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
Meh, I'm not concerned with death. I know it'll happen to everyone, I love how when pessimists tell people this they think they're opening everyone's eyes.
The solution is not to be afraid of death, it's to be able to say that you lived the best life you possibly could before it all ended.
That's how I deal with it. Works for me.
π: 0 β©: 0
For a simple and interesting way of understanding basic logic I would suggest Logicomix. it is a comicbook and quite easy to read. It is not hard to find if you google it, it is a nice intro to the history of logical thinking as well.
π: 0 β©: 0
im sorry but youre totally misguided.. we dont understand 10% about the universe or the body, we dont know what comes after death.. your lacking spirituality my friend.. its not only about science and facts.. and its def. NOT about preventing from dying..
π: 0 β©: 0
All your saying is that google is god. Nice marketing. I hope your being paid accordingly.
Technology is what's driving us towards a disastrous end. MNCs that run this illiterate, complacent generation. Why research or memorize when you can have the answer immediately and then forget it.
Life is ephemeral for a reason. Experience everything you can and do it with special people. You want answers to the big questions, get out into this little world of ours and find it on your own initiative...and not in a search engine
π: 0 β©: 0
Or by using the internet everyone just becomes incredibly lazy and the opposite effect occurs.
π: 0 β©: 0
Who in their right mind would want to save humanity?
π: 0 β©: 2
Because any living thing is worth saving.
π: 0 β©: 1
Any living thing except humans.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd have to disagree with you there, but each to their own.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's always better to be rational. But to refer everything to the internet reduces the inherent intelligence of any particular human. I think the old educators of classical education had it right when they taught, in succession, Grammar (with emphasis on memorization), then Logic (self-explanatory), and then Rhetoric (to be eloquent and cogent). Also, a good education, especially of history and literature, connects and clarifies thought and perception of the world. It is good and proper to have a perspective from many times on the modern world, not just the singular view of the modern world judging every other period of history.
In the end, memory, concentration, and logic are far more important than a flood of information - the internet is just a tool that speeds up what we have been doing for hundreds or thousands of years. Using the internet well is, I agree, a very important skill. But it is not "the answer" or some sort of panacea to make everyone wise and virtuous.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think there is a definite difference between access to knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge, which goes back to the old wisdom vs. knowledge argument. I think in your argument that you say to teach kids this ability to use the information for problem solving, but this seems to be a very idealistic approach...I'm more inclined to believe that given an unlimited amount of information that's just immediately available at every whim and search, humans are more inclined to be lazy with this kind of power. It's just too much information to sort out. Students don't even go beyond the third link of a google answer when assigned a research paper and when they do use google, it's more to satisfy their own personal curiosities rather than to fulfill their toolbox of solution-making. Also, while google does provide knowledge, it doesn't necessarily provide the grounds of discussion that are commonly the fermenting grounds of different ideas and solutions that could result from these ideas. Of course, discussions can indeed take place on the internet and using a google-approach education system would by no means eliminate active classroom discussions, but I do think isolating access to knowledge to an inactive computer system further isolates children and adults into their own little seclusive corner wherein they learn to depend solely on the internet for discussion, information, and company rather than the minds of actual people, the active exchange of ideas and analyses. Being able to voice your own thoughts is also significant in developing further ideas as well.
There's been a lot of discussion about the effect of Facebook on the social skills of growing adolescents, and one of the side effects is said to be the diminishment of social skills; people no longer have to see each other face to face in order to communicate. I think a similar effects would tranfer over to the active, progressional abilities of people if indeed the education system was based on google alone. As mentioned by many commenters already, immediate access to information cannot replace the individual's gradual, patient, cumulative strive to achieve the understanding of the concepts relayed by the information.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts to your thought-provoking idea! 
π: 0 β©: 1
If you think that's the extent to which google is commonly used for the purpose of problems solving, you have obviously never written any computer programs.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, that's true, but that's part of my point...this is from the perspective of someone who has never written a computer program, and from alexiuss' plan, I interpreted that the main theme was to use google as a source of information, rather than incorporating an entire IT program into it. Based on what I read, I assume that the students would also lack info about writing computer programs
π: 0 β©: 0
......This reminds me so much of my physics class. My teacher always has us figure out the questions, figure out how to get a new equation from one we know (ex. f=ma) and it's a really cool class (except for my grade). Part of the reason though is because not every problem is the same, every one is different. The only thing we 'memorize' is equations. And I love the thinking part of it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think it's a good idea to rely so heavily on the internet. Wouldn't it be a better idea to let kids gather into groups to research, exchange ideas, and work together to solve problems and answer their questions? just a thought.
π: 0 β©: 0
Is this some kind of first step of what might happen to society to end up as the RA world? Over-relying on the web and technology?
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd have to say that the internet isn't the answere to everything- the world is made of various blacks, greys and whites. What if a massive of ammount fo people started posting the wrong answere for a question and the most common answere was incorrect?
As for the internet totally dying, I'd think we'd (I know I would) survive. People have before us for thousands of years. Not to mention the people who are unable to purchase a computer or a device that has access to the internet. Also, where is the funding for having computers or tablets in every single classroom?
I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or a smart-@ss but I think these are logical arguments.
π: 0 β©: 0
interesting theory, but I have to agree with those that pointed out the fallacies in your statements. Relying on the internet for answers to all of your problems is plain foolish, in spite of it quite possibly being the repository of human knowledge. There is just too much chaff to sift out of the wheat, so to speak. Don't get me wrong...it is a wondrous tool...quite possibly the most incredible invention ever to come from our species, but it isnt the end all and be all to everything. Googling everything very well could promote laziness, and a kind of arrogance, to our way of thinking...as if to say...if it isnt on the internet...then it cant be right/true/possible. The concept of the simplest answer being the correct one is also a generalization...sure, most of the time the simplest answer would very well be the right one...but if it isnt? Should we completely disregard a complex answer because there is an simpler solution/easier way? People should be taught to look at things objectively...and to see all sides of something...not just what is most evident or most convenient. I think one of the biggest problems of society is complacency and laziness. I suffer from it myself sometimes I wont lie. As well, Rationality is a good way to look at problems, but it doesnt take emotion into consideration, and like it or not, we humans have alot of emotions that factor into our actions and behaviors. Yes, I think that google, rational thought, problem solving and understanding probability and statistics would be helpful, but they are all just tools, they wont solve all the worlds problems, or even all of your own. You just have to do what every other human does...muddle your way through and live your life the best way you know how.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sounds intriguing - this concept has a lot of potential. Haha, good to meet someone else who's read HPMOR. A great piece of written work, both for learning more about rationality and for personal enjoyment. Honestly, that one fanfiction has taught me more than my science teacher this year.
You might want to mention the Bayesian theorem, because even though you've explained many concepts of it in the journal entry, just mentioning it would give people another keyword to google for. If they want to learn more, that is.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with the basic changes to the way we teach our children. Memorization sucks - but it's good for simple and basic information that should not be "googled". Historical dates and events (birthdays and anniversaries), the multiplication table and a few generic constants should be memorized.
Logic and problem-solving is missing in the educational system and so is the willingness of the educational system (under the control of governing bodies) to introduce them; once people learn these two concepts, they will try to change the status-quo and that is not a desired outcome by the governing body. Change in the status-quo means the destruction of the current governing body. Why would they support such a thing?! They like to keep things the same so they can remain in control.
Google or the internet can't change the world for the better. According to historical data, all change comes through violent means - revolutions, wars, uprisings, etc... Even cultural revolutions are violent. The one that took place in Europe in 1848 eventually led to WWI and Communism. It will take a global disaster to change us for the better. Think ==> biblical flood.
π: 0 β©: 0
You have a lot of good points, such as we have a limited life and we should be problem solvers over fact-memorizers. There's only so much theory can teach us, and when we apply our knowledge well, we become a more productive and helpful society. However, there are some points I can't agree with.
Statistics are not always as reliable as we'd like them to be. At best, they can give us the most probable answer, but there is always margin of error. On top of that, statistics can be manipulated to give whatever answer you want. I'm no stats pro, but when you include or omit outliers or use certain formulae, you can get any answer and it would be "correct". Welcome to science labs!
As for "Google the Answer" - we had and still have an place where all the answers are. It's called a library. If you knew how to read, you could get the answers for free. In at least my school, we were taught how to sift from the questionable material and the reliable sources, we debated on all topics, and we tried to really learn and apply the knowledge. Information always has been available to those in first world countries - people just don't apply themselves. Maybe that's the real issue, not "Google/find an answer" or "Oh God, why me?" but "I should maybe try something and find the resources that would get me out of this mess in the little time I have left."
π: 0 β©: 0
LoL i'm a pro at steps 1, 2, 3 just need to work on 4.
π: 0 β©: 0
you would make a very interesting philosophy professor
π: 0 β©: 0
Very thought provoking. I like the idea of children finding the information themselves through the internet rather then reading it in a book, a book maybe contain a right answer but is it the "right answer"? Most children only learn from what is told to them in a book and by their teacher, they don't know the other side of the story or how that fact is still existing today.
π: 0 β©: 0
The way that I see it is that until we know more about where we come from, death for all we know is very convincing. Now, I want to mention that I am a strict believer in materialism. I'd dare say it is possible you may have lived before theoretically under some form of cyclical events, but there is no evidence to suggest this. If everything is truly cyclical even though we're not actually seeing it yet, then it wouldn't even matter whether you're dead by now as you're off to being another life form and you would not know that you used to type on a computer. For now, I lean on the no-come-back idea, but I am not excluding the possibility that we may have come from cyclical events entirely.
π: 0 β©: 0
Reminds me of the book the declaration... After reading that I am very anti-immortality 
π: 0 β©: 0
This was so well wrote I put it on my Tumblr, if that's okay with you. Of course I gave you full credit too. Here's the link to it. [link] Please tell me if this is okay with you. I'd be happy to remove it if its not.
π: 0 β©: 1
>>this was so well wrote
>>well wrote
>>wrote
π: 0 β©: 0
This was an interesting read. I don't 100% agree with everything stated/proposed, but I like the way you think.
π: 0 β©: 0
I've never really cared much for humans. If this was dedicated to improving the condition of the world and the lives of animals of other species, I'd completely agree.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with most of what you say here, but I don't think people should see death as an enemy. It is one you'll never beat, nor one that's in any competition with you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I was thinking the same thing (talking about the whole death thing).
It's not like people can avoid it. Seeing it as an enemy could make people do who knows what, since they know that it's an enemy that they can't stop.
I, myself, love death. I see nothing wrong with it at all, and I'm patiently waiting for the day death comes for me. I see it as an escape from being surrounded by the worst animal(s) on Earth.
π: 0 β©: 1
I completely agree.
But actually I just see death as the perfect conclusion to something such as life. While I'm not waiting for it, I'm not going to hide from it either. And when my time comes, I'll embrace it. Personally I feel it's a shame death is always treated as something unfair and "evil", when really it's just that we are all temporary and always will be. There shouldn't be anything negative about that.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know why, but this made me smile.
Thank you ^.^.
π: 0 β©: 1
Heaven is real. Death, your argument is invalid
π: 0 β©: 4
NOTICE TO ANYONE THINKING OF POSTING A REPLY TO THIS: I AM SICK OF ARGUING, ANY ARGUMENTATIVE OR DISAGREEING COMMENTS WILL BE FLAGGED AS SPAM AND YOU MIGHT POSSIBLY EVEN GET BLOCKED FROM MY PAGE IF YOU'RE RUDE ENOUGH SO SAVE YOURSELF THE TROUBLE AND HIT THE RED X IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER BEFORE POSTING A REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
That first part is a matter of opinion. It's pointless to state it as if it's a fact.
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe it as fact. You reserve the right to disagree. Isn't that what the comments are for, though, sharing one's opinion on the piece shown off by its maker?
π: 0 β©: 1
You are free to believe what you want. I'm just telling you that it's not a fact. That, what I just told you, is a fact.
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>