HOME | DD
alexiuss β PERSONAL CATASTROPHE AND PROBABLE SOLUTIONS
Published: 2013-04-10 15:27:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 36336; Favourites: 690; Downloads: 277
Redirect to original
Description
Your life is headed for a disastrous end.Everyone will die.
That is a fact.
Especially you.
You will die.
Your friends will die.
Everyone you know will die.
These are indisputable facts.
Your body will break down and crash in one way or another.
Your heart will stop.
Your brain synapses will cease firing.
100% guaranteed termination.
You and everyone you know has less than 122 years left.
The oldest person alive was 122.
Oldest person alive now is 115.
Death should be your number one enemy.
Do not accept it.
Do not welcome it.
The question is - are you willing to extend, improve your life and the lives of those you love?
Why haven't you done it yet? Do you think it's impossible?
Flying for us was impossible until airplanes were built.
Now, the question is- how do we stop the personal catastrophe of death?
The logical answer is - science!
We can slow death down using modern medicine, and we can stop and reverse some accidental causes of death.
Aging is one cause that we cannot currently stop.
Should we simply focus all our efforts on stopping aging?
No.
Humanity as a whole is not ready for immortality.
If immortality was invented tomorrow, only the richest would attain it and use it as a tool to gain more control over others.
Control that equals to war and misery. Are the richest countries, companies and people solving problems?
They are not- a lot of them support wars and fund unsustainable developments.
If immortality was given to everyone tomorrow, overpopulation would quickly destroy civilization.
Before we can stop aging we MUST shift the pattern of human thought itself.
Of your thinking and my thinking.
Can it be done? Yes.
Will you do it? Probably not.
Not unless you take my words seriously and read this article every morning when you wake up.
Not unless you and I shift, or at least learn to shift our modes of thinking entirely into logical, rational and problem solving.
Basically, become amazing at life and solve all your problems.
Once all of your personal problems are solved, you can focus on solving problems of humanity as a whole.
-How does an individual become a problem solver?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Step 1:
Become a rationalist.
Understand the principle of "Occam's razor" to manage your life.
"Simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones.
Among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."
Occam's razor is used in medicine when there are many explanations for symptoms and the simplest diagnosis is usually is the correct one.
If a child has a runny nose, they probably have the common cold instead of a rare birth defect.
If a tree suddenly feel down in a forest - wind was responsible, not a wizard.
When faced with two or more answers, you can use Occam's razor to trim away improbable ones.
Any statement or answer made without proof or scientific evidence backing it, can be trimmed.
Learn to apply skepticism when faced with new information, especially information that has no logic or scientific proof behind it.
If you enjoy reading sci-fi books, a fun way to become a rationalist is to read "Harry potter and the methods of rationality".
Google it and read it.
If you know of more articles that explain rationalism and help learn it, link in your comments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Step 2:
Understand statistics and probability.
Embrace the scientific method.
Statistics rule the world. Probability defines it.
If you understand statistics you can master the art of understanding and interpreting reality most correctly.
If you know which decision leads to statistical win, you can make great decisions in life and solve problems very easily.
There is a pattern to all things in life. If you can figure out this pattern you will accomplish anything.
Yes, you need to know math, especially % math, to do it!
Real life example:
In 2007 I used probability to figure out a statistical pattern that would (at that time) get my artworks seen by millions all over the net.
Seasonscape now has 1.8 million views just on deviantart and I'm a successful freelance illustrator.
Others:
Joan R. Ginther, a former statistics professor, had won four different multi-million dollar jackpots in Texasβthree of which came from purchasing scratch-off lottery tickets. It was speculated that there was actually a pattern to where and when the winning tickets were sold, and that Professor Ginther had figured out this pattern.
If you know of great articles that explain how to learn statistics and help apply them, link in your comments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Step 3:
Become a problem solver.
Google is a collective knowledge of all of humanity. It has countless answers to questions(including incorrect ones).
A rational googler can differentiate between incorrect answers and correct ones.
A statistics-knowledgeable googler can calculate the probability of the most correct answer, discarding incorrect ones,
(by calculating amount of proof that applies to each answer and by statistically estimating how likely is each thing to happen)
Thus such a googler can answer ANY question as correct and as detailed as possible.
A talented googler can solve almost any problem in their personal life and help others solve their problems.
When faced with buying a new product- Google about it and read some reviews.
Some products are 50% cheaper online, obsolete, have better versions, or do more harm than good.
When faced with any problem in life from small to impossibly large- learn to immediately google for existing solutions or at least google and find tools that can help arrive at a solution faster.
If you know tutorials on improving googling skills, post them in comments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Step 4:
Change the world.
Embrace and promote scientific literacy.
-How do we create a "problem-solving" society?
We must raise a generation that is masterful at problem solving.
We must raise a generation that actively uses the internet to learn.
Education itself must be changed from "fact-memorizing" to "problem solving".
As soon as kids are old enough to understand logic, rationality and probability,
they must be taught how to utilize the full potential of google (or any other search engine).
Schools must first teach logical thinking and scientific literacy, and then they must teach the "art of googling for answers".
Once these two steps are achieved, a student has the skills to move forward on their own, solving all basic problems in their way and finding or creating tools to solve more difficult problems.
Imagine a school with wi-fi where students would be taught to to google answers on their laptops, instead of forever reading facts from books.
Imagine a school where students would be taught how to look at search queries and taught to understand which answer is most likely to be correct out of all the answers google provides.
Imagine a school where logic, skepticism, and critical thinking (information evaluation) are taught.
Imagine a school where students and teachers would be allowed to argue among each other to figure out which answer from google is most probable and most logical and which are answers can be disproved and how.
What if kids learned how to get their questions answered, instead of being provided answers by teachers to memorize?
What if kids were actively encouraged to google all the things in school?
What if right away kids would learn how to google topics that they are actively interested in learning about?
If all knowledge is immediately accessible, there is potential to destroy embarrassment and ignorance.
If a student is talented at something, they could immediately learn specific skills that would move their talents forward.
What if we figure out a way to raise kids who would actually get ALL of their questions answered from the beginning of their life?
A generation of kids who wouldn't be too afraid/embarrassed to ask the internet for help and would always know how to ask the right questions to get the right answers.
The world can be a much better place for everyone, if we change our mode of thinking from:
"oh god why"
to
"lets google it and solve this problem".
Related content
Comments: 290
very interesting however i don't think it would be as simple as relying on the internet for everything - humanity is already quite dependent on electronics & we cant be afraid to ask others questions or else people will become antisocial
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree that schools should focus more on problem solving then simply memorizing facts and equations. But Google is just a tool. The user should learn to have patients and have determination in there studies. If we were to teach a generation of immediacy. Then we would have a new generation of children with ADD who wouldn't be bothered to sit and think something through when it came to a real problem.
Even you for example put much of your time and effort into learning to draw and paint (I know as Im in collage for concept art myself) If you had been one of those people that just learned to get immediate answers and hadnt learned the patience it takes to study and discover answers for yourself then you may have never been able to put the dedication it took to learn the skills you have hammered into yourself over the years.
Google is a tool but it could easily become a crutch if leaned upon to dependently.
Kids need to learn the patients it takes to find answers and solve problems in there own minds or they may not be able to solve the ones in there own lifes or learn the determination to put real time and effort into there works.
π: 0 β©: 0
I greatly admire this philosophical poetic letter dedicated to improving human life. Whenever I'm in a pinch, I'll try to remember it all. It's very uplifting and reminds us all that we, as individuals, have the ability to improve quality of life simply by thinking! As well, we have the ability to improve the quality of life for others via problem solving! We are amazing creatures. But, I would like to add some food for thought.
Your ideal view of education is actually how my family's home school worked. We were taught to figure out problems and how to find the solutions for problems along side learning facts, how all of the above worked, WHY the solutions, and facts were all considered true. All of these benefited my education over other children in my age group. I am still better educated than the other children, ages 18 - 19, that I've met in the United States. Other countries have great education. However, the U.S. has a VERY faulty education system, and the majority of countries that surpass our schools, do so by actively doing the exact opposite of what America's schools do; The opposite of 'memorizing tests' and following the 'No child left behind' act, the latter of which, has been disastrous to the U.S. school systems as a whole. I could have been better educated, but I was not born in Finland.... OR, in a generation in which American schools, home-based, public, or private, were quite as great as other countries'..
I cannot wait for the day I turn 222. And by the time I'm 222, how long will people be living? We're already attempting to reach immortality. But the fact is, we can't. The human body, as is, runs down another link of genetic code in the 'chain' of it's nucleus. We literally "run out" of the ability to reform perfect cells. As the chain breaks down with every new cloning of a cell, we will "age" from more and more. These cells are incorrect clones; more and more imperfect clones. Our bodies' cells will degrade every time they are formed, reformed, and reformed again. This will continue until our body loses every link in the genetic chain of our cell's nuclei. When all of the nucleus is gone, we "die of old age." This is the point, at which, when all of our cells die, we go with them. There are no more new cells, ever. The current scientific fix for this? Research has gone into splicing humans to have a longer life span by taking a genetic codon in a type of garden worm and either transplanting it, or locating a similar codon and switching it 'on' in human embryos. What will this do? Make that embryo live to be 500 by slowing down the rate at which our cells degrade, yes! ...But, it will not make that child immortal. The only known animals to reach immortality have the ability to reverse-age at will, renew their entire body's systems and revert to a fetal state of development (or pupal, in the case of the immortal jellyfish), and then regrow all over again. If humans did this, they would not retain all of their memories from their "before life" and the moment they reverted to a fetus would also be the death of who they were prior. Immortality is unlikely... at least for a long time.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ockham's Razor........the simplest answer is let people do what they have done for millions of years......die of "natural" causes.
π: 0 β©: 0
Are you familiar with Less Wrong [link] ?
π: 0 β©: 1
Then add a section of "If you want to know more:" where you reccomend books and Less Wrong
π: 0 β©: 0
please become president
π: 0 β©: 0
This is certainly thought provoking. I'd say that the current generation is being raised in a world where the internet actually exists in a capacity as to make it possible for people to search for near anything in the scope of human knowledge (as opposed to when I was a child and the internet wasn't used in the same was as it is now and/or Google didn't exist).
I can appreciate Steps 1 and 2 for sure (though irrationality has caused both great and tragic things in the course of history). However, what good is rationality in the face of irrationality? As a whole, rationality can be very useful and beneficial to many, but then you run into issues of irrational things (e.g. emotions). One such example lies in moral judgements (a large part of problem solving) in the form of utilitarian judements and deontological judgements. Utilitarian judgements are what happens to be appropriate to/in help(ing) the majority (regardless of certain consequences like killing someone), whereas with deontological judgements one always does what is morally "right" and never wrong (so they would not kill someone, even if the greater good may depend on it). Deontological judgements tend to override cognitive processing (utilitarian judgements) because the emotional processes are too strong, even if it would be more logical/rational to do something utilizing utilitarian judgement(s). So I don't know if a full shift would be possible.
Step 3 seems a bit confusing with the last part. Do you mean that people, in general, who know how to use Google well are good at solving problems in their personal life (in general), or that people who know how to use Google well can solve nearly all of their personal problems by way of utilizing Google well (using Google to find the solution to their problem(s))?
Step 4 is probably the most interesting of all. I think that it's impossible to decouple "fact-memorizing" and "problem solving". To solve problems, you need factual information; using the factual information as a base, one can more effectively solve a particular problem (rather than trying to solve a particular problem without having any basis for how to use the provided information effectively to solve said problem). Also, using Google seems like just an electronic means of/for "fact-memorizing". You search for an answer, you find it, you memorize it/use it. I would also argue that teachers don't simply "provide answers to memorize". Teachers provide you with a certain set of information which you are designed to memorize, but they also incorporate problem-solving aspects to their lessons and subject for you to utilize the information provided and to prompt you to further expand the knowledge base that you have obtained from the lessons. Teachers also expect a student to do some searching for answers and, if the student cannot find the answer, they can act as a tool to gear them in the right direction to find answers themselves/utilize the information in a new/different way. Though, if we are to compare teachers to answer-giving tools, solely, is that not what Google is as well? Something that merely provides an answer that has been searched for? Perhaps I am missing the point of that particular comment. I would also say that Google cannot account for other matters, the unexpected and unique factors involved in every individual, involved personal problem. While I think that using Google to find related topics to some problems is effective and handy, I do not believe it is capable of providing all of the necessary and/or pertinent information to solve all/most of one's problems in the exact manner that they occur/develop.
I feel like the last sentiments of Step 4 really get more of the point across than some aspects of the other Steps (but that's to be expected as it is your closing step and incorporates elements of the previous ones), but it also carries a bit of a more open, inspirational tone than some of the other steps--just a little note I suppose. Though, I don't know anyone (maybe I'm not as in touch with kids these days as I suspect) who is embarrassed to use the internet as a search/learning tool, I'd say that knowing how to properly use Google, overall, is handy and should be taught to people when they are ready to use it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Lovely Idealism. Good, now lets crush it.
I consider myself to be a smart, well read, and politically aware.
The problem with people is that they are people, full of flaws and quirks. Not everyone shares the ideal that education is important. The education methods we have are not necessarily good for everyone, some people learn differently. Logic and rhetoric and dialogue are not things people find valuable in education. The whole of the public education system in the U.S.A. has been subverted to become social construct centers, not education centers.
I don't think google is the end-all-be-all of education in the future. The internet has allowed the transfer of knowledge to increase exponentially. Then again, how many people do you know who only use it for meme's and porn?
Politically speaking, not everyone has an interest in politics even though it affects them greatly. Look at the number of people who vote.
π: 0 β©: 2
Is it an ideal that education is important or a reality? If you don't have some level of education, then what can you really do?
This may be because of me and the people I grew up with, but logic, discussion, and dialogue were and are integral to our learning.
Google may or may not be the end all of education, but can it hurt to know how to look something up if you want to know about it? Google is probably more accessible than books and articles on specific subjects for most people. Part of this letter is about learning how to use the internet for more than quick gratification.
Politically speaking, wouldn't everyone who is able have an interest in politics if they understood instead of having surface knowledge that politics affects them so much?
π: 0 β©: 1
People are fickle.
Education is important. The type of education depends on where you live. Knowing how to trade on the stock market is absolutely useless to an Aborigine living in the outback of Australia. Being knowledgeable of the world allows you to manipulate it to your best advantage. Education is a necessity, the way you are educated is variable.
Answers on Google are quick and easy to get, but not always factual or accurate or representative of the entire story. Books on the other hand usually are fact checked (not always), and require being approved by publisher before going to print. This creates a standard which places more value on the words written in a book. On the internet, anyone can write anything and claim it to be true. The value of efficiency and ease of access are two more values that must be assessed. So to reiterate, the internet is good for quick information and books are better for factual information. Another problem is that the internet gives us too much information, not necessarily relevant information. There is no real Dewey Decimal system for the internet for finding relevant information, the closest it has is Google.
"Politically speaking, wouldn't everyone who is able have an interest in politics if they understood instead of having surface knowledge that politics affects them so much?" This sentence is awkwardly structured. But I understand your point. Your point is contradictory. If I may paraphrase "If people understood politics, then they would be interested in politics, instead of having a surface knowledge." Most people do not know politics and only have a surface understanding of politics, if they understood politics, then the people you are talking about don't have superficial knowledge, therefore the understanding people already had a knowledge of politics. Your sentence assumes that people already have an interest in politics, because they bothered to become politically aware.
A better question is "why are most people apathetic of the political constructs that govern their lives?"
π: 0 β©: 0
I remember reading something about death in a magazine. It compared aging to printing. If you print a paper, scan it, reprint, and repeat, the contents on the paper gradually diminish until nothing remains, just as the cells in our body gradually diminish until our expiration. Personally, I'm still torn between death and immortality, as I've never really given that much thought into them until I read this piece..
π: 0 β©: 0
If "a lie" is a comparison, and "a whacking lie" is comparative, then the superlative is "a statistical Information"...
What this saying means, is that not every information contain ultimately truth in it, nor pure fact. Internet has information that people has gathered so far, but there's still much more we still don't know. For example, in antique times people thought that atom is most tiny part you get from any material, but then we learned that there's tiny-er parts in it: electrons, protons, and neutrons. Nowadays we know that proton consists of quarks! If people from antique would hear of this, they would be like: "Wtf? Here we thought that the atom was tiny?!"
Google is only footstep forward to conclusions, only if we know how to combine together information we gain: personal experience, other peoples gathered information, common knowledge and cogitation. ...But how we solve things, depends on a problem we need to solve. It also depends on WHERE we try to get the information. Not every site is truthful, so it's important to check references.
...Philosophical thinking is interesting. And now I'm hungry. Good day or night for everyone. Smileyface.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree that humanity is going to have to become a lot better before they will ever be ready to live forever.
But I don't think that eternal life and eternal youth will ever be brought about through man's hand.
π: 0 β©: 0
i google it all the time . . . but finding information by itself is nothing without processing and applying what is learned and no amount of logic will correct good ol' human stupidity or foolish pride. i know many logical people who wouldn't last a week in the wild. life is more than knowledge and knowledge does not bestow wisdom nor is logic wisdom.
if people change their attitude about sex, we could halt over-population and keep everyone happy. in the end, immortality would be a curse rather than blessing. death is merely the path to another life. i had 3 near-death experiences and can say this with certainty.
our purpose is to play our bit parts, continue the story and move on, to continue our own.
π: 0 β©: 0
My head hurts now.... X/
But despite how overwhelming this is, it's perfectly simple about solving solutions it just harder to actually start.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well thought out. Let's hope someone in a meaningful position reads this.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why? What would they do? What would you want them to do? What counts as meaningful?
Think Global, Act Local.
π: 0 β©: 1
To somehow improve our society.
π: 0 β©: 0
People already live way too long; if the average life expectancy increases even more in the future, the planet will be completely ruined and inhabitable within 100-200 years. Working to extend life expectancy even more is pure egoΓ―sm towards people who are not born yet, not to mention the non-human life forms in this world.
Besides, who would want to become 150 years old? That very thought is horrible in itself.
π: 0 β©: 2
I would like to be immortal and have eternal youth.
π: 0 β©: 1
Me too, but that's impossible, which is why I don't want to end up being 150 years or so, not knowing left from right, wrinkled, diseased and de facto dead without knowing it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I am assuming that, when you say "the planet will be completely ruined and inhabitable," you are assuming that life expectancy will somehow harm the climate further? If you're worried about overpopulation - the earth has plenty of space to accommodate everyone currently and in the future.
In fact, if you assumed everyone was alone, without families, and you moved the entire world population into Texas, each person would have approximately 1,058 sq. ft. of property; this is enough space for a townhouse or a small studio apartment. Granted, Texas would be a large subdivision, but it would leave the rest of the world completely vacant.
π: 0 β©: 0
If people were told to just find the answer from Google, they wouldn't be able to understand how they got there. For instance, if a child is asked "what is 2+2?" And they were allowed to Google it, they would see the answer is four. They wouldn't know why 2+2=4, they wouldn't know how 2+2 would equal 4, they would simply know that it does, and how would that help anybody?
Would we really change from "fact memorization" to "problem solving"?
Plus, if we go this route, we won't be able to advance, because we would have already decided that we have learned all there is to learn. If children are taught that they can find the answer to any question, they decide that it's unnecessary to learn at all, since the world is at their fingertips. Truth be told, there are many unanswered questions out there.
This is why we need teachers and schools- we need people to teach us the why, so that we ourselves can grow and apply it. Only than can we become a better world, a world where we know that we might never find out and understand everything- a world worth living in.
And when it comes to being rational...its just to much fun not to be. I like the guessing and the uncertainty of life- that anything can happen- and not the simplest or most probable answer.
But hey, that's just me. You're art is fantastic by the way!! Big fan. Keep it up :3
π: 0 β©: 2
Answers without context are useless.
π: 0 β©: 0
Why should I fear death? All things come to an end and by doing so, the world evolves.
Secondly, critical thinking should include critical understanding of Google's limits and an ability to use other sources including books.
Thirdly, in my experience, the answer that best correlates with the known facts tends to be the most accurate one. Life is seldom straightforward or black and white
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't really wish to get into a long debate, but I can't resist the comment section. I might regret this later.
Fearing death is subjective (in this line of belief, i.e no afterlife) because depends on whether you:
a) Think a life coming to an end after our normal lifespan is good.
b) Think a life coming to an end after our normal lifespan is bad.
Some think it sucks because dying is an absolute whereas life could be anything, so it's a situation of 0 vs infinity; but some people like it because it is natural and works currently for the rest of humanity and earth. There is an endless list of other reasons, people could argue it either way.
You're one of the lucky one's because the situation currently suits you. ^.^
π: 0 β©: 0
You've got a good, general idea here, but "Google everything" is not the answer to our problems.
You're saying that we should teach people how to find information, but not retain it and use that information for later. You don't truly learn just from reading an answer online. You learn from experience and from experiments.
That's not to say that the internet isn't a great resource of information, because it is the absolute best we have! But here, you're relying on it as if it is the end-all, be-all of problem solving.
Those answers didn't just pop out of existence and onto the internet, they were solved through experiments and real-world problem solving. You need to teach people how to experiment and learn and find information in their own way, not on the internet. Reading answers from a book is no different from Googling a question - you're just getting your answer from a different source. Teaching someone to experiment and see their results, their REAL answers, is far better than teaching which answer is most likely to be correct on a website.
Basically, what I'm saying is that scientific literacy, NOT "the art of Googling for answers," is how you learn to solve problems.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm not sure this is right. In the future that you imagine when people had a problem they will ask to Google and google will answer, but I don't think we can choose the correct answer only with statistic and probability: a good solution for a person can be a very big handicap for another, so majority, or people with better means, will be over other people and I don't see how this will be' different from our current world.
But let's presume your idea is right, what will happen to humanity? In all the time of his story the man found problems on his way and tryed to get a solution as best as he can. I'm not saying this is a good thing: we invented art and litterature, but we create weapons of destruction and we do too many wars. I'm just saying that it's innate in our nature, and if we try to change it we will live without a true motivation because google will found the answers for us.
Your point of view is very interesting, but I thing the Net can be more of this, I'm talking of a connection in all the world, in the future we all will discuss and take important decisions, without delegates. I don't think this is better, but we will have responsibility on our lives.
π: 0 β©: 0
The oldest person alive now is 115?
THIS IS A REVELATION!!
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
About the first part: The best solution is, just, thinking!
Once you die, where's the problem? You won't care about it at all. Because you can't.
So, if you don't care about death, why to fear it? Even more, why to care about it? Why should you care about something that you won't care about later?
And no, Google can't have the answers to everything. Deep web is there for something.
π: 0 β©: 0
Implying humans would give up the use of oil? How i wish for that to happen.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's catastrophe. Christ, spellchecking the titles are pretty critical.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is not a serious text... right?
But I give it credit for being thought-provoking.
And on the subject of death - as horrible as it is, it's still a better fate than the alternative. Imagine living for 500 years. A lot of things would happen, and it might be pretty awesome. But 100 000 000 years? And more? You'd have to become insane to survive that.
π: 0 β©: 0
I like this letter because I am close to finishing 'Island' by Aldous Huxley, and it sort of made me think of an alternate Pala. Populated entirely by self-fufilled, problem-solving google addicts! More realistic in this day and age than 'Island's ideas.
Not sure if I can do the whole probability thing (my maths is pathetic!) but I think it's a very good idea. I'll try my best to be the most rational, problem-solving world-changer I can be from now onwards!
P.S. It's not often that a piece of philosophy gets posted on a website like Deviantart. Just want to say that I think you are hugely impressive, and not only artistically anymore! 8D
π: 0 β©: 0
"If you know of more articles that explain rationalism and help learn it, link in your comments "
GLaDOS: You know, deleting Caroline just now taught me a valuable lesson: the best solution to a problem is usually the easiest one. And I'll be honest. Killing you? Is hard. You know what my days used to be like? I just tested. Nobody murdered me. Or put me in a potato. Or fed me to birds. I had a pretty good life. And then you showed up. You dangerous, mute lunatic. So you know what? You win. Just go.
This shows that the simple solution was to send the mute lunatic up an elevator to freedom. :3
(GLaDOS is a lot like ANNET; she killed all the scientists in Aperture Laboratories so she could continue to 'test' the gadgets without people telling her that she pretty much broke all the Health and Safety regulations)
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually if we'll be able to understand how we keep knowledge in our head we can change bodies and still know everything we knew before so we'll be kinda immortal. Or we can transfer our minds to a virtual world. Everything is possible you know. We might never die. So that's not a "fact". Wait and see man.
π: 0 β©: 0
First, to the misanthropes below:
Stop hating on humanity (or poshly pretending to hate on humanity). PROTIP: You're humans, jackasses. If you truly hate humanity, by all means, lead by example and off yourselves.
Then to the neo-luddites:
Hating on technology is gut-bustingly hilarious when you're using the prime tools of the last generation or two to hate on the technology you're currently using. Nuff' freakin' said.
Finally, to the author:
There's no truly objective "improvement" of civilization. One human's lens on improvement is another human's lens on ruin. That being said, Google doth approacheth the abstract idea of "strong-AI" faster than most other corporate candidates (note: "corporate" here should be taken as a term for "aggregate collective of human will" and not simply a raging anti-capitalist buzzword for
OMG EVIL EVIL EVIL")--and it will certainly be interesting to see where that progression takes us in another 25 or 50 years. Will that bring on a golden age in equality? Maybe tyranny? Well, the nature of "strong-AI" is such that we're talking about a post- or trans-human intellect whose motives--if they are to exist in the way we understand "motivation"--will likely be unknown and/or unknowable. Whatever we expect from current extrapolations regarding our own human progression is likely to be wrong, or simply just not applicable.
So what's the solution?
I don't have one, because I don't see a problem.
Persist and proliferate, as tends all life. Seek to experience love, growth and awe.
Are those the "golden rules" I hand down from on-high to you and your subsequent readers? Uh-uh. Just what's workin' for me.
But lastly: it's clear that your post indicates an eye toward seeking a great truth--and when more and more of us live inside these contemplations--humanity likely has a brighter star ahead. Such was the core of Aristotelian teaching as seen by Nicomachus more than 2000 years prior to our collision of ideas here. So keep it up. :]
π: 0 β©: 0
Hm, after reading this a couple of times I'm not actually sure if this is genuine or satire. Considering that this is in the free verse category I'm inclined to the latter :') But just in case this is serious, a serious reply:
I agree that critical thinking is very, very important. However, I do have some remarks.
1. First, some terminology. I think you might be confusing rationalism with rationality. Rationalism is a philosophical movement that takes reason as the only or most important source of knowledge. Basically, rationalists thought you could solve problems by using reasoning alone. Of course this is not how science works; you need to observe the world around you through experiments and such: empiricism. After you've found some data, then you can start using reason to find a theory that explains the phenomenon, etc.
So rationality: good - rationalism: debatable. Personally, I prefer the term 'critical thinking'.
2a. You argue for a better society that isn't focussed solely on personal gain. Yet, in step two (statistical) you give two examples that are incredibly egocentric. Interesting, but not very altruistic, unless Joan R. Ginther used statistics to find out how he could best spend his millions on charity or something.
2b. Also, statistics is hardly a solid base for distinguishing true from false. In fact I think it might not even deserve a place in this essay. Although I might just be a little confused about the way you've structured this. Statistics + science = good. But statistics + Google... not so good. I'd like to quote Bertrand Russell here: βThe fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.β
So Google results are probably better analysed on a case by case basis.
3a. Why do you want students to rely on Google so much? It's as if you completely disregard other sources (books, newspapers, magazines), while comparing these to each other can also lead to a better idea of the truth. It's like you place the internet on the same level as other sources (even though its answers may be false), while if you read a scientific magazine or book, you can be almost certain that the facts are true. I admit that critical thinking still applies as it does everywhere, but surely you can be more certain about facts in books than on the internet? It had to survive the publishing process after all. This also ties in with my following remark ...
3b. You say: Education itself must be changed from "fact-memorizing" to "problem solving". How can you ever solve problems if you don't know anything? I believe a person needs some fundamental knowledge before they're able to do anything. For example, how would you ever be able to have a debate with someone if you constantly need to Google for all your facts? That's just highly impractical.
Memorising is also a form of training your brain. You need to train your brain to store information from a young age.
4. You're taking a lot of liberties with the free verse category... To me this feels like prose, not poetry. I think this is an essay rather than a poem. You also call it a letter, but I don't find any of the characterists of letters in your text.
5. This text might need some restructuring as not all your points seem to tie in with the subject. Let's see if I get this right:
Subject: How does an individual become a problem solver?
Introduction: people die, which is not very nice. But we're not ready for immortality unless we solve problems for humanity as a whole. But to do that we first need to solve our individual problems.
As you can see this is quite a stretch: death >> immortality >> humanity's problems >> individual problems. Because of this death doesn't seem wholly relevant to the problem solving anymore. So I suggest editing the introduction somehow to make it more relevant to the rest of your text.
Step 1: become rational
Step 2: understand statistics and probability
Step 3: become a problem solver - This step is problematic, as it's the same as your subject. How can the part be the same as the whole? Aren't the steps meant to illustrate how you can become a problem solver? Then why is it a step in itself? I'd rename this to something like: 'step 3: combine your skills with Google'.
Step 4: change the world - You go even further off-topic here, as your subject is still: 'how does an individual become a problem solver?'. Changing the world doesn't have anything to do with becoming a problem solver; instead, it's the result of having become one. If you want to include this, I suggest you don't put this in a 'step' but rather in a conclusion to your text.
Basically, if you want to have your text have more impact, I suggest you work on the structure a little. This improves understanding and makes it easier to persuade people or for readers to react to it.
I'd also like to point out that placing this in free verse is no excuse to disregard structure
Still, you raise an interesting point that's certain to lead to some discussion. It's good to see people want to change the world, even if I don't fully agree with the method 
In short, I'd go for something in the middle: teach children to think critically, but don't rely so heavily on Google. The internet is good for quick, simple, superficial answers, but it ends there. As soon as you want some in depth knowledge about something, you'll have to find a book on the subject.
Oops, this turned into such a long comment I might as well turn it into a deviation x)
π: 0 β©: 0
Two things
I thought the start was very dramatic (used to good effect) with the whole death stuff. It reminded me of another text called 'The Book Thief', but then the next thing I know, it suddenly becomes a plug for Google and a waver on how the educational system should be reformed, which is an obscure shift in topic. I felt like it was two articles and as well written as it was, I think it was more an article, not a poem.
Next is that it's a cool idea, but it's idealistic. Don't get me wrong. I agree that the Internet needs to be integrated into the learning process, but to a full extent would invest too much reliance on search engines and disregard the values of literature through traditional book reading. I've seen it first hand because I work as a teacher - how having a physical book to read from impacts student's impressions of the editorial and creative world. Sure there will be those that don't enjoy reading, but those that do develop a profound respect for the concept of reading from a book. The Internet has too many pitfalls and perpetuated distractions and in some instances only simulates experiences.
Incidentally I do recall a printed article that stated how the quality of handwriting and spelling had degraded over the past twenty years and the Internet was to blame for it essentially. So again, agree fully the Internet is important but we have to balance that with traditional formats too.
Be that as it may, good work. You've obviously struck a chord with a lot of people by addressing a topic that does need to be discussed.
π: 0 β©: 0
Jsyk being rational doesn't make someone smart or good. And science and medicine have been known to go wrong just like anything made and/or or used by humans.
π: 0 β©: 0
>google solves problems and saves the world
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice idea, but it looks like a huge Google commercial to me. And no, Google doesn't have all answers.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>