or idea. I don't think we should just throw the term away. Something resembling meritocracy could be a natural byproduct of democratic socialism at some point in the future.

meritocracy, rule of the what? the meritorious? is that not aristocracy?

on edit: not saying that you're promoting aristocracy, LB, just can't see any substantial difference.

*

I always thought that it was rule by the most intelligent and talented. That we, if we were truly free and living in a pure democracy, whereby the people make the decisions, that we would raise up our best for instances when leadership is required?

as per the myth (or sale-pitch) anyway.

but that aside, in a true democracy, why would we need rulers?

*

[The Consul]

Interesting. Technical issue....one voice not as well mic-ed.

[annie aronburg]

Thank you gentlemen for taking this initiative.

I'd really enjoy more podcasts in this format; smart people speaking eloquently about interesting subjects that can be absorbed while one is occupied with mindless tasks.

Next time the ladies of rigor get together, we'll have to try something like this.

[gnosticheresy_2]

...Meritocracy is worth keeping around as a reference or topic of discussion or idea. I don't think we should just throw the term away. Something resembling meritocracy could be a natural byproduct of democratic socialism at some point in the future.

meritocracy, rule of the what? the meritorious? is that not aristocracy?

on edit: not saying that you're promoting aristocracy, LB, just can't see any substantial difference.

*

I always thought that it was rule by the most intelligent and talented. That we, if we were truly free and living in a pure democracy, whereby the people make the decisions, that we would raise up our best for instances when leadership is required?

What is and who are "our best"? I don't think we need to be living in a "pure" democracy to decide that...?

[Luther Blissett]

...Meritocracy is worth keeping around as a reference or topic of discussion or idea. I don't think we should just throw the term away. Something resembling meritocracy could be a natural byproduct of democratic socialism at some point in the future.

meritocracy, rule of the what? the meritorious? is that not aristocracy?

on edit: not saying that you're promoting aristocracy, LB, just can't see any substantial difference.

*

I always thought that it was rule by the most intelligent and talented. That we, if we were truly free and living in a pure democracy, whereby the people make the decisions, that we would raise up our best for instances when leadership is required?

as per the myth (or sale-pitch) anyway.

but that aside, in a true democracy, why would we need rulers?

*

Not sure. We don't live in that kind of world. Aliens?

[Luther Blissett]

...Meritocracy is worth keeping around as a reference or topic of discussion or idea. I don't think we should just throw the term away. Something resembling meritocracy could be a natural byproduct of democratic socialism at some point in the future.

meritocracy, rule of the what? the meritorious? is that not aristocracy?

on edit: not saying that you're promoting aristocracy, LB, just can't see any substantial difference.

*

I always thought that it was rule by the most intelligent and talented. That we, if we were truly free and living in a pure democracy, whereby the people make the decisions, that we would raise up our best for instances when leadership is required?

What is and who are "our best"? I don't think we need to be living in a "pure" democracy to decide that...?

I only say this because I am idealistic and philosophically a democratic socialist; that's not to say I don't think beyond "what comes next" after an egalitarian "utopian" society. In practical terms, for us to collectively determine who our best and brightest are, I promote education, open communication, and denounce fascism. I don't think that our contemporary best and brightest are allowed or able to have much bearing on humanity's course.

[Stephen Morgan]

Oligarchy: rule by the best.

And I do like that Michael Young. Wrote this too.

Rise of the Meritocracy.

[23]

Rule by the best (or brightest or especially meritorious)?

The problem is not determining who they might be, or what form they should exact their rule.

The problem is our willingness and desire to be ruled.

I will not be more amenable to coercive authoritarianism because the authoritarian has been deemed to be exceptionally qualified to expect compliance from us.

But I suspect many will be.

[Stephen Morgan]

If only there was some unit, possession of a surfeit of which could serve both to distinguish one as a meritorious individual and to gain a superior place in society.

[23]

^^^ I'd start with the absence of a need or desire to exert power over anyone.

Or someone who is averse to the idea of shepherding... and encourages people to shed their need for one.

[vanlose kid]

If only there was some unit, possession of a surfeit of which could serve both to distinguish one as a meritorious individual and to gain a superior place in society.

we had/have: bloodlines, now it's degrees/genes.

you're being sarcastic though, i think.

*