I like this essay, but I agree that it needs to be made “tamer” for non-transhumanists. I think it can be made safer with little loss of poetry by changing:
That one day we might expand beyond the Earth and the Solar System and the huge, luminous spiral of the Milky Way.
to
That one day we might expand beyond the Earth and the Solar System and into the huge, luminous spiral of the Milky Way.
Extrasolar colonies are an acceptable idealistic dream; extragalactic anything is too “out there.”
Also, the sentence mentioning the defeat of death, while a good thing in my eyes, is probably not in your interest here. Mentioning the end of poverty or war or hatred or disease or some other subset of suffering is both less grandiose and at a shorter inferential distance than mentioning the end of death.
Great point about the Milky Way part; I changed it. I’m not sure about the death part though. It might be weird to say that it took a fanfiction to convince me that it would be nice if there were fewer diseases out there. I’ll try to think of something that I like.
I don’t mind sounding a bit weird (because aren’t we?) but you guys are right and it would definitely be a bad idea to alienate every normal person who reads this.
P.S. Does it sound like I’m saying that I personally hope to achieve these things? I only meant to convey that I would try to play some (small) part in working towards them.
t might be weird to say that it took a fanfiction to convince me that it would be nice if there were fewer diseases out there. I’ll try to think of something that I like.
I wasn’t thinking “it would be nice if there were fewer diseases out there” so much as “we don’t have to accept disease as a fact of life, we can fight it and win.” More about how goal X is possible than that it’s desirable. You can write about something being desirable if you want, but I think explaining it as a new belief/way of seeing things is a better bet. My intuition is that generally it’s easier to plausibly convey a novel belief than a novel preference. A bit of Cognitive Science to back this up: people instinctively believe novel factual statements. I don’t know of any evidence that they instinctively adopt novel statements of preferences.
“we don’t have to accept disease as a fact of life, we can fight it and win.”
I might implement something like this but make it slightly broader to include early deaths in general. Others have pointed out that it would benefit from being more specific though and I probably won’t go into medicine. I’m more interested in something either space related or having to do with intelligence enhancement.
ETA: How about
That disease and early death aren’t immutable facts of life. That we don’t have to accept them; that we can challenge them and win.
I think that works but it’s kind of a lot of clauses starting with “that,” which as far as I know is incorrect. I think it worked stylistically before though. How about now?
Potential ambiguity: do you mean stronger as in better, or stronger as in more forceful? I agree on the second interpretation, and I think for an admissions essay being forceful about transhumanist beliefs might not signal high status.
I forgot it was an admission essay, so I was suggesting what I think is better, clearer prose.
I don’t have the foggiest whether blunting the message a little would work better in an admission essay.
I don’t think the strong version is so transhumanist as to put people off—it’s not talking about extending lifespans or modifying people away from the usual. On the other hand, I’ve been reading science fiction and hanging out with weirdos for so long that my judgement might be suspect.
My impression is that what works in admission essays changes from year to year. If word gets out that something works, then it may well go out of fashion just because admissions people don’t want to feel as though they’re being gamed.
I like this essay, but I agree that it needs to be made “tamer” for non-transhumanists. I think it can be made safer with little loss of poetry by changing:
to
Extrasolar colonies are an acceptable idealistic dream; extragalactic anything is too “out there.”
Also, the sentence mentioning the defeat of death, while a good thing in my eyes, is probably not in your interest here. Mentioning the end of poverty or war or hatred or disease or some other subset of suffering is both less grandiose and at a shorter inferential distance than mentioning the end of death.
Great point about the Milky Way part; I changed it. I’m not sure about the death part though. It might be weird to say that it took a fanfiction to convince me that it would be nice if there were fewer diseases out there. I’ll try to think of something that I like.
I don’t mind sounding a bit weird (because aren’t we?) but you guys are right and it would definitely be a bad idea to alienate every normal person who reads this.
P.S. Does it sound like I’m saying that I personally hope to achieve these things? I only meant to convey that I would try to play some (small) part in working towards them.
I wasn’t thinking “it would be nice if there were fewer diseases out there” so much as “we don’t have to accept disease as a fact of life, we can fight it and win.” More about how goal X is possible than that it’s desirable. You can write about something being desirable if you want, but I think explaining it as a new belief/way of seeing things is a better bet. My intuition is that generally it’s easier to plausibly convey a novel belief than a novel preference. A bit of Cognitive Science to back this up: people instinctively believe novel factual statements. I don’t know of any evidence that they instinctively adopt novel statements of preferences.
I might implement something like this but make it slightly broader to include early deaths in general. Others have pointed out that it would benefit from being more specific though and I probably won’t go into medicine. I’m more interested in something either space related or having to do with intelligence enhancement.
ETA: How about
I think that works but it’s kind of a lot of clauses starting with “that,” which as far as I know is incorrect. I think it worked stylistically before though. How about now?
Yep, it works.
I think it’s stronger without the ’that’s, but I don’t know whether my reaction is common.
Potential ambiguity: do you mean stronger as in better, or stronger as in more forceful? I agree on the second interpretation, and I think for an admissions essay being forceful about transhumanist beliefs might not signal high status.
I changed it a while back so I’m not sure this still applies. Do you think its current state to too strongly transhumanist?
I forgot it was an admission essay, so I was suggesting what I think is better, clearer prose.
I don’t have the foggiest whether blunting the message a little would work better in an admission essay.
I don’t think the strong version is so transhumanist as to put people off—it’s not talking about extending lifespans or modifying people away from the usual. On the other hand, I’ve been reading science fiction and hanging out with weirdos for so long that my judgement might be suspect.
My impression is that what works in admission essays changes from year to year. If word gets out that something works, then it may well go out of fashion just because admissions people don’t want to feel as though they’re being gamed.
I already blunted the message a bit. What do you think of
Do you still think it would be better without the “that”s?
I think the “that”s work (or at least taking them out makes for a much smaller improvement), but what do you think of