We’ve already heard from the so-called Thinking Housewife on the subject of Sally Ride. Meanwhile, over on The Spearhead, the regulars also have opinions about Ride. Regular commenter Keyster has this to say about Ride’s work in promoting science and technology education for girls:
She was supposed to have inspired a generation of girls to take science and math. While she may have inspired the “Grrl Esteem” movement, very few girls went on to get degrees in math and science as a result of Sally Ride … .
She was frustrated by the fact young girls were very interested in math and science initially, “…but for some reason we lose them around the age of 13.” MMmmm…I wonder why that would be. Because they discovered an interest in boys? Not surprisingly, Sally was able to keep her interest.
That’s right: girls are incapable of thinking about both math and boys. Lesbians are the only women who can sustain an interest in math, because their brains aren’t cluttered with thoughts of Justin Bieber. (Ok, bad example.)
In another comment, Keyster expresses his annoyance at the fact that Ride turned out to be capable of astronautery despite being a woman.
Sally Ride proved that a woman can have “the right stuff”, like Amelia Earheart proved a woman can fly long distances.
OK so now that we know she won’t become hysterical during her period while in outerspace and allow her used tampons to clog the toilet, what do we do with this information? Just because a woman accomplishes something normally associated with men, is this inspiring young girls to spontaneously excel en masse and compete against men in male dominated arenas? Or are women like Sally Ride the exceptions that prove the rule?
You know, “exceptions that prove the rule” aren’t actually a thing. The fact that Ride was a capable astronaut doesn’t actually “prove the rule” that women aren’t capable as astronauts, but instead suggests that this particular rule is not a real rule. You would think that Keyster, as a logical male, would understand this.
@Om Nom – No that would make you worse and more depressing than most transhumanists.
I do not believe any such thing. I believe that intuition, and not emotion, is the opposite of logic. Emotions can be rational, but they aren’t always rational. Fickleness however, is something that should be frowned upon regardless of who exhibits it.
Those transhumanists you describe are people looking to improve the human race, whereas I believe that the human race cannot be improved and the only way to truly make this world better is to replace people completely with machines.
“Looking to improve the human race” = making whiny internet comments,
“To me, those who believe that we humans can truly improve the world just the way we are are the ones who are overly optimistic. = The fact that 2/3rds of the human race is no longer considered the property of the other 1/3rd means absolutely nothing because it did not improve my life personally.”
FTFY.
(honestly)Why do you say such? I find it rather telling that you think transcending humanity is a greater sin than trying to modify with humanity in a way that favors certain people over others.
I think we need to look no farther than Battlestar Galactica to find out why wanting to replace the entire human race with machines is generally thought of as a bad idea.
Quite often, these people are direct, logical, emotionally stable, often conventional, and not fickle, flighty, or manipulative. .
What interests me is: where the hell did you get the idea that “direct, logical, emotionally stable, and conventional” is a valid stereotype of highly talented maths and science types? Or did you just make up your own stereotype? Because… that’s not how you do offensive stereotypes. You can’t just make up your own! Back to bigot school with you!
(In fact I’m pretty sure that intelligence has been shown to be positively correlated with openmindedness, which is basically the opposite of being “conventional.” Most of the other personality traits you mention are of course not something anyone has ever created a scale for. Though I do look forward to seeing your peer reviewed proof that women are “flighty and fickle”– what century are you even from, anyway, with creaky vocabulary like that? Did you look up all your sexist stereotypes in NWO’s encyclopedia?)
I gotta say MSN, what you’re talking talking about sounds more like voluntary extinction than transhumanism.
Dr, Who anyone?
“The incompatible will be deleted. DELETED. DELETED. DELETED.”
Om Nom,
Can you give a non-subjective definition of fickleness? What kind of measurable, quantifiable behavior constitutes fickleness? How often does a person have to change their mind, and for what reason, to be considered fickle. Because right now, it sounds like fickleness is when women make decisions that you don’t like or understand.
You’re definitely on to something with that comment, Dracula.
Science fiction is called FICTION for a reason, Ugh. And FYI, who are the 2/3 of humanity you’re referring to? Women? Because they are certainly not 2/3 of the population, even though they are a slight majority.
@Noadi: As long as humans exist, there will always be inequality. So much has been done to achieve universal human equality and there is no evidence that this goal is feasible. There is always going to be some group of people in this world who are treated unfairly. The only thing that can be changed is which group of people that is.
Why bother? Might as well replace people with squirrels. It’d be more peaceful.
Although I have trouble imagining why people would make any decisions about the world after people exist. The world can do what it wants, man, we won’t be around to enjoy it anyway, so who gives a fuck?
Because machines have the potential to be even more intelligent than humans.
I dunno, I’m vaguely in support of transhumanism (mostly because I want to live forever and possibly be a superintelligent robot), but I’ve always been a little weirded out by people who are super-invested in transhumanism and aren’t scientists. Like, okay, if you’re working on building an AI or improving the human body, cool, identify as a transhumanist all you like. And sure it’s fun to think about. But if you’re just Joe Random, why are you so fucking invested?
As a movement, transhumanism has a severe case of Cis Straight Non-Poor Abled White Man Syndrome.
Also, there is a distinct difference between “humans are selfish, cruel, and stupid and this is not going to be fixed in the near future” and “we cannot make anything better or make people happier at all.” I believe the former*, but the latter *does not follow.*
*With the caveat that we are also capable of breathtaking acts of goodness, often by the same fucking people.
Women, slaves, the colonized, etc. It’s actually probably closer to 80/20. Also, I love how you’re trying to factcheck me on this as if “not caring that 1/2 the world’s population is no longer the property of the other half” would be any better.
Men are actually a slight majority globally, but good try on the fail factcheck.
MSN: 2/3 is the (lowball, in my opinion) estimate of the number of poor people, women, people of color, disabled people, and other people who have been gratuitously oppressed in the past.
Also, why is “more intelligence” a moral good? o.O
Intelligent at doing what? To benefit who?
This is even sillier than regular transhumanism. At least regular transhumanism could (with enough magic fairy technology) benefit human consciousness. This is just setting up some wind-up toys to go after we all die, and hoping the squirrels are greatly amused by their antics.
>>>Because machines have the potential to be even more intelligent than humans.
That’s a non sequitur if I’ve ever heard one.
(There is no reason to prefer the species with more intelligence, as opposed to the one that has the better capacity to hide nuts. Squirrels for Planet Overlord!)
I’m pretty sure that the guy who is splitting on hairs on cybermen (transhumanists) vs. cylons (extinction) as if they’re actual political positions shouldn’t be lecturing people on what is and isn’t fiction.
It’s funny, I see our imperfect humanity and social systems and I say “there is much work to be done.” Om Nom sees the same thing and says “bring on the robots!” Perhaps this is what he had in mind:
Why can’t we have hyperintelligent robots AND humans? AND an Ozy in a immortal hyperintelligent superstrong robot body that can do gymnastics and has perfect pitch. BOTH/AND, people. BOTH/AND.
@Ozy,
Yes, but will you use poisonous gasses to poison our asses?
Give Mr. Om Nom copies of Ian M. Banks’ Culture novels so he can fap away from this website a few days (hopefully).
Well, I’ll say that “apparently”. Sally did inspire girls to out compete boys in school! =p
Forget it, BlackBlock. I think I’ll read more about Lie Groups instead. Along with this new book I just got about voice synthesis and recognition! 😉
Also, you’re wrong about nuclear power being inefficient. There has been a moratorium on the nuclear industry for decades due to the media hype and greenie propaganda exaggerating the dangers of nuclear power to the point of absurdity. There’s a REASON why naval surface ships use nuclear reactors and not wind or solar power for propulsion.
That’s gotta be the stupidest strawman I’ve ever read. What makes you so certain that consciousness requires biology?