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.
MSN: No one cares what you’re reading. Just go read it.
First the squirrels study humans closely, plotting our overthrow:
Nomnom, you need to watch more Doctor Who. The reason humans have evolved the way we did is insatsiable curiousity and a sense of playfulness. We are the only species on this planet that will go and poke the dangerous thing simply because it was there, and so were we.
I can’t believe a transhumanist lacks an understanding of sci fi, where these kinds of things are discussed.
A robot won’t suffer. Much of what we’ve achieved so far has been about allieviating our own suffering. There goes on major evolutionary motive right there.
We haven’t figured out how to quantify our own emotions, how do you propose to imbue some rust bucket with a sense of wonder?
I mean, I don’t think there’s a reason in principle why we couldn’t have a robot with insatiable curiosity, a sense of playfulness, the ability to suffer, emotions, and a sense of wonder.
I am just confused about why this means that humans should go extinct.
More squirrels, and what they are capable of:
Why should robots be inflicted with the capacity to suffer? That’s one of the more unpleasant aspects of being a living, sentient, organism. I say that robots should not have that ability, making their existence far more pleasant. Humans should go extinct so that our souls will live inside of these robots instead of flawed human bodies. It’s the only way to truly end suffering for good.
But eventually they attack:
Was, Sally the best of the women candidates? No doubt she was. Was she the best candidate? Not a chance.
Which candidates were more qualified than Ride? Can you name one?
Before becoming an astronaut, Ride got a doctorate in physics, beat out 8,000 other candidates for the first astronaut program opened to civilians, worked on NASA’s ground control crew, and helped develop the robot arm for the space shuttle. She was damn qualified.
The only reason there weren’t any American women in space before Ride was that NASA had previously selected only military test pilots as astronauts, and all military pilots at the time were male. Ride was part of the first wave of scientists and engineers recruited for astronaut training, a group that included both men and women.
If you’re looking for a token hire to complain about, you’d be better off with Valentina Tereshkova, the cosmonaut who was the first woman in space. She was selected over other candidates, including more qualified female pilots, because she was pretty and had a “proletarian” background as a textile worker, both of which looked good on Soviet propaganda. Also, her father was a war hero.
pillowinhell: Dr Who was not intended to be scientifically accurate. Creativity allows us to come up with ideas that are not grounded in reality as well as ones that actually are. I wouldn’t rely on FICTION to learn about why humans evolved and why we are the way we are.
>>>Also, you’re wrong about nuclear power being inefficient.
Well, THAT was random. Guessing you did some sort of massive Google search on my nick and you’re trotting out some other stuff I said in the past, because I didn’t broach the subject in this thread.
But yes, at the risk of derailing this thread even further, nuclear power is inefficient. The cost per KW/H is too high because while the running of the plant is cheaper than other forms of power plants, the initial investment is too high and is never recovered because the plant is obsolete or past its maintenance date before the economies of scale get to offset the larger initial investment. On paper, no nuclear power plant has ever been profitable. As an energy corporation, it is only possible to make a profit via nuclear power by profitting from state subsidies (basically, transferring taxpayer moneys into the pockets of kleptocratic nuclear power corporations who have friends in high spheres of government).
The reason for using nuclear power is not economic, but political/military. The only efficient use of nuclear power is as a form of armament, and the state was willing to spend a fortune in PR money to develop an unprofitable industry that would rehabilitate nuclear energy in the public eye. The push for nuclear energy by the American government is a *classic* success story in the litterature of Public Relations.
Pillow requested that it have the ability to suffer, hence I put it in. I am sure we can sort out whether robots should have the ability to suffer when we are close to being able to build conscious robots. Personally, I think suffering is part of being a goal-directed organism (sometimes you won’t reach your goals!).
…Uh, if it’s Humans In Immortal Robot Bodies, that’s not robots, dude.
Also, ‘souls’?
>>>Why should robots be inflicted with the capacity to suffer? That’s one of the more unpleasant aspects of being a living, sentient, organism.
Pleasure/suffering are feedback mechanisms for learning. Good luck having ‘intelligence’ without them.
Also, I think that the question of whether our immortal robot bodies should have the ability to suffer can be safely left until we have the possibility of developing immortal robot bodies.
Nom nom our suffering and anxiety is a major source of inspiration for humanity. Its part of what fuels our drive to suceed, to push envelopes and to become better.
All right, this thread is starting to sound like an episode of Star Trek TNG.
The squirrels in the local pleasure gardens (oh, Victorians!) ate the cigarrette butts people chucked on the floor, got addicted to nicotine, and then took to dive-bombing smokers.
You’d best lay off the evopsych then. *rimshot*
And besides dude, you’re talking about human-to-robot soul transference here. That is pure sci-fi right there.
And then the squirrels got in their pants.
Since Nomless is boring as hell, I just want to go further off topic to say “thank you” to the manboobzer that told me about Rex Libris/I, Librarian. LOVE IT.
Cloudiah, you’re welcome. 🙂
Transhumanist ( and your) goal are entirely the realm of sci fi, the place where theoretical science, ethics and philosophy converge.
Many sci fi writers were also scientists. Isaac Asimov?
Seriously, this entire conversation is like debating blog comment moderation tactics in 1945.
neither is trashumanism
Oh, and you should check out Vol. II (Book of Monsters). It’s got Cthulhu in it.
Pretty sure this happens to people with more “visible” disabilities as well. And being female doesn’t really seem to ameliorate that worth a damn either.
And heaven forfend a female someone be fat and disabled. Seriously, have you never been to Wal-mart, where seemingly EVERYONE feels the need to look at you like you are the world’s biggest asshole for daring to exist, if you happen to be fat, female and need the use of one of the motorized carts? But enough about my family members. I’m sure you’ve had it much MUCH harder. Asshole.