In France for instance this is almost a show-stopper, as the law has become even more restrictive recently as to what can be done with the body of a dead person (interment in an official cemetary or storage of ashes in designated sites are the only two options; at least before you were allowed to keep auntie’s ashes on a shelf at home—no longer now).
What prompted that bizarre legislation? I doubt they are becoming more religious or superstitious. There aren’t any huge health concerns with storing a bunch of ash. The authorities just want to assert their power over folks?
This would seem to prove that there are no non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France (at least as citizens.)
Arbitrary exercises of government power are expected and not opposed because we can’t internalize the real opportunity costs of keeping such policies and laws in place and because our monkey brains confuse the decision of legislature with a decision taken by someone high status in a small tribe.
This would seem to prove that there are no non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France
How rational do you think this sort of remark makes you look? (Downvoted.)
What prompted that bizarre legislation?
It’s hard to ever answer this kind of question precisely, but I suspect the case of the Martinots had something to do with the timing of it, triggering new legislation specifically to avoid a recurrence.
The more general force behind it is the pervasive meme that “our lives are not in our own hands”, which justifies a number of stances: on abortion, on euthanasia, on suicide and assisted suicide, and on cryonics. The meme is, I suspect, more likely to occur as a tribal belief of people who identify as “conservatives” or “the right”, and that’s who has been in power here for a while.
Logic is a useful tool to have at our disposal, but we should avoid falling into the trap of losing track of the difference between logical deduction and intuitive inference, let alone expressions of anger and frustration (however justified).
Stepping back and looking at it objectively, do you not think a more likely conclusion to start with is that there are non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France, who just don’t happen to form a majority?
Have I really underestimated the inferential distance so much? I’m curious, is there anyone reading this who could follow the reference?
It is, in fact, a logical deduction from straightforward premises. Moreover it is one that I don’t particularly care about as more than a curiosity.
Stepping back and looking at it objectively, do you not think a more likely conclusion to start with is that there are non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France, who just don’t happen to form a majority?
Technically no. The probability I assign to less than 50% of the population of a country being rationalists is somewhere in the ballpark of a mere 99.999%. That is less than 1. I say ‘technically’ because the comparison is not relevant.
Nitpick: I think you mean underestimated the inferential distance? But that’s not the appropriate concept, because, again, this is not actually a matter of logical deduction. Are you suggesting it’s suicidal for a Frenchman not to emigrate to a country where cryonics is available? If so, I can point out several ways this is not a deduction.
What prompted that bizarre legislation? I doubt they are becoming more religious or superstitious. There aren’t any huge health concerns with storing a bunch of ash. The authorities just want to assert their power over folks?
This would seem to prove that there are no non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France (at least as citizens.)
Arbitrary exercises of government power are expected and not opposed because we can’t internalize the real opportunity costs of keeping such policies and laws in place and because our monkey brains confuse the decision of legislature with a decision taken by someone high status in a small tribe.
How rational do you think this sort of remark makes you look? (Downvoted.)
It’s hard to ever answer this kind of question precisely, but I suspect the case of the Martinots had something to do with the timing of it, triggering new legislation specifically to avoid a recurrence.
The more general force behind it is the pervasive meme that “our lives are not in our own hands”, which justifies a number of stances: on abortion, on euthanasia, on suicide and assisted suicide, and on cryonics. The meme is, I suspect, more likely to occur as a tribal belief of people who identify as “conservatives” or “the right”, and that’s who has been in power here for a while.
Excuse me? I did not think the straightforward logical deduction would be so hard to follow after alluded to.
Logic is a useful tool to have at our disposal, but we should avoid falling into the trap of losing track of the difference between logical deduction and intuitive inference, let alone expressions of anger and frustration (however justified).
Stepping back and looking at it objectively, do you not think a more likely conclusion to start with is that there are non-suicidal rational thinkers living in France, who just don’t happen to form a majority?
Have I really underestimated the inferential distance so much? I’m curious, is there anyone reading this who could follow the reference?
It is, in fact, a logical deduction from straightforward premises. Moreover it is one that I don’t particularly care about as more than a curiosity.
Technically no. The probability I assign to less than 50% of the population of a country being rationalists is somewhere in the ballpark of a mere 99.999%. That is less than 1. I say ‘technically’ because the comparison is not relevant.
Nitpick: I think you mean underestimated the inferential distance? But that’s not the appropriate concept, because, again, this is not actually a matter of logical deduction. Are you suggesting it’s suicidal for a Frenchman not to emigrate to a country where cryonics is available? If so, I can point out several ways this is not a deduction.
Yes.