#i said there was scientifically which is better than philosophically

[saturnsuv]

hate philosophy profs <3

[evilscientist3]

so do you actually support ai "art" or is that part of the evil bit :| because um. yikes.

Let me preface this by saying: I think the cutting edge of AI as we know it sucks shit. ChatGPT spews worthless, insipid garbage as a rule, and frequently provides enticingly fluent and thoroughly wrong outputs whenever any objective fact comes into play. Image generators produce over-rendered, uncanny slop that often falls to pieces under the lightest scrutiny. There is little that could convince me to use any AI tool currently on the market, and I am notably more hostile to AI than many people I know in real life in this respect.

That being said, these problems are not inherent to AI. In two years, or a decade, perhaps they will be our equals in producing writing and images. I know a philosopher who is of the belief that one day, AI will simply be better than us - smarter, funnier, more likeable in conversation - I am far from convinced of this myself, but let us hope, if such a case arises, they don't get better at ratfucking and warmongering too.

Many of the inherent problems posed by AI are philosophical in nature. Would a sufficiently advanced AI be appreciably different to a conscious entity? Can their outputs be described as art? These are questions whose mere axioms could themselves be argued over in PhD theses ad infinitum. I am not particularly interested in these, for to be so on top of the myriad demands of my work would either drive me mad or kill me outright. Fortunately, their fractally debatable nature means that no watertight argument could be given to them by you, either, so we may declare ourselves in happy, clueless agreement on these topics so long as you are willing to confront their unconfrontability.

Thus, I would prefer to turn to the current material issues encountered in the creation and use of AI. These, too, are not inherent to their use, but I will provide a more careful treatment of them than a simple supposition that they will evaporate in coming years.

I would consider the principal material issues surrounding AI to lie in the replacement of human labourers and wanton generation of garbage content it facilitates, and the ethics of training it on datasets collected without contributors' consent. In the first case, it is prudent to recall the understanding of Luddites held by Marx - he says, in Ch. 15 of Das Kapital: "It took both time and experience before workers learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and therefore to transfer their attacks from the material instruments of production to the form of society which utilises those instruments." The Industrial Revolution's novel forms of production and subsequent societal consequences has mirrored the majority of advances in production since. As then, the commercial application of the new technology must be understood to be a product of capital. To resist the technology itself on these grounds is to melt an iceberg's tip, treating the vestigial symptom of a vast syndrome. The replacement of labourers is with certainty a pressing issue that warrants action, but such action must be considered and strategic, rather than a reflexive reaction to something new. As is clear in hindsight for the technology of two centuries ago, mere impedance of technological progression is not for the better.

The second case is one I find deeply alarming - the degradation of written content's reliability threatens all knowledge, extending to my field. Already, several scientific papers have drawn outrage in being seen to pass peer review despite blatant inclusion of AI outputs. I would be tempted to, as a joke to myself more than others, begin this response with "Certainly. Here is how you could respond to this question:" so as to mirror these charlatans, would it not without a doubt enrage a great many who don't know better than to fall for such a trick. This issue, however, is one I believe to be ephemeral - so pressing is it, that a response must be formulated by those who value understanding. And so are responses being formulated - major online information sources, such as Wikipedia and its sister projects, have written or are writing rules on their use. The journals will, in time, scramble to save their reputations and dignities, and do so thoroughly - academics have professional standings to lose, so keeping them from using LLMs is as simple as threatening those. Perhaps nothing will be done for your average Google search result - though this is far from certain - but it has always been the conventional wisdom that more than one site ought to be consulted in a search for information.

The third is one I am torn on. My first instinct is to condemn the training of AI on material gathered without consent. However, this becomes more and more problematic with scrutiny. Arguments against this focusing on plagiarism or direct theft are pretty much bunk - statistical models don't really work like that. Personal control of one's data, meanwhile, is a commendable right, but is difficult to ensure without merely extending the argument made by the proponents of copyright, which is widely understood to be a disastrous construct that for the most part harms small artists. In this respect, then, it falls into the larger camp of problems primarily caused by the capital wielding the technology.

Let me finish this by posing a hypothetical. Suppose AI does, as my philosopher friend believes, become smarter and more creative than us in a few years or decades; suppose in addition it may be said through whatever means to be entirely unobjectionable, ethically or otherwise. Under these circumstances, would I then go to a robot to commission art of my fursona? The answer from me is a resounding no. My reasoning is simple - it wouldn't feel right. So long as the robot remains capable of effortlessly and passionlessly producing pictures, it would feel like cheating. Rationally explaining this deserves no effort - my reasoning would be motivated by the conclusion, rather than vice versa. It is simply my personal taste not to get art I don't feel is real. It is vitally important, however, that I not mistake this feeling as evidence of any true inferiority - to suppose that effortlessness or pasionlessness invalidate art is to stray back into the field of messy philosophical questions. I am allowed, as are you, to possess personal tastes separate from the quality of things.

Summary: I don't like AI. However, most of the problems with AI which aren't "it's bad" (likely to be fixed over time) or abstract philosophical questions (too debatable to be used to make a judgement) are material issues caused by capitalism, just as communists have been saying about every similarly disruptive new technology for over a century. Other issues can likely be fixed over time, as with quality. From a non-rational standpoint, I dislike the idea of using AI even separated from current issues, but I recognise, and encourage you to recognise, that this is not evidence of an actual inherent inferiority of AI in the abstract. You are allowed to have preferences that aren't hastily rationalised over.

[eyes-of-mischief]

weekly fic recs | 8

prompt: harry potter au/crossover

fandoms: aftg, bnha, dc, merlin, orv, tw, yoi

aftg

Minyards' Magical Mischief by moonix

(mature)

“No,” Aaron said. “Andrew, no.”

They locked eyes, and for a moment it was like they were eleven again, catching sight of each other for the first time across a crowded train platform.

“I confess,” Andrew said tonelessly, “to the murder of Drake Spear.”

(Or: an Auror and a murderer walk into an ice-cream parlour.)

bnha

Bend Before You Break by orkestrations

When Izuku set out for his morning run, the last thing he was expecting was to be plucked from his own world by magic and thrown into another universe entirely.

Removed from his own conflict and with no way back, he sets himself to figuring out this world and its own incipient war while searching for a way to possibly reverse the spell that brought him here.

It's just his luck that the year he arrives is the same year the government decides it's a great idea to bring back the potentially-deadly tournament.

dc

Scientific Method by vogon_poet

It’s not like he’s surprised a magic school exists— that’s probably only a seven on the scale of “crazy things Tim Drake has seen”. No, Tim’s just surprised he’s enrolled.

Point That Wand at Me and See What Happens by widdlewed

During Harry Potter's fourth year, Hogwarts gained two new additions to its hallways that no one will soon forget. Damian Wayne is feared to be the next Dark Lord rising while Dick Grayson gains a fanbase larger than Professor Lockhart. Between dealing with dreams of Voldemort and the Tri-Wizard Tournament, Harry doesn't have time to deal with alter-ego heroes and the drama they bring with them.

Also, what the fuck is up with the rumors of Professor Grayson's ass?

merlin

In Which There's a Teacher at Hogwarts That Doesn't Enable Casual Racism by stellaisnotamermaid

Merlin had been having dreams for a while—nightmares that surrounded his unconscious. He knew they were somehow connected to a prophecy he'd found about the Dark Lord and the Chosen One. He'd wanted to join in to help fight in the war, but the Old Religion held him at bay, forcing him to wait. Then, on July 31st, 1980, everything went silent. It took eleven months, but he was finally able to join in.

(Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone but with Merlin)

Emrys Ascending by tricksterity

In the depths of the Crystal of Neahtid, Merlin sees the resurrection of Lord Voldemort, an event that will tip the balance of the world so far out that only he has the power to intervene and set it right, or stop it from ever happening. For that, he'll have to pose as a student and attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

The only problem is, he's been chosen instead of Cedric Diggory as a Triwizard Champion, and there's a recently reborn Arthur Pendragon in Gryffindor House.

orv

"the only good thing about you is your owl," says kim dokja, the owl, after complimenting literally everything about him. by RenderedReversed

The thing about being the Chosen One’s owl is that everyone is after your damn mail.

Or, in which Kim Dokja is Yoo Joonghyuk's post owl, and this ironically does not make their ability to communicate any better.

tw

Untamed by rosepetals42

Of course, the transfer kid gets mentioned because transfers are rare, but the news isn’t that exciting. In fact, according to Laura, no one even seems to know his first name. The only thing anyone has really figured out about him is that he’s American. And that’s not exactly hard because he obviously has an accent.

The only thing Derek really knows is that, despite other reports, he seems quiet enough, prefers to work alone, and has the most amazing shade of amber eyes that Derek has ever seen.

Not that he’s looking. Obviously.

OR: A Harry Potter AU where Stiles is a Slytherin transfer student and Derek is the grumpy Gryffindor who falls in love with him.

There are also potions, elves, and falcons involved. Oh, and illegal use of magic. Obviously.

yoi

Entwining Fates by rinsled05

Imagine if Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, after the demise of you-know-who, started accepting foreign students in an effort for greater unity among wizarding communities around the world. Imagine that, in this changing climate of diversity and social acceptance, Hogwarts also decided to host an exchange programme with select students from Durmstrang Institute and Beauxbatons Academy of Magic for a semester.

Imagine, then, if a young Japanese wizard by the name of Yuuri Katsuki had transferred to Hogwarts to escape his past, just in time to meet a Russian Quidditch player who would blow open the very doors he was trying so desperately to close.

A story of love, magic, and teenagers trying to find themselves.

[cynicalmusings]

empiricism or rationalism GO

(ngl I want to interact with you for some time but epistemology is kicking me so hard so I was like, “hm maybe r has some ideas about this”, so here we are)

I seriously kant with this

-aki

sorry it took me a while to reply to this, but here are my thoughts:

(philosophical ramblings ahead. you have been warned.)

to be honest, i’d say a bit of both. more epistemology as a whole, but some rationalism can be good here and there.

generally, as i said, i prefer epistemology, just because we can see that in the real world, experience is how knowledge is applied: science, education systems— it’s everywhere and has solid evidence for it, whereas rationalism is kind of just ‘trust me bro’, if that makes sense. i know that the whole point of it sort of is that it doesn’t have solid proof in our world and we need to look beyond the shadows on the wall, as you might say, but the ‘forms’ mentioned are so abstract and, like, how do you know when you’ve found them? the idea of forms in rationalism is also a bit contradictory, because take the example of sickness: how can that have a ‘perfect’ form? 

maybe you could argue that sickness is the imperfect form of the perfect form of health, but the thing is, we do have health in the real world, too, so that doesn’t exactly check out... the idea of these forms is probably the biggest issue i have with rationalism. another is that without actually putting things into practice, anomalies can pop up and people can get their deductions wrong, and if you never actually experiment with it to see that something up I worked out for yourself is flawed, you’ll be stuck for your whole life believing something wrong or untrue.

however, as i said, there are a few instances where i’d say rationalism over empiricism. for example, our senses can be flawed and deceived and whatnot, and scientific experiments and studies can fail or go wrong, so always relying 100% on experience isn’t always going to be fully accurate. also, not just flawed senses work into this, but also different world views as a whole: people can interpret and perceive things in different ways, and if there’s no easy way to tell which is the objective truth, sticking to each subjective view on the matter is just going to cause clashes rather than actually making sense of things objectively. 

rationalism may be slightly less useful in down-to-earth, heels-in-the-mud type scenarios, but without it we wouldn’t really be able to have concepts of religion— or at least not as strong as people do today— which is a major part of human society. also, let’s use an example such as mathematical equations: you can’t really ‘experience’ equations, and the best way to find one— especially people in the past like newton and einstein and whatnot— is by using logic and reasoning to figure out stuff that nobody has delved into before. basically, in my view, rationalism allows for people to speculate possibilities, and empiricism can put it into practice and cement its value.

i guess that overall i’d say rationalism is better for figuring out new stuff and coming up with ideas that have the potential for something, because ideas and concepts aren’t tangible through experience and you need to use deduction and all that to make sense of them, but empiricism is more widely useful in a general situation, because most people live in the here and now and experience things as such, rather than spending 100% of their time contemplating ‘forms’ that may or may not exist.

i... kind of turned this answer into an essay, but hey, that’s what you get when you ask me about this kind of stuff.

[grandhotelabyss]

And this is just (just!) fraud, not accounting for the replication crisis. For years, for decades, the wealthy, believing the legitimacy of their technocracy to depend upon its superficial inclusivity, have plowed millions into "girls in STEM" initiatives. Who will fund my proposed counter-initiative: "fewer people of any gender in STEM." (I have to work on the slogan.)

More seriously, what has caused this farce? The reifying, quantifying, secularizing ethos of the research university, which strangles to death and then resurrects in zombie form everything it touches from the sciences through the humanities to the arts. "Publish or perish" is only a symptom; the underlying malady is the deracination of each area of inquiry from the whole continuum of human experience and understanding, to include the metaphysical, and its further installation as peer-policed authoritative expertise (the peers are loyal to the institution, not to the area of inquiry) that may not be questioned by the laity or even by dissident clerics any more than religious dogma could in theocratic epochs.

Here the most extreme of the "woke" may be more correct than their centrist, rationalist critics: we were better off with shamans. Scientific insight exists, but it proceeds, like artistic inspiration, by unmeasurable leaps and flashes—it comes in dreams. Because no two circumstances are ever the same—no one circumstance is even fully identical to itself—we're going to have trouble replicating anything; we can never get enough control over the control group to produce final results.

We have enjoyed some success in engineering, in the manipulation of the most inert-seeming forms of matter. I don't deny it; I'm not ungrateful for it. I even believe we should travel to and through outer space, for the reason Ray Bradbury once offered: to guard the gift of life.

And yet. The attempt to reduce human consciousness to Darwinian imperatives has gone nowhere, can't explain the extraordinary gratuitousness of the best and even the worst things we do, and is, incidentally, a reduction even of Darwin, who was forced malgré lui to concede the autonomy of culture when he devised his theory of sexual selection—the adjective ought to be not sexual but aesthetic—to fill the explanatory gap in natural selection. Medical progress above a certain mechanical level (itself no doubt important) is overrated; general health is not a matter of engineering but of affect and consciousness. Of the human sciences, psychology and sociology languish under the aforementioned replication crisis, while archaeology and anthropology appear to be in freefall as the advent of human civilization keeps retreating deeper and deeper into the night of time. Digital technology in all its forms is finally, as the poet said, for the poets to invent. And the physicists have only discovered what the poets and the philosophers could have told them long ago: that we can't know anything for sure, except perhaps the knower, and even that is doubtful.

This is not a creed of despair: knowing, when dissevered from being and doing, destroys the point of living. If we ever go to live among the stars, the imagination, more than "studies," will have carried us there.

[walkingwiththegods1]

Hypatia: Philosopher, Professor; Mathematician, Scientific, Writer, Pagan; Pacifist... And, Martyr

  (As all of you know, I have been dedicated to wrote about The Deities; but today; days after The International Day of The Erradication of Violence Against The Women, I decided than; instead of waiting to publish this post; in The International Woman's Day... I better publishes it, today: When you ended reading this post, you will realizes of why I did this; and you will saw why one of these two dates, are related to Hypatia... )

   Hypatia, was a Philosopher; daughter of Theon, which was a teacher in Alexandria; Egypt. Hypatia, was a brilliant little girl; and raised at early age by her father, to be "The Perfect Human Being"; and of course, her succesor as teacher: He teached to her daugther; all he knew: Astronomy, Arithmetic; Geometry, Philosophy, Basic Physic, and made her do Gymnastic. When she growed into a teenager, then; her father teached her Algebra, and how to give classes. (She even started to replaces to her father sometimes, when he was certain that she was old enough to handle to the assistants of the class; and this great responsability)  She teached too, in The Center of The City of Alexandria; to all the people that went there, every Sunday; after her class. Hypatia, was the keeper of the last remains of The Library of Alexandria. (And... It was said, that she discovered the movement of the planets; The Eliptic, and that she created a machine that heated water; which The Arabs copyed; after her death.)

   She teached Science, Philosophy and Astronomy... With tolerance and peace for Christians, Jews and Pagans!

   When the time came, Hypatia; became the new transcripter of ancient texts, teacher; philosopher and mathemathician of Alexandria, but... As a single and beautiful woman, she started to atract the attention of the richest families in The City. (… And, their sons!) But, despite her father knew that this day will came; and he may winned the animadversion of those families... He decided not to let her daughter to marry, knowing that her daughter wouldn't have never be happy; in this way. You may think: "Why he doesn't let her to get married?!... What a Tyrant!" ...Don't be that harsh: I will explained you how life was, in the time of Hypatia:

Christians, was the majority of population in Alexandria, and Pagans were a decreasing minority.

In those times, a woman enjoyed some liberties; until they were married: Since that moment, they were forced to stay a home; to take care of her marriage, of her husband; of their servants, and her sons/daughters. Women, after marriage; falls under some kind of "Male Tutelage", where everything they wished in life, only could be made; if her husband wanted it, which... Was almost never: Since study the same things as men, travel alone; to makes a business or been allow to work, until been converted to the religion of her husband before to get married, or even after; by any means possible... And, a woman; couldn't be a teacher anymore, if she got marry. 

Women, couldn't did much in their life after been married; and anything they have, ended in hands of her husband: Lands, furniture; money of her family, business of her parents, nobiliary tittles, or even... A library, or Center of Studies!

    Theon, probably speaked with his daughter about this; and taked in account, how badly a marriage could be for her sensible daughter: The chances of she getting married with a Christian, were extremily high; (even if she decided to married with a man of low class) and in that time, they were many acts of cruelty against Pagans; and later, on The Jews; and she may have thinked, than considering that Christians believed that women; "Are to be seen... Not hearded!", she will have be forced to never teaches again, neither in The Center of Alexandria; to the people of the city than couldn't pay for her teachings, in The Academy. For Hypatia, Education and Knowledge were her life; and without them, she wouldn't live...

     …Hypatia, never got married or have children; and never taked a lover.

     She recieved two great offers to marry, but she rejected both, and after everybody knows about it; she stopped to recieves offers, so from that moment; she could teaches, create and write; in peace!...

     …And the time started to change again, for the worse...

     Her father died, and Hypatia continue to have peace for a while; but then, violence backs to rage on; in Alexandria: The attacks against Non-Christians, were more virulents; and The Church in Alexandria bennefit of this climate of hatred. Hypatia, now without her father; went to the only male that helped her to try to avoid more religious and civil wars, as most as possibble; her once pupil, Orestes: The Christian Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt!

     At first, her advices and his power over authorities; could keep a relative peace; (except, for the destruction of The Serapeum and the other Pagan Temples; and than some attacks against Non-Christians, continued) but, after the death of Theophilus; came a man that was a nephew of the late Patriarch, capable of anything to fulfilled his vision; of a totally Christian Alexandria. His name: Cyril of Alexandria.

    Cyril, (Extremily intolerant and ambitious) noticed that Hypatia was a person beloved for the mayority of the city; and for more that he tried to destroys her prestige, he couldn't; 'cause she never did something that could tarnished her image: She was so morale... Than she was, almost indestructible! Since that moment, Cyril started to obssesed on how to bring her down: While The Governor support her, his plan was unnexecutable... But finally, he found the way; after reading an apparently innocous material.

    The history, remembered only that it was a Sunday of the 415 A.C; when Cyril himself, reading during The Mass; the words of St. Paul: "The man that follows a woman advices, is hearing to The Demon..." and proceeds to talk, like he doesn't know the damage of what he said; that any man that was truly a Christian, shouldn't been hearing the advice of a woman: Orestes, was attacked in the streets by people that trowed him stones; and one of them hitted him in the head, so hard... he losed a lot of blood. Hypatia, was falsely accussed of witchcraft; and of makes than Orestes fight against Christians. When the news arrived to all Alexandria, Hypatia decided to tell to Orestes; that it was better to finish their friendship, to avoid than he could end hurt or dead; by her cause.

    Hypatia, continued to goes to give class as always; going out of her house, before the sun was totally out of the horizon; and despite the violence she saw increasing, and the warnings of people of the town to leaved Alexandria; (Or, at least to get out of her house; after most people were awakes), she trusted that nothing could happen to her. One morning of March of 415, she get out when was still dark; to arrived in time to teaches to her Christians and Jews students...

    ...That was the day, she was killed... By a Christian mob, inside a church! Her assasination, was so horrible and brutal than; even many years after knowing the details... I don't dare to write it.

    The indignation of The Citizens of Alexandria, was palpable when they woke up with the horrible news; and they saw with impotence, how Hypatia's body was trowed to a pyre; so nobody couldn't bury her, so her soul never find the eternal peace; after her horrendous and unjust death!

    Orestes, tried to make justice for her teacher; but Cyril attacked him so much, than he ended leaving Alexandria; forever. Cyril, destroyed all that was related to Hypatia, Scientific Knowledge and Paganism; including the place were Hypatia taught her classes... And he was elevated into the altars after his death, and is now a saint; in the most greatest branches of The Christian Church! (I know: It's really unfair... But, in a positive note: Everybody in Alexandria, including the majority of Christians; accused him of being the cause of Hypatia's Murder, and those accusations haunted him; until his death!)

    Hypatia, according to some historians... Was killed, in March 8; 415 A.C. That's right: The same day than The World celebrates, Woman's Day!

    The Church was so desperate to hide this crime, against a peaceful and good woman... That they created a saint who was horribly murdered too, almost like Hypatia; (Catherine of Alexandria, which was found lately; that perhaps, she never existed...) and, they spreaded a rumor for centuries; that Hypatia converted to Christianity, before her death. (Another lie: There is no evidence, that she converted to Christianity and even the thought; is ridiculous: Most of Alexandria was Christian, so everyone would have known if she was a converted, then... She wouldn't have been murdered, if she was a Christian; herself!)

    Hypatia, was killed for many reasons:

For being a woman with knowledge, great intelligence and beauty; which were really threatening features in a woman; for the men of that time.

For being a woman that never was submissive to the power of any man, and for being a woman in total control of her body... And, her life! 

For speaking in public and winning her own money honorable, when the rest of the women of her time; couldn't have the same liberty. 

For being an important woman that speaked of politic matters, publicly; when most women were forced to remain silents... And, in the dark. 

And... Above all... For speak of Tolerance and Peace, and... For being a Pagan!

   Some works of fiction, (Including a novel whose premise, don't makes me want to read it) a 2009 movie; a kind of moth, an exoplanet, a C-Type main asteroid belt, a company that develops sofware; a few feminists organizactions, an scholarly publication, a crater in The Moon, a few non-profit foundations; an analog Mars station, and some educational organizactions that promotes equality and are antidiscrimination; are named after her, and is the only homages we have made for her: Sorry, Hypatia... I wished we made more for you!

   May you rest in peace, Hypatia: You teached me with your life, and with your sad death; that we must be a force of peace in The World... And that we must protect ourselves of the ones that attack us, 'cause they doesn't want to accepts than we have our right to believe; and we only wants to live the rest of our lives, in Peace... So Be It!

[billysdigiblog]

The Role of Art Criticism in Today's World

My understanding of the art critic’s impact in today’s world is frankly confusing and inherently contradictory. From research, it’s apparent that the role of an art critic in today’s world is described as a dead or dying thing, with only around ten contemporary critics in the United States able to get bread on their table from the job (according to Josh Baer in a conversation with Saltz). Others say, with no small derision and regret, that the wheel of the art market is directed by the covert hands of the art critics, who sit like bejeweled gargoyles at the top of the art food chain and live only to propagate a money-obsessed marketplace concerned with artworks insofar as their capacity to be investments. One thinks of Hughes in Nothing if Not Critical (Hughes, 1990 cited in: Gerry, 2012):

“So much of art – not all of it thank god, but a lot of it – has just become a kind of cruddy game for the self-aggrandisement of the rich and the ignorant.”

Then there is the middle-men; who, operating on the premise that the profession is indeed within its death throes, or that it is a rare profession to begin with, abandon the exercise of describing in pursuit of prescribing the appreciating value of the critic in light of this Ozymandian plight. In summary: assertion A is that critics have hold little to no sway nowadays, assertion B is that they have enough such that they generate a sort of monopoly within elite circles, and assertion C is that while art critics may be rare and few between, they are nowadays more important than ever due to their increasing scarcity. (Personally speaking, this fallaciously begs the question that they are inherently beneficial to the art world, fons et origo). Difficult though the exercise may be, I will endeavor to give a personal appraisal of the practice, using the classic pro-con model.

For fear of falling into cliché, I will not quote Anton Ego from Ratatouille, but in true pop fashion I will make reference to the spirit behind the movie’s words: the notion that the ‘new needs friends’. Art critics can give new voices a platform, and allow new styles, approaches, and artistic philosophies to take center stage, where they would otherwise have been drowned out by the dull totalitarianist clamor of consensus and trend. 

In the classical sense, the role of the critic is to act as an intellectual mediator between an audience and the artwork; contextualizing, providing perspective, and deepening appreciation, if done well. It follows the hermeneutical tradition: the interpretation and comprehension of human intellectual work, ascribing meaning to the animating principle behind these actions, evaluating the merits and values of the artwork in terms of what it has affirmed or provided for the human race. This is well anthologized in the beginning of Eleni Gentou’s (2010) Subjectivity in Art History and Criticism:

“…the approach of the art historian should have a scientific character, aiming at objectively valid formulations, while the critic should give equal consideration to subjective factors, acknowledging international artistic values, often taking on the additional role of philosopher or theorist of art.”

In effect, this creates a certain incentive among those who practice art criticism to - for lack of a better term - ‘sell you the idea’ (of the artwork). Perceiving the glass as half full, this generates a type of literary criticism that becomes an artwork within itself. As Jonathan Jones (2012) said in praise of good old Robert Hughes to the Guardian, “[...]he made criticism look like literature”. This factor is really what delineates the critic from the historian; as Ackerman (1960) eloquently said: “The typical critic is a specialist in expressionistic prose, the historian in esoteric facts.” 

Inversely perceiving the glass as half-empty, this also leads to a cult of a pithy, insipid and lazy appraisal of truly mediocre work, work which only can (and is) prettied up retroactively with pretty words. In this regard, critics can truly be the conman’s wet dream; they’ve thought up excuses for his meritless work before he’s even thought of them himself. 

On a further note sympathetic to their craft however, the role of critiquing art is not without risk, despite general perception that the artist is more or less a trembling spring lamb offering its brave work to the reptilian jaws of the wicked critic. Art criticism in the past has endeavored to debase something contemporary to the period, that, in the long run, became treasured and admired by humanity - impressionism being the obvious example here. One age’s pejorative often becomes another age’s badge of honor, and with the convenience of retrospect, the world isn’t kind to critics on the wrong side of history. At the risk of inviting accusations of moral relativism, I will venture to say that we operate under the spirit of their time and that people are a bit too prone to thinking ‘I would have been on the right side of history had I been there’ for my liking. The same way they gnash their teeth and imagine that they would have saved Van Gogh’s work from obscurity and suicide had they just been there in time for his early (initially pretty terrible) work. 

In summary, I have tried to paint a balanced portrait of art critics, if a bit magnanimous. They are perceived as parasitical by some, by others they are appreciated for the perceived artistic value of their writings - as such, the latter group is not really concerned about what the art critics do for Art inasmuch as how they do it. There are several traps that critics may fall into, such as the excessive defense of the old; the “[...]settled expectations and unquestioned presuppositions” (Kuspit, 2014), and to the contrary, a spineless adherence to anything and everything whose only virtue is that it's new in some way. One mustn’t think that we’re immunized against the error that the naysayers of the Impressionists fell into; at the same time, don’t let’s shut our prefrontal lobes down because one more artist decantered themselves into the currently already overfull and very sexy ‘questioned the boundaries of what art is’ pool.  The illegitimacy of both utter skepticism and utter dogmatism is equally insupportable.

References

Ackerman, J.S. (1960). Art History and the Problems of Criticism. Daedalus, [online] 89(1), pp.253–263. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20026565 [Accessed 19 Oct. 2023].

Cargill, O. (1958). The Role of the Critic. College English, 20(3), p.105. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/371736.

Kuspit, D. B. (2014). Art criticism. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/art/art-criticism.

Development, P. (2023). Jerry Saltz | The Baer Faxt Podcast. [online] www.thebaerfaxtpodcast.com. Available at: https://www.thebaerfaxtpodcast.com/e/jerry-saltz/.

Gemtou, E. (2010). Subjectivity in Art History and Art Criticism. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 2(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v2n1.02.

Gerry (2012). Robert Hughes. [online] That’s How The Light Gets In. Available at: https://gerryco23.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/robert-hughes-greatest-art-critic-of-our-time/ [Accessed 16 Oct. 2023].

HOWE DOWNES, W. (2023). ART CRITICISM on JSTOR. [online] Jstor.org. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23938988 [Accessed 20 Oct. 2023].

Hughes, R. (2015). The Spectacle of Skill. Vintage.

Jones, J. (2012). Robert Hughes: The Greatest Art Critic of Our Time. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/aug/07/robert-hughes-greatest-art-critic. [Accessed 16 Oct. 2023].

Pepper, S.C. (2013). The Basis of Criticism in the Arts.

[parkpavilion]

Intimate Lives

Philosophers have been posing the big question for as long as anyone can remember: What Makes Life Worth Living? But the more pertinent question for booksellers is of relatively recent vintage: What Makes Life Worth Reading? I don’t know who first asked that one, but I know who gave the first good answer.  John Aubrey was born in Wiltshire, England in 1626, and from an early age took an interest in the world around him, especially those portions of it that even then were ancient and disappearing. No detail was too petty to escape his attention. He listened to old wives’ tales, sketched ruined abbeys, and made systematic studies of, among other monuments, Stonehenge and the still larger stone circle at Avebury. He was one of the first moderns to recognize that these weren’t built by Romans or Danes, but by ancestral British peoples; today some call him the first English archaeologist.  He also had an avid interest in the newest developments in natural philosophy, becoming one of the first to experiment with the transfusion of blood and befriending such scientific luminaries as Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle. Political theorist Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, was another notable in Aubrey’s circle, as were Isaac Newton, John Locke, Christopher Wren, and many others. In comparison to these, Aubrey had little significance in his time, serving a supportive, peripheral role in the lives of better-known men. He said of himself, “I perform the function of a whetstone, which can make the iron sharp though is itself unable to cut.” Few of the projects he undertook on his own behalf were ever finished.  Partly, this was because his interests were so varied and his attention so divided. No matter what intellectual edifice he was constructing, a shiny, unrelated pebble would appear in the corner of his eye, one that had to be collected before it was lost. He spent a great deal of time gathering baskets full of building material, but not much in stacking it up. He also spared a fair amount of time to spend in society; he once lamented, “How much work I would get done if I did not sit up with Mr. Wylde until one or two in the morning, or if there was someone to get me up in the mornings with a good scourge!” Still more detrimental to his productivity were the frequent financial and occasional romantic reversals he experienced. He was born on an idyllic estate that was lost to creditors, eventually relying on generous friends to provide him hospitality, and he remained a bachelor all his life, suffering unrequited love and at least one acrimonious broken engagement. Throughout all of this he beavered on, storing up arcane knowledge and trivia in the hope that posterity would care more about it than his contemporaries did. Since I am writing at such length about a man dead more than three hundred years, you are correct to assume that Aubrey’s trust was not misplaced. By the end of his full life (he died in 1697) he’d assembled and organized a sizable collection of notes on the contemporaries he knew and on the immediate predecessors they’d known. His Brief Lives were filled with details both incidental (poet John Suckling invented cribbage between verses) and, in his time, shocking. Describing one knight of the realm, Aubrey wrote, ”Drunkenness he much exclaimed against, but wenching he allowed.” His manuscripts may have been titillating at the time, but they were never scurrilous. Their author conducted interviews, checked the records, and told the truth as best he found it—all of it. His methods defied the then-prevailing hagiographic trend, but his Lives outlasted his era, circulating ever more widely and providing us with much of what we know about the men and women of the 16th and 17th century. A major accomplishment, to be sure, but his real legacy is as the inventor of a literary art form—the biography. He provided the model for all the work that’s done today to give us full, true, affecting portraits of actual human beings, not plaster saints. A full, true, affecting portrait is exactly what Ruth Scurr has painted in John Aubrey, My Own Life. Few biographies do the excellent job this one does of capturing daily life in a bygone age, and even fewer leave their readers with such a strong sense of knowing their subjects. By the time the last page is turned, Aubrey has come to seem a friend rather than a historical curiosity. Who could help wanting to spend time with a man with this much perspicacity and good humor?:

I think it is strange that magnifying glasses were so long unknown about in this world. Any good fellow at a tavern cannot escape noticing how much the threads of linen cloth are magnified by a glass (of sack or white wine) that has a stem and a hemispherical or conical bottom to it. At least, so it seems to me, when I stare into the bottom of my glass in a tavern and think about what I can see.

Scurr achieves her effect of intimacy through an approach to biography nearly as innovative as Aubrey’s. She takes his words from scattered letters, notebooks, and documents and weaves them into a coherent, chronological diary in his own voice. In so doing, she satisfies all the requirements of scholarship and adds a storyteller’s flair. I can’t imagine a Life better written or more worth reading.

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot".

The essay argues that seeing Earth from a cosmic perspective should inspire humility, wonder and a sense of shared responsibility that leads us to care more for our planet and each other.

The key virtues of the essay lie in its ability to evoke profound shifts in thinking and values through evocative language, poetic images and logical progression of ideas.

However, the essay could go deeper by exploring the complexities and tensions within its overall perspective in a more critical manner.

The essay appeals to emotions like humility, wonder, unity and care as a rhetorical strategy to support its central ethical imperative.

The structure follows a logical progression from introducing Earth as a "tiny dot," providing factual context, discussing implications and concluding with a call to ethical action.

The author's writing style favors precise word choice, logical organization, an objective tone and minimal use of first person until revealing their own perspective in the conclusion.

The essay leverages psychological effects like framing, perspective-shifting and self-transcendence to argue that a cosmic viewpoint should reshape how we think and act.

Evaluations diverged on whether the essay's arguments and claims aligned fully with the broader scientific and philosophical consensus.

The key stakeholders mentioned in the essay are characterized as all of humanity, though particular groups are also noted without acknowledging differing stakes.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor, and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every 'superstar,' every 'supreme leader,' every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Based on the content and style of the text, I would classify it as either essay or nonfiction. Some reasons:

Content:

The text discusses serious topics like humanity's place in the universe, the fragility of Earth, and our responsibilities to each other and the planet. This suggests an informational or thought-provoking purpose rather than an entertaining one.

The writing conveys factual information about the Earth and references astronomy, suggesting a nonfiction genre.

Style:

The writing uses a formal, objective tone appropriate for nonfiction. There are no contractions and the language is precise.

The text follows a logical structure, beginning with the "dot" of Earth and expanding outward to discuss broader implications. This orderly progression is typical of nonfiction essays.

There are no strong narrative elements like characters, plot, or dialogue that would indicate a fictional genre.

In summary, based on the content, style, tone and structure, I would classify this text as either an informative nonfiction essay or a short nonfiction passage. The aim seems to be thought-provoking and fact-based rather than fictional or purely entertaining. The genre that fits best is nonfiction.

Here are the usual evaluation criteria for this type of nonfiction text, along with my evaluation per criterion:

Accuracy of facts: The writer appears to present factual information accurately, without any obvious errors. The description of Earth as "the only world known so far to harbor life" seems factually correct based on current scientific knowledge.

Clarity of ideas: The central ideas about humanity's smallness and responsibility are conveyed clearly and logically, without ambiguity. The progression from Earth as "a dot" to our collective "joy and suffering" to our need to "deal more kindly with one another" follows a coherent path.

Appropriateness of evidence: The text relies primarily on factual description and logical argument rather than concrete evidence, which is appropriate for a short essay of this nature. No inappropriate or irrelevant evidence is presented.

Effectiveness of organization: The organization into three main points summarized above supports the clarity of the ideas and overall effectiveness of the text. There are nodigressions or organizational flaws.

Depth of analysis: While the analysis is concise, covering a broad scope in just a few paragraphs, it touches on key issues in a thoughtful manner that encourages reflection. The writer seems to effectively maximize the depth possible within such a short format.

In summary, based on these evaluation criteria for a nonfiction text, I would rate this passage as good to very good. The facts appear accurate, the ideas are clear and well organized, the evidence is appropriate, and the analysis - though concise - is thoughtful and thought-provoking. The main strengths lie in the clarity, organization and depth achieved within a short format.

Based on characteristics of virtuosic writing, I would rate the essay as follows:

Craftsmanship - The essay shows good craftsmanship in the author's use of precise, evocative language and logical organization of ideas. However, the prose does not exhibit the highest level of literary polish and rhythm. Overall rating: Fair to good.

Insight - The author provides thoughtful insight into humanity's place and responsibilities, touching on profound and timeless themes. However, the analysis could be more resonant and penetrating. Overall rating: Good.

Perspective - The essay offers a unique perspective by framing humanity's smallness within the vastness of space, underscoring our fragility and need for kindness. However, the perspective could be more original and surprising. Overall rating: Good.

Impact - The essay makes an impact through its evocation of our tiny planet seen from afar, which could invoke feelings of humility, unity and wonder in readers. However, the overall emotional and intellectual impact could be greater. Overall rating: Fair to good.

In summary, while the essay has some virtues in craftsmanship, insight and perspective, it does not quite achieve the highest levels of literary virtuosity. The writing shows good but not stunning craft, the insights are thoughtful but not transformative, and the overall impact is thought-provoking but not life-changing.

In order for the essay to be considered truly virtuosic, it would need to demonstrate more stunning craftsmanship, fundamentally original insight, a wholly unique perspective and a truly transformative impact on readers. While the essay has some virtues and merits, it does not quite achieve that highest level of literary mastery and genius that characterizes truly virtuosic writing.

The essay offers a unique perspective on humanity by framing our existence within the vastness of space. Some aspects of this perspective include:

Humility: The author emphasizes how small and insignificant Earth appears when viewed from a distance. This perspective encourages readers to feel humble about humanity's place in the cosmos.

Unity: By noting that everyone who has ever lived exists on "that tiny dot," the author suggests a sense of common humanity and shared destiny that transcends differences. We are united on "that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

Responsibility: Seeing Earth from afar underscores our responsibility to care for our planet and treat each other with kindness. This perspective places moral demands on humanity.

Ambivalence: The uncertainty about whether humanity could migrate elsewhere conveys an ambivalent perspective on our future. We "make our stand" on Earth but may not be able to escape it.

Limited perception: The emphasis on what we can "see so far" from our tiny perspective suggests the limits of human perception and understanding. Our view of Earth from "a sunbeam" is inherently restricted.

Overall, the key virtue of the author's perspective lies in its capacity to foster humility, wonder, and a sense of shared humanity and responsibility by framing our existence within the vastness of the cosmos. However, the perspective could be deepened by exploring ambiguous or contradictory dimensions and questioning assumptions more critically.

In summary, the essay's perspective offers a thought-provoking and potentially transformative way of viewing humanity's place and role. But the perspective also highlights the limits of human perception and could be enriched by exploring its complexities and tensions more fully. The Virtues lie in its ability to foster humility, wonder, and a sense of shared responsibility, but the perspective also remains somewhat bounded by the limited vantage point from which it is conceived.

The essay has the potential to profoundly impact readers by:

Fostering feelings of humility, wonder and insignificance: By framing Earth as "that tiny dot" against the vastness of space, the author helps readers see ourselves and our problems from a larger perspective that can put everyday worries and ego into greater relief. This can inspire feelings of wonder and humility.

Provoking reflection on humanity's place and purpose: The juxtaposition of our collective history existing "on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam" with our responsibility for the future can inspire thoughtful reflection on big questions of meaning and purpose.

Encouraging viewers to value our shared humanity: The idea that "every human being who ever was" existed on that tiny dot can help readers appreciate our common bonds and value human life more deeply. This can increase empathy and concern for others.

Motivating greater care for the environment and each other: The central message that we must "preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known" seeks to jolt readers into caring more about our planet and fellow humans. This call to action could potentially encourage more ethical behavior.

Provoking an emotional response of wonder, humility or unity: The poetic and evocative language, combined with the striking mental image of Earth as a tiny dot, aims to elicit an emotional reaction that can shift readers' perspective and foster qualities like wonder, humility and feelings of unity with humankind.

In summary, while the actual impact will vary among readers, the essay aims to provoke profound shifts in perspective, values and behavior through intellectual reflection, emotional arousal and motivation to act more ethically and responsibly. For readers who are open and receptive, the essay could have a genuinely transformative effect that extends beyond the text itself.

The situation described in the essay can be evaluated as follows:

Dire: The essay characterizes humanity's situation on Earth as precarious, describing Earth as the only place we can "make our stand." This framing suggests a situation that is vulnerable and impermanent.

Consequential: The essay emphasizes the vastness of human history, suffering and creativity that exists "on that tiny dot," underscoring how much is at stake for humanity on Earth. Our situation has immense consequences in both positive and negative senses.

Responsibility-laden: The essay argues that seeing Earth from afar highlights our responsibility to care for our planet and each other. This suggests that our current situation carries immense moral weight and demands ethical action.

Ambivalent: While the essay calls for kindness and care, it also acknowledges humanity's capacity for destruction and corruption. This suggests an ambivalent view of our potential within the current situation.

Limited: The limitations of human perception noted in the essay - seeing Earth "from a sunbeam" - point to the bounded nature of our situation, constrained by our narrow perspective and understanding.

Shared: The essay repeatedly emphasizes that "every human being who ever was" exists on Earth, suggesting that - for better or worse - humanity collectively shares the same situation, challenges and possibilities.

In summary, the situation described in the essay can be characterized as: dire yet consequential, responsibility-laden yet ambivalent, limited yet shared. While the essay highlights the vulnerabilities and difficulties of humanity's current situation on Earth, it also points to our immense capacities for good if we rise to the responsibilities and opportunities it presents. But our ability to realize that potential remains constrained by our limited perceptions and narrow frames of reference.

The situation described in the essay can be evaluated from an ethical perspective as follows:

Precariousness: The dire and vulnerable depiction of humanity's situation on Earth implies an ethical imperative to take greater care of the planet and each other in order to preserve what is fragile and nonrenewable. Our shared precariousness calls for more ethical action.

Consequences: The vast consequences of humanity's situation, both positive and negative, point to an ethical responsibility to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms we inflict through our actions. We must consider the wide ramifications of what we do.

Sharedness: The idea that "every human being who ever was" exists on the same tiny dot suggests an ethical responsibility to value all human lives equally and promote the wellbeing of all, not just some. Our shared situation demands more universal concern.

Limitedness: The limitations of human perception noted in the essay imply an ethical necessity for openness, inquiry and intellectual humility. We must temper our actions with an awareness of what we do not know.

Capacities: Though the essay acknowledges humanity's capacity for destruction, it ultimately calls for "more kindly" treatment - implying an ethical belief that humans have the capacities, if realized, to act in morally positive ways that respect life and value kindness.

Responsibility: The central message of the essay articulates an ethical demand for humanity to "deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish" Earth in light of our situation. We have a moral responsibility that we have yet to fully live up to.

In summary, from an ethical perspective, the situation described in the essay points to imperatives for precariousness, consequences, sharedness, limitedness, capacities and responsibility - all of which imply that humanity has yet to meet the full moral demands created by our current situation on Earth and in the cosmos. The essay's analysis thus highlights significant ethical values and responsibilities that humanity has yet to adequately realize.

Here is an evaluation of the major statements in the essay in relation to the scientific and philosophical consensus:

"That's here. That's home. That's us."

This statement aligns with the scientific consensus that Earth is the only known planet capable of sustaining human life. Earth is truly "home" for humanity for the foreseeable future.

"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life."

This statement is factually accurate based on current scientific knowledge. No life is known to exist anywhere beyond Earth.

"There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate."

Again, this aligns with the scientific consensus. Despite speculation about possible human colonization of Mars someday, experts agree migration beyond Earth is not feasible with current technologies and will not be for many decades at least.

"It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience."

Many philosophers and scientists have argued that contemplating humanity's small place in the cosmos can foster qualities like humility, wonder and perspective. So this statement reflects a mainstream perspective.

"To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot…"

Some philosophers and ethicists have argued that recognizing Earth as humanity's only home implies moral responsibilities of care, preservation and respect. However, not all agree on this imperative.

In summary, the factual claims in the essay - about Earth being the only known habitat for life and a distant destination for human migration - align with the current scientific consensus. The idea that contemplating Earth from space can inspire humility also reflects a common perspective. However, the ethical claim that this vantage point implies specific moral responsibilities is more debated and does not represent a consensus view.

The key overarching theme of the essay is humanity's smallness and fragility within the vast cosmos, and the implications this has for how we should live on Earth. Some aspects of this theme include:

Scale - The essay emphasizes the vast difference in scale between tiny Earth and the immense cosmos. This shows humanity's relative smallness and insignificance on a cosmic scale.

Precariousness - By highlighting that Earth is the only known place with life and the only place humans can "make our stand," the essay underscores our precarious situation and fragility as a species.

Responsibility - Given our smallness and vulnerability, the essay argues that contemplating our position from space "underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot."

Perspective - The essay seeks to provide a new perspective by framing Earth and humanity within the vast cosmos, which can instill qualities like humility and wonder.

Shared predicament - The idea that "every human being who ever was" exists on that tiny dot seeks to highlight our shared situation and common predicament as a fragile species confined to one small planet.

In summary, the overarching theme is that contemplating humanity's smallness and fragility within the cosmos - in terms of scale, precariousness, perspective and shared predicament - should lead us to see ourselves and our responsibilities differently, inspiring greater humility, kindness and care for Earth and each other. The contrast between our immense history and potential and our confinement to "that tiny dot" lies at the heart of the theme.

The essay leverages several psychological principles and effects to make its core arguments:

Framing effect - The author frames Earth as "that tiny dot," which has profound psychological impact. This frame, compared to one that highlights Earth's richness, influences how we see ourselves and our responsibilities.

Perspective effect - Shifting perspective by seeing Earth from a distance, as "a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam," psychologically alters our view of humanity, making us seem small, fragile and insignificant. This new perspective aims to have lasting impact.

Proximity effect - By emphasizing that "every human being who ever was" exists on that tiny dot, the author tries to psychologically bring all humans into proximity and highlight our shared fate, despite our physical distance. This aims to increase empathy and concern for others.

Scope insensitivity - The essay attempts to counteract people's inability to fully comprehend the vastness of space and numbers of humans by invoking vivid, concrete images of "that dot" and "every human being." This aims to make the abstract more psychologically salient.

Self-transcendence - The author seeks to induce a state of self-transcendence by fostering humility, wonder and feelings of unity with all humankind. This aims to shift people beyond narrow self-interest towards broader moral concerns.

In summary, the essay leverages powerful psychological effects like framing, perspective-shifting, proximity, scope (in)sensitivity and self-transcendence to argue that seeing Earth from a cosmic viewpoint should profoundly impact how we think and act on an individual and collective level. The psychology employed aims to reshape readers' perceptions, values and sense of identity and responsibility in a more ethical direction.

The essay intentionally appeals to and seeks to evoke several emotions to make its arguments more compelling:

Humility - By framing Earth as an insignificant "dot" against the vastness of space, the essay aims to evoke a sense of humility about humanity's place and role in the cosmos. This humility is then positioned as the basis for greater moral action.

Wonder - The poetic language and evocative image of Earth suspended "in a sunbeam" seeks to inspire a sense of wonder at our tiny planet and collective human history. This wonder is meant to foster a shift in perspective and values.

Unity - By describing all humans as existing on "that tiny dot," the essay appeals to feelings of shared fate and common predicament that can unite us despite differences. This sense of unity is meant to translate into greater care for others.

Responsibility - The essay hopes to stir up emotions linked to moral obligation by emphasizing our smallness, fragility and vulnerability as a species. These feelings of responsibility then point towards ethical action.

Care - The message to "preserve and cherish" Earth and deal kindly with others explicitly seeks to evoke emotions of care, concern and compassion as a call to moral action. These positive feelings are meant to motivate more ethical behavior.

Overall, the essay leverages emotions like humility, wonder, unity, responsibility and care as a means to argue for its central thesis: that seeing Earth from a cosmic perspective should lead us to value our planet and fellow humans more, reshaping how we live on Earth. The essay thus employs emotions strategically as a rhetorical tool to bolster its ethical imperatives.

The structure of the essay can be summarized as follows:

Introduction: The first two paragraphs introduce the central image of Earth as "that tiny dot" against the vast cosmos. This framing sets up the entire essay.

Context: The next paragraph provides context by noting that Earth is the only known habitat for life and an unreachable destination for now. This situates humanity's position.

Implications: The penultimate paragraph discusses the implications of seeing Earth from a cosmic perspective, arguing that it reveals our moral responsibilities to care for the planet and each other. This presents the core thesis.

Conclusion: The final paragraph reiterates the central image from the introduction and calls readers to act on the moral responsibilities implied by our view of "that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." This concludes the essay on a compelling note.

Overall, the structure follows a logical pattern that moves from:

Introducing the central image

Providing contextual facts

Discussing philosophical/moral implications

Concluding by revisiting the central image and moral call to action

Thematic progression:

While following this four-part structure, the essay also progresses thematically from humanity's smallness and fragility to our momentous responsibilities implied by that seemingly insignificant position. The structure charts a journey from our cosmos position to our moral obligations.

In summary, the essay's logical four-part structure moves readers through key stages of: introducing the central framing, providing context, discussing implications, and concluding with a compelling reprise and call to ethical action. Thematically, the structure charts a progression from contemplating humanity's small, fragile position to realizing the immense responsibilities that follow from that perception - culminating in an ethical imperative.

The author's writing style in this essay can be characterized as follows:

Objective tone: The overall tone is fairly formal and objective, avoiding strong emotive language for much of the essay. The language remains somewhat detached and impersonal.

Precise word choice: The author chooses precise and evocative words to describe key ideas, like "that tiny dot," "a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam," and "that pale blue dot." The phrasing is vivid and memorable.

Logical organization: The essay's structure follows a logical progression from the central image to context to implications and conclusion. The organization of ideas is sensible and orderly.

Short, varied sentences: The author favors shorter sentences of varied length for a lively, rhythmic prose style. This makes the writing more engaging and digestible.

Poetic turns of phrase: The writing occasionally takes on a poetic quality through figures of speech like "every creator and destroyer of civilization" and "every supreme leader." But most of the essay is factual in nature.

Minimal use of first person: While the author's perspective is clear, the writing remains largely in the third person until the final paragraph where the author's personal viewpoint emerges.

Overall, the author's style reflects: precise but evocative word choice, logical organization of ideas, an objective yet poetic tone, and a largely impartial voice that gradually reveals the author's own viewpoint. The end result is writing that seeks more to rationally persuade readers through clear expression of ideas rather than emotive language or flourishes of style. The emphasis remains on ideas over artifice.

Based on the content and style of the essay, I would speculate that the author's personality type is likely:

Introverted: The overall tone of the essay suggests an inward-facing perspective, focusing more on contemplating big ideas than on concrete experiences or interaction with others. The writing indicates an introspective, idea-oriented personality.

Thinking-Oriented: The logical, objective and reason-based arguments in the essay indicate a preference for thinking over feeling in making judgments. The appeals are primarily to rational imperatives rather than emotional ones.

Judging: The organized, linear structure of the essay and precise word choice suggest an author who values planning, order and decisiveness, as is common in judging types. The style reflects a 'planned' rather than 'perceived' personality.

Strong iNtuition: The imaginative framing of Earth as "that mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam" and poetic turns of phrase suggest a highly intuitive personality. The style reflects greater creativity than conscientiousness.

Low Extraversion: The lack of first person narration, anecdotal details and references to others until the later stages of the essay indicate low extraversion, typical of introverted types. The focus remains on ideas more than people.

Of the 16 Myers-Briggs types, the one that best fits this profile would likely be:

INTJ: Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, and Judging

However, this is of course just speculation based solely on analyzing the content and style of this single essay. Other factors beyond what can be inferred from the writing alone could point to a different personality type for the author.

Here are the key metaphors used in the essay:

"that dot" - The essay frames Earth as a tiny, insignificant dot compared to the vast cosmos. This metaphor seeks to provoke humility and wonder.

"that's here. That's home. That's us." - Describing Earth as "here," "home" and "us" employs a metonymic metaphor where Earth stands in for humanity and our realm of existence.

"a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam" - Earth is metaphorically likened to a tiny dust particlefloating in a ray of sunlight. This comparison further emphasizes our smallness and fragility.

"we make our stand" - Humanity is metaphorically described as making a stand on Earth, suggesting a defensible but vulnerable position from which we operate. This implies a sense of precariousness.

"every hunter and forager…every corrupt politician…every saint and sinner" - Humanity is metaphorically portrayed through a range of stock "types," from the mundane to the momentous. This litany seeks to encapsulate the whole sweep of human history and diversity.

"that pale blue dot" - Earth is described as a pale blue dot, evoking its small, fragile appearance against the black vastness of space. This metaphorical depiction undergirds the essay's entire argument.

Overall, the essay relies upon a handful of powerful spatial and structural metaphors - likening Earth to a dot, dust particle, place we "make our stand" and "pale blue dot" - that become the conceptual foundation for contemplating humanity's smallness, responsibilities and ethical imperatives. The metaphors help generate a new frame through which to view human affairs.

The essay references the following stakeholders in humanity's situation on Earth:

Every human being who ever was: The essay emphasizes that all of humanity exists on the "tiny dot" of Earth. All humans therefore share a common stake in our current situation and its implications. Despite differences, we all have an interest in how humanity acts collectively on this planet. Evaluation: This broad view of all humans as stakeholders captures our shared predicament and interconnected fate. However, the essay does not acknowledge differences in how the situation affects various groups.

Every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child: The litany of "every" types mentions specific groups within humanity that have a stake in our situation, from families to children to lovers. Evaluation: Mentioning particular groups points to how the situation may differentially impact people based on factors like age, role and relationships. However, the essay still emphasizes our common stake overall.

"Every" types: The essay mentions "every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization," indicating that people of all types have a stake in humanity's situation. Evaluation: This broad view helps convey humanity's diversity of experiences, needs and contributions. However, it does not differentiate how the stakes may vary between social groups.

In summary, the essay takes a broad, universal view that all humans share a common stake as inhabitants of "that tiny dot" Earth. While mentioning particular groups and "types," the focus remains on our shared predicament and interconnected fate. A potential limitation is the lack of acknowledgement that the stakes may differ meaningfully between social positions and identities within humanity.

oUysbq7tvplfgEKmwEKi

[tastydregs]

Why I’m Not Worried About A.I. Killing Everyone and Taking Over the World

This article was co-published with Understanding AI, a newsletter that explores how A.I. works and how it’s changing our world.

Geoffrey Hinton is a legendary computer scientist whose work laid the foundation for today’s artificial intelligence technology. He was a co-author of two of the most influential A.I. papers: a 1986 paper describing a foundational technique (called backpropagation) that is still used to train deep neural networks and a 2012 paper demonstrating that deep neural networks could be shockingly good at recognizing images.

That 2012 paper helped to spark the deep learning boom of the last decade. Google hired the paper’s authors in 2013 and Hinton has been helping Google develop its A.I. technology ever since then. But last week Hinton quit Google so he could speak freely about his fears that A.I. systems would soon become smarter than us and gain the power to enslave or kill us. “There are very few examples of a more intelligent thing being controlled by a less intelligent thing,” Hinton said in an interview on CNN last week.

This is not a new concern. The philosopher Nick Bostrom made similar warnings in his widely read 2014 book Superintelligence. At the time most people saw these dangers as too remote to worry about, but a few people found arguments like Bostrom’s so compelling that they devoted their careers to them. As a result, there’s now a tight-knit community convinced that A.I. poses an existential risk to the human race.

I’m going to call their viewpoint singularism—a nod not only to Verner Vinge’s concept of the singularity, but also to Bostrom’s concept of a singleton, an A.I. (or other entity) that gains control over the world. The singularists have been honing their arguments for the last decade and today they largely set the terms of the A.I. safety debate.

But I worry that singularists are focusing the world’s attention in the wrong direction. Singularists are convinced that a super-intelligent A.I. would become so powerful to kill us all if it wants to. And so their main focus is on figuring out how to ensure that this all-powerful A.I. winds up with goals that are aligned with our own.

But it’s not so obvious that superior intelligence will automatically lead to world domination. Intelligence is certainly helpful if you’re trying to take over the world, but you can’t control the world without manpower, infrastructure, natural resources, and so forth. A rogue A.I. would start out without control of any of these physical resources.

So a better way to prevent an A.I. takeover may be to ensure humans remain firmly in control of the physical world—an approach I’ll call physicalism. That would mean safeguarding our power plants, factories, and other physical infrastructure from hacking. And it would mean being cautious about rolling out self-driving cars, humanoid robots, military drones, and other autonomous systems that could eventually become a mechanism for A.I. to conquer the world.

In 1997, IBM’s Deep Blue computer beat the reigning chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov. In the years since, chess engines have gotten better and better. Today, the strongest chess software has an Elo rating of 3,500, high enough that we should expect it to win almost every game against the strongest human players (who have Elo ratings around 2,800). Singularists see this as a template for A.I. mastery of every significant activity in the global economy, including important ones like scientific discovery, technological innovation, and warfare.

A key step on the road to A.I. dominance will be when A.I. systems get better than people at designing A.I. systems. At this point, singularists predict that we’ll get an “intelligence explosion” where A.I. systems work to recursively improve their own code. Because it’s easy to make copies of computer programs, we could quickly have millions of virtual programmers working to improve A.I. systems, which should dramatically accelerate the rate of progress in A.I. technology.

I find this part of the singularist story entirely plausible. I see no reason to doubt that we’ll eventually be able to build computer systems capable of performing cognitive tasks at a human level—and perhaps beyond.

Once an A.I. achieves superintelligence, singularists envision it building some kind of superweapon to take over the world. Obviously, since none of us possess superhuman intelligence, it’s hard to be sure whether this is possible. But I think a good way to sanity-check it is to think about the history of previous superweapons.

Take the atomic bomb, for example. In 1939, physicist ​​Leo Szilard realized that it would be possible to create a powerful new kind of bomb using nuclear fission. So did he go into his garage, build the first atomic bomb, and use it to become the most powerful person on the planet?

Of course not. Instead, Szilard drafted a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt and got Albert Einstein to sign it. That led to the Manhattan Project, which wound up employing tens of thousands of people and spending billions of dollars over a six-year period. When the first atomic bombs were finished in 1945, it was President Harry Truman, not Szilard or other physicists, who got to decide how they would be used.

Maybe a superintelligent A.I. could come up with an idea for a powerful new type of weapon. But like Szilard, it would need help to build and deploy it. And getting that help might be difficult—especially if the A.I. wants to retain ultimate control over the weapon once it’s built.

When I read Bostrom’s Superintelligence, I was surprised that he devotes less than three pages (starting on page 97 in this version) to discussing how an A.I. takeover might work in concrete terms. In those pages, Bostrom briefly discusses two possible scenarios. One is for the A.I. to create “self-replicating biotechnology or nanotechnology” that could spread across the world and take over before humans know what is happening. The other would be to create a supervirus to wipe out the human race.

Bostrom’s mention of nanotechnology is presumably a reference to Eric Drexler’s 1986 book envisioning microscopic robots that could construct other microscopic objects one atom at a time. Twenty years later, in 2006, a major scientific review found that the feasibility of such an approach “cannot be reliably predicted.” As far as I can tell, there’s been no meaningful progress on the concept since then.

We do have one example of a nanoscale technology that’s made significant progress in recent years: integrated circuits now have features that are just a few atoms wide, allowing billions of transistors to be packed onto a single chip. And the equipment required to build these nanoscale devices is fantastically expensive and complex: companies like TSMC and Intel spend billions of dollars to build a single chip fabrication plant.

I don’t know if Drexler-style nano-assemblers are possible. But if they are, building the first ones is likely to be a massive undertaking. Like the atomic bomb, it would likely require many skilled engineers and scientists, large amounts of capital, and large research labs and production facilities. It seems hard for a disembodied A.I. to pull that off—and even harder to do so while maintaining secrecy and control.

Part of Bostrom’s argument is that superintelligent A.I. would have a “social manipulation superpower” that would enable the A.I. to persuade or trick people into helping it accomplish its nefarious ends.

Again, no one has ever encountered a superintelligent AI, so it’s hard to make categorical statements about what it might be able to do. But I think this misunderstands how persuasion works.

Human beings are social creatures. We trust longtime friends more than strangers, and we are more likely to trust people we perceive as similar to ourselves. In-person conversations tend to be more persuasive than phone calls or emails.

A superintelligent A.I. would have no friends or family and would be incapable of having an in-person conversation with anybody. Maybe it could trick some gullible people into sending it money or sharing confidential information. But what an A.I. would really need is co-conspirators: people willing to help out with a project over the course of months or years, while keeping their actions secret from friends and family. It’s hard to imagine how an A.I. could inspire that kind of loyalty among a significant number of people.

I expect that nothing I’ve written so far is going to be persuasive to committed singularists. Singularists have a deep intuition that more intelligent entities inevitably become more powerful than less intelligent ones.

“One should avoid fixating too much on the concrete details, since they are in any case unknowable and intended for illustration only,” Bostrom writes in Superintelligence. “A superintelligence might—and probably would—be able to conceive of a better plan for achieving its goals than any that a human can come up with. It is therefore necessary to think about these matters more abstractly.”

Stephen Hawking articulated this intuition in a vivid way a few years ago. “You’re probably not an evil ant-hater who steps on ants out of malice,” Hawking wrote. “But if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green-energy project and there’s an anthill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. Let’s not place humanity in the position of those ants.”

But it’s worth thinking harder about the relationship between human intelligence and our power over the natural world.

If you put a modern human in a time machine and sent him back 100,000 years, it’s unlikely he could use his superior intelligence to establish dominance over a nearby Neanderthal tribe. Even if he was an expert on modern weaponry, he wouldn’t have the time or resources to make a gun before the Neanderthals killed him or he just starved to death.

Humanity’s intelligence gave us power mainly because it enabled us to create progressively larger and more complex societies. A few thousand years ago, some human civilizations grew large enough to support people who specialized in mining and metalworking. That allowed them to build better tools and weapons, giving them an edge over neighboring civilizations. Specialization has continued to increase, century by century, until the present day. Modern societies have thousands of people working on highly specialized tasks from building aircraft carriers to developing A.I. software to sending satellites into space. It’s that extreme specialization that gives us almost godlike powers over the natural world.

My favorite articulation of this point came from entrepreneur Anton Troynikov in a recent episode of the Moment of Zen podcast.

“The modern industrial world requires actuators starting from the size of an oil refinery and going down to your scanning electron microscope,” Troynikov said. “The reason that we need all of this vast array of things is that the story of technology is almost the story of tool use. And every one of those tools relies on another layer of tools below them.”

The modern world depends on infrastructure like roads, pipelines, fiber optic cables, ports, warehouses, and so forth. Each piece of infrastructure has a workforce dedicated to building, maintaining, and repairing it. These workers not only have specialized skills and knowledge, they also have sophisticated equipment that enables them to do their jobs.

Which brings me to Bostrom’s second scenario for A.I. takeover. Bostrom predicts that a superintelligent A.I. might create a virus that wipes out humanity. It’s conceivable that an A.I. could trick someone into synthesizing a virus in an existing biology lab. I don’t know if an A.I.-designed virus could literally wipe out humanity, but let’s assume it can for the sake of argument.

This thing can’t run itself. LIONEL BONAVENTURE/Getty Images

The problem, from the A.I.’s point of view, is that it would still need some humans around to keep its data centers running.

As consumers, we’re used to thinking of services like electricity, cellular networks, and online platforms as fully automated. But they’re not. They’re extremely complex and have a large staff of people constantly fixing things as they break. If everyone at Google, Amazon, AT&T, and Verizon died, the internet would quickly grind to a halt—and so would any superintelligent A.I. connected to it.

Could an A.I. dispatch robots to keep the internet and its data centers running? Today there are far fewer industrial robots in the world than human workers, and the vast majority of them are special-purpose robots designed to do a specific job at a specific factory. There are few if any robots with the agility and manual dexterity to fix overhead power lines or underground fiber optic cables, drive delivery trucks, replace failing servers, and so forth. Robots also need human beings to repair them when they break, so without people the robots would eventually stop functioning too.

Of course this could change. Over time we may build increasingly capable robots, and in a few decades we may reach the point where robots are doing a large share of physical work. At that point, an A.I. takeover scenario might become more plausible.

But this is very different from the “fast takeoff” scenario envisioned by many singularists, in which A.I. takes over the world within months, weeks, or even days of an intelligence explosion. If A.I. takes over, it will be a gradual, multi-decade process. And we’ll have plenty of time to change course if we don’t like the way things are heading.

Singularists predict that the first superintelligent A.I. will be the last superintelligent A.I. because it will rapidly become smart enough to take over the world. If that’s true, then the question of A.I. alignment becomes supremely important because everything depends on whether the superintelligent A.I. decides to treat us well or not.

But in a world where the first superintelligent A.I. won’t be able to immediately take over the world—the world I think we live in—the picture looks different. In that case, there are likely to eventually be billions of intelligent A.I.s in the world, with a variety of capabilities and goals. Many of them will be benevolent. Some may “go rogue” and pursue goals independent of their creators. But even if that doesn’t happen, there will definitely be some A.I.s created by terrorists, criminals, bored teenagers, or foreign governments. Those are likely to behave badly—not because they’re “misaligned,” but because they’re well-aligned with the goals of their creators.

In this world, anything connected to the internet will face constant attacks from sophisticated A.I.-based hacking tools. In addition to discovering and exploiting software vulnerabilities, rogue A.I. might be able to use technologies like large language models and voice cloning to create extremely convincing phishing attacks.

And if a hacker breaches a computer system that controls a real-world facility—say a factory, a power plant, or a military drone—it could do damage in the physical world.

Last week I asked Matthew Middelsteadt, an A.I. and cybersecurity expert at the Mercatus Center, to name the most important recent examples of hacks like this. He said these were the three most significant in the last 15 years:

• In 2010, someone—widely believed to be the U.S. or Israeli government—unleashed a computer worm on computer systems associated with Iran’s nuclear program, slowing Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium.

• In 2015, hackers with suspected ties to Russia hacked computers controlling part of the Ukrainian power grid. This caused about 200,000 Ukrainians to lose power, but utility workers were able to restore power within a few hours by bypassing the computers.

• In 2021, a ransomware attack hit the billing infrastructure for the Colonial Pipeline, which moves gasoline from Texas to Southeastern United States. The attack shut down the pipeline for a few days, leading to brief fuel shortages in affected states.

This list makes it clear that this is a real problem that we should take seriously. But overall I found this list reassuring. Even if A.I. makes attacks like this 100 times more common and 10 times more damaging in the coming years, they would still be a nuisance rather than an existential threat.

Middelsteadt points out that the good guys will be able to use A.I. to find and fix vulnerabilities in their systems. Beyond that, it would be a good idea to make sure that computers controlling physical infrastructure like power plants and pipelines are not directly connected to the internet. Middelsteadt argues that safety-critical systems should be “air gapped”: made to run on a physically separate network under the control of human workers located on site.

This principle is particularly important for military hardware. One of the most plausible existential risks from A.I. is a literal Skynet scenario where we create increasingly automated drones or other killer robots and the control systems for these eventually go rogue or get hacked. Militaries should take precautions to make sure that human operators maintain control over drones and other military assets.

Last fall, the U.S. military publicly committed not to put A.I. in control of nuclear weapons. Hopefully other nuclear-armed powers will do the same.

Notably, these are all precautions we ought to be taking whether or not we think attacks by rogue AIs is an imminent problem. Even if superintelligent A.I. never tries to hack our critical infrastructure, it’s likely that terrorists and foreign governments will.

Over the longer term, we should keep the threat of rogue A.I.s in mind as we decide whether and how to automate parts of the economy. For example, at some point we will likely have the ability to make our cars fully self-driving. This will have significant benefits, but it could also increase the danger from misaligned A.I.

Maybe it’s possible to lock down self-driving cars so they are provably not vulnerable to hacking. Maybe these vehicles should have “manual override” options where a human passenger can shut down the self-driving system and take the wheel. Or maybe locking down self-driving cars is impossible and we’ll ultimately want to limit how many self-driving cars we put on the road.

Robots today are neither numerous nor sophisticated enough to be of much use to a superintelligent A.I. bent on world domination. But that could change in the coming decades. If more sophisticated and autonomous robots become commercially viable, we’ll want to think carefully about whether deploying them will make our civilization more vulnerable to misaligned A.I.

The bottom line is that it seems easier to minimize the harm a superintelligent A.I. can do than to prevent rogue A.I. systems from existing at all. If superintelligent A.I. is possible, then some of those A.I.s will have harmful goals, just as every human society has a certain number of criminals. But as long as human beings remain firmly in control of assets in the physical world, it’s going to be hard for a hostile A.I. to do too much damage.

[carolap53]

Is God Really All-Knowing? I like to refer to Peter Kreeft as “the un-philosopher.” Not that he isn’t a philosopher; in fact, he’s a first-rate philosophical thinker, with a doctorate from Fordham University, postgraduate study at Yale University, and thirty-eight years of experience as a philosophy professor at Villanova University and (since 1965) Boston College. He has taught such courses as metaphysics, ethics, mysticism, sexuality, and Oriental, Greek, medieval, and contemporary philosophy, earning such honors as the Woodrow Wilson and Yale-Sterling fellowships.

I asked Kreeft to explore God’s omniscience in relation to the problem of evil. He pushed back his chair to get more comfortable, then looked off to the side as he collected his thoughts once more.

“Let’s begin this way,” he said. “God, if he is all-wise, knows not only the present but the future. And he knows not only present good and evil but future good and evil. If his wisdom vastly exceeds ours, as the hunter’s exceeds the bear’s, it is at least possible — contrary to Charles Templeton’s analysis — that a loving God could deliberately tolerate horrible things like starvation because he foresees that in the long run that more people will be better and happier than if he miraculously intervened. That’s at least intellectually possible.”

I shook my head. “That’s still hard to accept,” I said. “It sounds like a cop-out to me.”

“Okay, then, let’s put it to the test,” Kreeft replied. “You see, God has specifically shown us very clearly how this can work. He has demonstrated how the very worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the world ended up resulting in the very best thing that has ever happened in the history of the world.”

“What do you mean?”

“I’m referring to dei-cide,” he replied. “The death of God himself on the cross. At the time, nobody saw how anything good could ever result from this tragedy. And yet God foresaw that the result would be the opening of heaven to human beings. So the worst tragedy in history brought about the most glorious event in history. And if it happened there — if the ultimate evil can result in the ultimate good — it can happen elsewhere, even in our own individual lives. Here, God lifts the curtain and lets us see it. Elsewhere he simply says, ‘Trust me.’

“All of which would mean that human life is incredibly dramatic, like a story for which you don’t know the ending rather than a scientific formula. In fact, let’s follow this dramatic story line for a minute.

“Suppose you’re the devil. You’re the enemy of God and you want to kill him, but you can’t. However, he has this ridiculous weakness of creating and loving human beings, whom you can get at. Aha! Now you’ve got hostages! So you simply come down into the world, corrupt humankind, and drag some of them to hell. When God sends prophets to enlighten them, you kill the prophets.

“Then God does the most foolish thing of all — he sends his own Son and he plays by the rules of the world. You say to yourself, ‘I can’t believe he’s that stupid! Love has addled his brains! All I have to do is inspire some of my agents — Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, the Roman soldiers — and get him crucified.’ And that’s what you do.

“So there he hangs on the cross — forsaken by man and seemingly by God, bleeding to death and crying, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ What do you feel now as the devil? You feel triumph and vindication! But of course you couldn’t be more wrong. This is his supreme triumph and your supreme defeat. He stuck his heel into your mouth and you bit it and that blood destroyed you.

“Now, if that is not a freak occurrence, but it’s a paradigm of the human situation, then when we bleed and when we suffer, as Christ did, maybe the same thing is happening. Maybe this is God’s way of defeating the devil.

“At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples couldn’t see how anything good could result; similarly, as we face struggles and trials and suffering, we sometimes can’t imagine good emerging. But we’ve seen how it did in the case of Jesus, and we can trust it will in our case too. For instance, the greatest Christians in history seem to say that their sufferings ended up bringing them the closest to God — so this is the best thing that could happen, not the worst.”

Lee Strobel

[catatonicdelirium]

Dynamics of Interdimensional Propaganda

Let’s cut to the chase and start talking a smatter of philosophy. Basically, there’s a bunch of countries warring with each other at the moment, and all of them are trying to get their hands on as much gold, opium and oil as is feasible. Now, none of them can do this without making their citizenry consent to them blowing to smithereens a bunch of other poor, unfortunate saps who are probably just as, if not more so, smart as they are. Now I realize this is a pretty low bar to set, so hang with me here on this point.

Considering the low testing scores among the plebeians of a particular region, our leaders have decided to take advantage of this fact and continue to drive their quest for barrels of oil. Seeing that much of the population, however, are opposed to war crimes, they needed to come up with a better plan amid a (somewhat) political, voting population. So what was the solution? Brainwash them into oblivion.

You got many ways of doing this. For instance, there’s the age old art of lying behind a wall of eloquence. This was a useful tactic, and often used in Greece and Rome. This only worked so well, however, and eventually the lies got so elaborate that people started worshipping deities which signified each layer of a particular lie. But that’s enough talk concerning religion.

Another strategy was to make the lies “esoteric” and “hidden knowledge.” By doing this, you could set up several layers of a lie, and thus make people think you were talking the truth when you hit them with another barrage of lies. Cults are very good at doing this. But there’s no better cult than the U.S. government.

Sometimes this got out of hand, even, and people began to realize that lying will only get you so far. You can’t merely dress up the lie pretty, you also have to do something else to prevent an incitement to anger. That’s where telling “half-truths” and such come into play. By telling a truth, and then spinning it into a lie, no one would be able to tell the difference, and that’s how modern civilization was born. Add in a twist of eloquence, and you have yourself a philosophical treatise.

Eventually, though, many wizened up to this art of deception and began to invent something known as “the scientific method.” Through this, people were generally able to find out what was true, and what was not, by looking at it. This was a big development in the history of humanity, as people were more and more able to tell what the truth was, not by listening to what the person said and taking his word for it, but by actually seeing if what they said was true.  It seemed all was lost, but then someone got the bright idea of inventing TV.

With TV you can do anything. You can run a program about scientific discoveries, a program about celebrity gossip, and a program about lying with eloquence (news), all at the same time. And as it turned out, people loved it. About 66% watch the tabloid program, 33% watch the news, and 1% watch the science program, so that by the end of it, you make the science-watcher look like a crackpot. And then when the crackpot starts trying to get into politics, you axe the science program and replace it with more celebrity gossip.

There was one problem to contend with, however—there were actually real scientists who were doing the writing for the TV show. And you can’t just kill all the scientists, because you need them to make better bombs and drone-tracking software. So what you do in these situations is that you cut funding for anything that isn’t actively killing people, and make their PhDs not worth the paper they’re printed on in the market. Genius!

But some scientists got the great idea of making a TV where people could talk to each other. That’s a big problem, because then people might start listening to the scientists who made the computer and take them seriously. Luckily, most of the people who made this device are the ones also responsible for the bombs and drone-tracking software. So their secret is safe with us!

[eponymous-rose]

Talks Machina Highlights - Critical Role C2E123 (Feb. 2, 2021)

After last week’s thoroughly relaxing and brief episode, tonight’s guests are Sam Riegel and Liam O’Brien!

Brian, to Sam: “You look like Tim Curry moved to Nantucket to become a sommelier.”

How did Caleb and Veth approach the ally-ship with the Tombtakers? Sam: “I mean, we got some information, and I think we got a little closer to Lucien and knowing whether he has any of Mollymauk inside of him, which is I think the most important knowledge that we’re seeking right now. Is there someone to be saved inside there? We got glimpses, and we got a little hint that Mollymauk is maybe still in there? Maybe? And we got a little more insight into their plans, so that was useful.” Liam: “We know why we were having that fucking dream.” Sam: “But other than that, it was just a road trip with assholes.” Liam: “All our plans have been ripped in a new direction, and it’s just been improvisation.” Sam notes that it feels like we’re always about to rip into Caleb’s backstory, but haven’t yet followed that thread all the way through. Liam: “It’s partially frustrating, to be sure, but also I like the idea that-- his whole shit has been selfish, it’s been dealing with the trauma that he’s been through and not the greater world, and that’s been shifting somewhat.”

Does Caleb think the book was worth it, and is he still interested in reading more? Sam: “How do you ask Caleb not to read a book?” Liam: “Caleb has spent enough time with the Nein to know you shouldn’t put a hand on a hot stove. After what happened with the book, he knows it’s a terrible idea. But maybe. But it’s a really bad idea. But reserve judgment, but it’s a really terrible idea. I think that Caleb is very aware that mages and people like him very easily fall prey to their curiosity and it can lead to bad places. But there is still that amount of scientific endeavor where you think there is value in knowing and learning, and maybe we can ride that line. He was True Neutral at the start of the campaign, and maybe he’s Chaotic Good now, but part of him is hubris, even if it’s a little bit, still.”

What about Otis has drawn Veth’s focus? Sam: “I mean, he’s a little shit. She was curious about Otis because he’s a small like she is, and in talking to him, he seemed to be real creepy, but he was just creepy and distant and didn’t value his past or family or anything like that. She sees someone who’s like her, but so not like her, and maybe that scares her a little bit more.”

How does Caleb feel about Beau being on this ride with him? Liam: “The dream is another example of how Caleb had very narrow vision of the things he wanted to do. It used to seem so massive to him, but now... To have Beauregard involved feels right. If anyone in the group is going to stop him from grabbing something he shouldn’t, it is probably Beauregard. She’ll punch him in the fucking face to stop him, which I think he needs, to a certain extent. They’re two different kinds of nerds, and I kind of like that, that this group of nine philosophers, they’ve reached out and somehow grabbed the two nerds in the party.”

How do Caleb and Veth see the Somnovum? Sam: “I mean, they seem real bad. Anything that’s a quorum of powerful entities heading towards your planet to unleash an energy of any kind, typically bad? I assume they’re bad, or at least the Tombtakers wish them to do ill.” Liam: “I think they want the kind of peace that comes from snapping your fingers and turning people to dust. Caleb sees them as a cautionary tale; they’re the worst-case scenario for arcane inquisitiveness.” He sees Allura Vysoren as the antidote to that.

Why the staunch refusal to use Halfling Luck? Sam: “I don’t like Luck! I just don’t like Luck. I think it’s cheap, I think it’s a cheat, I think it’s stupid. It just feels like a do-over.” Liam: “I am your antithesis! If I ever voice a halfling, I am going to hammer that feature!” Sam: “What I love about D&D is that you don’t know what’s going to happen. If you roll bad, okay, that’s it. If you roll well, it makes the success more enjoyable to know that it’s a pure success and don’t one where you’re like well actually... it’s so stupid. If someone was about to die, I would probably use the fuckin’ Luck feature. Well. It depends who. If it was Travis, yeah, no, he’s fucked, sorry.”

Liam drops that he’s picked Sam’s character class and race again for a hypothetical campaign three. Sam: “It’s not what I was thinking for future characters, but I’m excited to explore.”

Cosplay of the Week: an amazing Mollymauk by KatofValkyrie!

What was it like to bring the Tombtakers into the tower? Liam: “It is complicated, because he does not like him. Lucien’s just a fucking dick. But Caleb also knows that Molly’s in there somewhere. That tower’s only for the M9, and Lucien’s not in the M9. Their situation with these people is shitty, it’s terrible. Caleb doesn’t feel like they have the upper hand. He doesn’t like that they’re even going on this journey per se, because life is bigger than his bullshit. He feels like they’ve been losing over and over again, so it was a gamble to try to get on equal footing.

What spurred Veth into making sure she and Yasha have some one-on-one time? Sam: “Yasha hasn’t been getting a lot of moments to shine. Now that she’s back, I just got the impression that Yasha feels out of place sometimes, or timid, or unsure of herself. When Veth was Nott, Nott certainly had her share of those moments. I think she sees a kindred spirit and wants to make sure that she’s been giving all the opportunity she can to flourish and thrive. Dani, you’re just laughing at my mustache, aren’t you?” Dani: “Yes, that’s the only thing I’m laughing at through this whole bullshit.” Sam denies all knowledge of trolling, but eventually admits, on the topic of Yasha and Beau getting together: “They’ve made me wait this long... I’m going to make them wait a little bit longer!”

What was it like to show his friends the upper floors? Liam: “I kinda expected somebody to sneak up there before that. That being part of the tower is not even a conscious choice of his, it just is. The reason Caduceus has creeped Caleb out for a long time is because he talks about how-- Caduceus is a really kind person and wants Caleb to let go of the past. And in a really simplistic way, turn that frown upside-down. And that’s just not who Caleb is, and it’s not who everybody is. There is something to be said for trying to stay open and positivity, but thinking you can shut out the past, especially a traumatic one, is just not true. When things happen to us, we carry them. But to candy-coat it and say, ah, I’m free, or everything is good, or I’ve turned the corner... life is way messier than that. It’s not flipping a switch, it’s not bad-to-good, it is such a work in progress. Even when you make strides and start to get to a better place, you can backslide a lot. So the tower is who he is, and the tower is 7/9ths love for his friends, and 1/9th hope, but there’s still a percentage of him that carries everything from the past, and knows that he should, and knows that he should not go back to where he was. And the way to do that is not to say everything is rainbows, but to remember it. The tower is just like an extension of who he is. He’s never going to forget the past, and he’s never going to be like, I’m good, or I’ve turned a corner. He should remember the past, and he should do better, always.”

Does Veth still believe it’s possible to get Molly back? Sam: “Well, she was a person trapped in another body for many years, so has some experience there, and definitely believes that the spirit and soul of Molly is in there and just needs to be unlocked somehow.”

Fan Art of the Week: an amazing group shot by HarpySN!

How are Caleb and Veth dealing with their guilt and fear about being in the middle of this? Sam: “It definitely was a deep conversation that might have repercussions going forward. The problem with all of what we’re doing now is that we don’t have time to deal with our petty problems anymore. It’s all high tension all the time!” Liam: “It’s true; they’re not in control of their situation at all anymore.” Sam: “It’s good to have these check-ins, but it’s not like we can do anything about them. We’re reactive right now.” Liam: “He’s not happy with where they are, but they wouldn’t even be this far if the goblin hadn’t pulled him out of the mud. So part of it is, you saved me from where I was and got me on my feet again, and now it’s disconcerting to see it all just get knocked sideways by something he never could’ve predicted. I think Caleb felt nostalgic for when things were simpler, in a way, for them, when we’re both troubled drifters.”

What was it like to see Gelidon’s return? Liam: “I am the least superstitious person at the table. Ashley’s dice suck.” Sam: “It was fun fighting a dragon!” Liam: “Two massive battles in one episode, neither of which came away with a victory. I guess surviving is a victory.” Sam: “I’d forgotten about the dragon, honestly.” Liam: “I loved it. I was so upset at the idea that we were going to stealth and not get into it.”Sam: “Mercer doesn’t keep a live dragon around and not do something with it. That dragon’s coming back.”

How do Caleb and Veth feel about going to see Essek? Sam: “He can be very helpful, I believe, but as Sam Riegel, a player of D&D, I’m super suspicious. What the fuck is Essek doing up there, so close, now? I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him. And I can throw him pretty far because he floats.” Liam: “I 100% agree with you. I do not understand what Essek could bring to what we are going through. I know the audience loves him, I love him too. He’s a really cool character. But he’s fucking toxic. He out of curiosity caused a war between two nations. And Caleb has been changed for the good by the M9 from months of travel with them. Essek has had none of that. Caleb has changed for the good, but not because of people like Essek. Essek is where Caleb came from. We kept the lid on the pot during the whole treaty at sea and it almost all went fucking sideways, and only because we pressed him into a corner. I hope that guy finds some sort of balance and peace for himself, but I do not see how his input here would be helpful. There’s other heavy hitters that I would try to pull in.”

Liam notes that the Cloven Crystal is in the Bag of Holding. Sam: “Do I have Fluffernutter, or is Fluffernutter gone?” Liam: “Nope. 300 pounds of fireworks? Gone. A dead mage, a threshold crest, and fireworks.” Dani: “Your basic essentials.”

[dogbearinggifts]

What are your thoughts on tua S2? Did you feel like the characters grew? What did you like? What did you not? I’m interested in your perspective. Your analysis are super thoughtful and interesting!

Aw, thanks, Anon!

Overall, I really enjoyed S2 and thought it was a solid follow-up to S1. I do have my quibbles about it, so I think (for ease of reference and because my thoughts are a little scattered today) I’ll list some of my personal highlights (in no particular order) before getting into what I didn’t like as much.

Big spoilers ahead.

Allison. I thought they handled her storyline especially well. Of all the siblings, I think she had the most difficult obstacles placed in her way (not only is she a Black woman landing in 1961 Dallas, but she’s a Black woman landing in 1961 Dallas who can’t even speak in her own defense for a year) and they sugarcoated exactly none of it. The writers pulled no punches when showing what civil rights protesters went through, which just made their nonviolent response all the more breathtaking. Allison’s fear and anger during those scenes were palpable even as she kept them hidden. But along with that horror, we see the kindness and warmth of the Dallas Black community, the women who take her in simply because she needs their help, and her love for Ray, perhaps heretofore THE most thoughtful husband ever portrayed on screen. I loved him, and I loved him and Allison together. While I understand and respect his choice to stay in 1963, I wish they’d gotten more time together. They both deserved it.

Vanya. We got to see how much the baggage from her past affected her by glimpsing what she might be like if it were taken away. It’s an interesting philosophical question, and it was explored well, in my opinion. She finds it easier to love and be loved, and she stands up for herself more readily—but she also doesn’t hesitate to use powers she can’t quite control and threatens Five without fully realizing how dire her threat is (or how it might dredge up traumatic memories she doesn’t know exist). The moment where Ben finds her curled up, fully convinced she’s a monster, was heartbreaking. I loved watching her find happiness with Sissy, even if that was fleeting (and dear god, Sissy deserved her happy ending with Vanya, dammit, I don’t care if it would fuck up the timeline). Her patience and sweetness with Harlan were just beautiful. And the way she used the confidence she gained during her amnesia to fully come into her own not to exact revenge on her siblings, but to save them, was fucking phenomenal.

The humor. There was a lot more humor this season, and it was awesome. So many iconic scenes—Olga Foroga, Luther babysitting two homicidal Fives, Elliot awkwardly lecturing his guests on the history of Jello, “NEW TIMELINE NEW ME,” “Your vagina needs glasses,” AJ the fish gobbling up the cigarette bubbles, Five getting to say “fuck”….this season was a lot funnier than the previous one, and I think that was one of its strengths.

Klaus’ cult. It was played for laughs, which I both expected and thought was the best way to handle it. He didn’t want to start a new religion with himself at the center; he just wanted to not get thrown out of any more diners, but Destiny’s Children had other ideas. The “I too am a fraud!” scene was hilarious and tickled the question of whether or not a religion founded on false pretenses can still help those within it find meaning.

Luther. Getting him away from his dad, his siblings, and the Academy was exactly what he needed to become the pure of heart and dumb of ass genius we always knew he was, but his first major step in that direction was heartbreaking. We all knew he’d be rejected once he got to the Academy. We all knew Reginald would rip his heart out and stomp on it in his admittedly fashionable shoes. It gets Luther out on his own and forces him to become his own person apart from his dad, but that doesn’t make it any easier to watch. He got the positive character development he needed, but the catalyst was tragic.

Diego. We see, for the first time, exactly how Reginald kept him in line—not with meds or with PTSD-inducing torture, but with words. Even when he knows Diego as little more than a stranger, Reginald is able to rip off his skin and fling it in his face with a single diatribe; and even at 30, with years away from his dad, Diego is left unable to speak, feeling as if all of his accomplishments up to that point were the work of a dumb kid who thought he was smarter and more capable than he actually was.

Luther and Diego sharing a braincell. Luther has bad ideas. Diego has bad ideas. When they put their bad ideas together, they get terrible ideas. I loved watching them work together as a team, rather than being at each others’ throats for most of the season, even if I’m left hoping Olga Foroga had a pleasant and quiet day after that phone call.

Reginald. At first glance, it may look like the writers were trying to make him likable so they could parade him around as your average abusive-parent-with-a-soft-side. But it’s more nuanced than that. Abusive parents (and abusers in general) often fly under the radar because they fool outsiders into thinking they’re good people. They’re active in their communities. They give to charity. They have friends who attest to their virtue, significant others who think they’re the greatest. And that’s what we see with Reginald. We see him as the rest of the world did: an intelligent, eccentric man with a sharp sense of humor who cared deeply about scientific advancement. That’s how he evaded suspicion—because there were stories from years past of lively parties at his mansion, of what a gentleman he was to Grace and of how he did everything he could to save little Pogo. But those stories would all have come from people he considered his equals. When he’s with people he considers his inferiors—aka, the Umbrella kids—he’s openly condescending and demeaning. We get to see how he fooled the world, and it is chilling.

Elliot. He deserved better, and you can ship him with any one of the Hargreeves kids and get the cutest thing ever. 

The Swedes. They said so much while speaking very little.

Ben. He got more personality and screen time, and it was glorious. His love of his family and resentment toward Klaus practically leapt off the screen. The way he says “I’ve missed you all…so much” once they’ve all left was one of those right-in-the-feels moments; and watching him get so much of what he’s wanted for years when he possesses Klaus was beautiful.

Now, as for things I took issue with….

Ben. I understand why they ended his arc the way they did. I get that they were probably afraid the Klaus/Ben dynamic would grow stale if they didn’t change it somehow and wanted to give him a larger role in S3. His death(???) was heartbreaking and extremely well-done. But it also wasn’t foreshadowed. We never got any sense of what ghosts in the TUA ‘verse are, so the fact they can be destroyed by a ton of sound-turned-energy or by going too far into someone’s psyche or whatever happened….it’s not that it doesn’t make sense so much as there’s not enough evidence to determine whether or not it makes sense. It feels like the writers just kinda made that up so they’d have a reason to change Ben’s relationship dynamics, but if that’s the case, couldn’t they have done it another way? Couldn’t they have made it so the immense energy or psychic woo-woo or whatever gave him a power-up instead of destroying him? Vanya transferred some of her energy into Harlan and brought him back to life. Couldn’t something similar have happened with Ben? And if it tied him to Vanya as well as to Klaus, great! More fodder for angst and humor! (”Vannyyyyyyyy, stop hogging Ben!” “You got him for 17 years, Klaus, you can part with him for 20 minutes.” “Guys, don’t I get a say in this?”) I’m glad they didn’t write him out of the series entirely, but I still wish they’d kept him and all the character development he’d gotten throughout S2.

Episode 10. It looks like they tried to cram half a season’s worth of developments into 45 minutes. Twenty minutes in, I’d already said “Wait what the fuck” half a dozen times. A lot of those moments were explained later on, and I was able to make enough inferences to fill in any lingering plot holes, but…still. Too much stuff, too little time. E9 was a perfectly satisfying ending to the season. Yes, it leaves the siblings stranded in 1963, but they could’ve tied up those loose ends in the S3 premiere.

Lila. She’s an incredibly fun character, but her arc is kind of a mess. Most of that is due to E10, and I do feel that more time to let her arc breathe would’ve worked wonders, but I’m left feeling like her turn from “Handler is the best mom ever and I lurve Diego too” to “KILL DIEGO AND HIS EVIL FAMILY” to “Handler is a bad mom and Diego is right” happened too quickly.

The Commission. Okay, so, the Handler announces the entire Board has been killed, and she’s stepping in as director even though everyone appears to know she’s been demoted (and demoted pretty severely—she went from having an office bigger than some apartments to being a case management drone). There’s suspicion and lots of it. But then, La Resistance is….ten or so people in a single room? And when she calls the temps agents to her side, thousands of them show up ready and willing to fight and die? I dunno. Just seems like there should’ve been more splintering going on there. Again, I think they needed more time to tie everything up.

Aside from those complaints, I loved the season. I set aside most of a day to binge it, and I do not regret that decision at all.

[thatlittleegyptologist]

Were mummy unwrapping parties and medical cannibalism of mummies still things that happened in the 20s? The discourse surrounding the Darnells has remained me of some of the more wtf aspects of colonialism in Egypt and I honestly can’t think of a better symbol of what colonists did to ancient Egyptian stuff than literally eating human remains.

No. Medical consumption of Egyptian mummies had by and large stopped by the early 18th Century (1700s), most popular in the 16th Century (1500s), as they’d long since moved on to no longer bothering with ‘mummified’ remains and simply used any remains. The practice of using mummies in medicine was because the process of mummification used bitumen, known as mumiya in Arabic from which we get the name ‘mummy’, was said to have healing properties, as touted by Dioscorides. Nevertheless it was not a widespread practice, as most people seem to believe, and by and large the ‘mummies’ consumed were fakes. As with every trade of ‘unusual and rare items’, most sellers were peddling fakes on their shelves to unsuspecting customers. This led to the practice of grave robbing from fresh graves of Europeans in order to supply the demand or just using animals like camels or cats. Indeed, Guy de la Fontaine, a doctor to the king of Navarre, on a visit to Egypt in 1564 asked an Alexandrian merchant about ancient embalming and burial practices. The merchant laughed and said he had made the mummies he was selling.  Europeans were mostly, unknowingly, cannibalising themselves....and fake mummies made from camels.

There was also a lot of anger about it at the time too. French surgeon Ambroise Paré, in his Discours (1592), and Pierre Pomet, in his Histoire Générale des Drogues (1694), both warned of the risks and unsavoury nature of consuming human remains and Aloysius Mundella, a 16th-century philosopher and physician, derided it as “abominable and detestable.” Leonhard Fuchs, a 16th-century herbalist, accepted foreign mummy medicine but rejected the local substitution. He asked, “Who, unless he approves of cannibalism, would not loathe this remedy?”.Though it should be noted that bitumen wasn’t in use in mummification for the first 2000 years, and mostly only came in with the Romans, which means most people were ingesting just ground up human dust. But, as I said, the practice of mummified human remains in medicine in Europe had largely stopped by the early 1700s, and wasn’t in use by the 1920s. This was largely due to the fact that medicine changed, and preferred to use fresh corpses. Corpses used in medicine is not new, and is a worldwide thing, it just seems strange to us now because we synthesise our own medicine based on current scientific thinking. The current scientific thinking back then said ‘human remains are great’ and had large connections to Transubstantiation in Christian beliefs. I think there’s a disconnect for us at this time because it’s so obviously the wrong thing to do that we baulk at the very idea of it. The thing to do here is remove the moral judgement (we all know it’s wrong) and look at the reasons the practice happened in the first place. There are a lot of odd, yet logical, conclusions for why they did what they did in terms of medicine. Was it good? Hell no. Is it understandable? Yes, in a bizarre way. History is all about humans having done the things they do, and trying to find the reasons why they did it. 

Mummy unwrapping parties were a Victorian thing, and from what I can tell largely remained in that era. There may have been some in the very early 1900s, but it had been recognised that it was not good practice and had by and large stopped due to the fact that the archaeological community had moved to a preservation stance. I’m certainly not finding strong evidence for it being a frequent practice after 1910. However, the practice has strong, undeniable, racist origins. Many mummies were deliberately unwrapped in order to study their bodies, and unfortunately it has a lot to do with the long debunked practice of Phrenology/Craniology. Phrenology, is the practice by which the skull is measured to determine factors like race/intelligence/mental capacity/likelihood to commit crimes etc. Men like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Augustus Bozzi Granville, unwrapped mummies in order to somehow prove to people that the Egyptians were white, because it was not possible, in their racist and colonialist mindset, that people from the African continent could have built these monuments because their skulls showed ‘intelligence’ and ‘white features’. It’s so racist it’s...I don’t really have the words. These sorts of men were not just early Archaeologists and Egyptologists, but also Doctors and Surgeons. Most mummies ended up in ‘medical collections’ rather than archaeological ones, though they were later moved. It’s a prime example of how racist and colonial thinking influenced not only the study of World History, with the founder of the British Archaeological Society Thomas Pettigrew being the type of man listed above, but also the underpinnings of modern science. 

So, no, the Darnell’s 1920s aesthetic is not directly evocative of such things as medical cannibalism or mummy unwrapping parties, though I’d definitely say mummy unwrapping parties are far closer. However, their outfits are directly evocative of the types of people who carried out atrocities in the name of the British Empire across the globe, not just Egypt, but also the outfits of people that are widely known within Egyptology to be deeply racist and were committed to colonialist ideology. They know this. They choose to evoke this aesthetic anyway. I have no sympathy for two people who build their entire identity and career around making colonial racists look ‘cool’, and perpetrate through imperialist imagery.   

Mummy Stories Blog on Mummies in Medicine

Science History Institute Blog on Mummies in Medicine

[nikxation]

I'm fucking tired of this shit.

Every day it feels like the US takes one step forward and then three steps back.

No, an embryo is not "a person". Doctors and researches can't even begin to reach a consensus on when an embryo is considered "alive" and "a person". It's a matter of opinion, largely based on when an embryo would be viable outside of the womb, and even then there is some uncertainty.

Take a look at this article by Wired, it explains the whole dilemma a lot better than I ever could.

You can't draw a unanimous line on this. It's a messy problem with messy implications, and unless science (and not just medical science, there's a philosophical aspect to this too) figures out that hard line in the sand, there is always room for debate based on the individual's personal beliefs.

Fertilized eggs fail to implant all the time. Implanted eggs can still fail too. Medical science is improving more and more each day to where embryos can be maintained outside the womb earlier and earlier, but there are no 100% guarantees on any of it.

Where we are right now, we don't have an answer, no matter how much people on either side claim there is a solid one.

I am pro-choice. I personally would be willing to get an abortion if I felt it was the best course of action if I found myself in a pregnancy situation. Yes, a pro-choice person could also make the choice to not want to ever get an abortion. That's the beauty of the "choice" part of it. You get the ability to choose based on your own personal beliefs about the matter. I've said it before, and I will continue to say it because it's freaking important: There is not a scientific consensus on the point at which a baby/fetus/embryo/etc. is considered "alive". It's all up to interpretation and beliefs. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or is wrong.

I believe an embryo is not a "person" until it is well into when it has all fully-developed organ systems (including the nervous system). To me, anything before that is really just cells, maybe with some organization to them, but nothing viable. To people who believe an embryo is a person before that, that's your belief, and I am not in a place to tell you if you're right or wrong. But you are also not in a place to tell me I'm wrong either. Because again, there is not a cut and dry answer to this.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but you are not allowed to push those beliefs onto other people.

I can understand and empathize with people who believe that an embryo is "alive" at the early stages. I can understand people who think it has a soul and wouldn't want to abort for that reason. I can understand people who just choose carry a pregnancy to term for the simple fact that they believe it is alive, no real justification to it outside that. That's fine.

But I ask for the same level of empathy when I say that I do not believe in the existence of a soul, that I believe an embryo is not really "alive" until it is readily viable outside the womb. I even think the levels of "viability" that require insane levels of medical intervention are pushing the limit. That might sound harsh to some people, but it's what I believe. And unless there is hard evidence that has a solid consensus behind it, you will not convince me otherwise.

Abortion is not murder. It's not. People who call it murder are just fear-mongering people who are already having to make a difficult decision (because, yes, no matter how hard the Right tries to push the image, people aren't going out and getting abortions willy-nilly and going out clubbing to celebrate afterwards). It's a scare tactic to try to convince people that they're monsters for considering abortion and trying to guilt them into keeping the pregnancy. And those of you who don't view your words as being used that way, consider what you feel you're accomplishing by calling it murder. Because, again, no one knows when that embryo is considered alive, the only consensus surrounding the whole argument is that there is no consensus. You are calling it murder to try to impose your morality onto another person, whether you feel you are doing so maliciously or not.

Trying to write laws around something as dubious as conception and abortion is tricky, and Roe V Wade was a pretty solid move in the right direction, because it at least protected the person's right to choose up until the point that a fetus was viable outside the womb, which, at the very least, is a soft line at which most people would agree an embryo is "a person". If you, personally, thought that the fetus was "alive" prior to that point, that is your belief. You are not allowed to force that belief onto another person.

I'm tired of people who will say that "pregnancy is beautiful and a gift etc etc" and then in the next sentence call it just "a fact of life that sucks". I'm tired of people who pretend that pregnancy is just something that people with uteruses are stuck with even though we have the technology to change it. I'm tired of pregnancy being a tool to punish people with uteruses for having sex, with no real way to hold the other half of the pregnancy situation accountable when they are just as at-fault. I'm tired of having to convince people that a 13 year old who was raped by their family member should not have to carry a child to term. I'm tired of watching anti-choice people who agree with me on the pervious point go through mental gymnastics when they try to explain away exceptions to their "rules". I'm tired of hearing stories about people with promising futures who had to throw all that away because a condom broke and their family/friends called them a "murderer" for considering the option that would be the best course of action for them. I'm tried of the unborn baby of dubious sentience having more importance than the living, breathing, fully-realized person with a life who got saddled with it.

I'm just... fucking tired of arguing with people who pretend that their answer is the "right one" on a problem that... doesn't have a right answer... And thus should best be left up to the individual and their physician.

Losing Roe V Wade is going to do a lot of damage. A lot more damage than it's going to do good. If you don't agree, I want you to consider that there is a common thread that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes it more dangerous. The only way to minimize abortion is investing money and research in quality sex education and forms of contraception. Maybe focus on that instead of the balls of cells that not everyone considers to be alive yet.

There are a few good posts going around about donating to pro-abortion clinics and funds. Take a look at those. Or at the very least try to keep your head up, advocate for change where you can, hope/pray that the US government gets their shit together.

TL;DR: No one, especially not scientists, can agree on when a fetus is considered "alive", pro-choice gives you the freedom to make the best choice for you wrt abortion based on your beliefs. Taking away that choice on a dubious matter to begin with is wrong. People can't force their opinions on conception onto others. I need a fucking nap.