Dunno, but he’s not very consistent in whatever it is. He says at the end of that paragraph:
[Faking your death and returning] wouldn’t mean losing power – real power is already invisible.
If the real powers that be are invisible, i.e. so powerful you’ll never hear of them, they don’t need to pretend to die.
Presumably, the visible powers that be that he begins by talking about are taking their orders from the invisible PTB, who discovered the secret of immortality in their own secret laboratories. But this is Weekly World News territory.
If the real powers that be are invisible, i.e. so powerful you’ll never hear of them, they don’t need to pretend to die.
Sure they would. If some random nobody was living forever without aging, they would still get noticed, as Joseph Curwen discovered.
It’s funny to me that you can’t recognize the sardonic quality of the post (e.g. reference to becoming a “sequoiah farmer.” Being rational does not mean you must exhibit Spock-like literalism!
Sure they would. If some random nobody was living forever without aging, they would still get noticed, as Joseph Curwen discovered.
The PTB are not random nobodies, and Curwen is fictional.
It’s funny to me that you can’t recognize the sardonic quality of the post (e.g. reference to becoming a “sequoiah farmer.”
I can recognise many things in the post. I can imagine he’s not serious, and recognise non-seriousness in the post. I can imagine he’s lost it and means every word, and recognise that in the post. I can imagine it’s an idiot test to judge his commenters by their responses, and recognise that in the post. I can read all of these things into the post as easily as each other, which means I don’t know which, if any, is the true meaning. But there is that internal inconsistency about who and what he thinks the PTB are.
The PTB are not random nobodies, and Curwen is fictional.
Seems like you missed the point. I mentioned the example of Joseph Curwen as an illustration, not as evidence. The basic point is that it does not matter how famous/obscure someone is, if they just stay young forever, people will notice. And the idea is that they prefer to remain unnoticed. So the obvious solution is to kill off the old identities every so often and start over in some other place under some new identity.
So that makes it clear that there is no inconsistency in Cochrane’s scenario. As long as they are immortal, they will have to keep switching identities or their anonymity is compromised.
I don’t know which, if any, is the true meaning.
Maybe it’s just because I’m familiar with his general attitude, but I think it is very clear he is joking. I pointed out in my other comment that he’s talked about this before, and he makes it clear that he thinks that longevity research is underfunded because elites are ignorant of the possibilities. He’s comically assuming the opposite: that elites ignore longevity research for the only rational reason: because they are already immortal. If it has to be explained it isn’t as funny, I suppose.
Dunno, but he’s not very consistent in whatever it is. He says at the end of that paragraph:
If the real powers that be are invisible, i.e. so powerful you’ll never hear of them, they don’t need to pretend to die.
Presumably, the visible powers that be that he begins by talking about are taking their orders from the invisible PTB, who discovered the secret of immortality in their own secret laboratories. But this is Weekly World News territory.
Sure they would. If some random nobody was living forever without aging, they would still get noticed, as Joseph Curwen discovered.
It’s funny to me that you can’t recognize the sardonic quality of the post (e.g. reference to becoming a “sequoiah farmer.” Being rational does not mean you must exhibit Spock-like literalism!
The PTB are not random nobodies, and Curwen is fictional.
I can recognise many things in the post. I can imagine he’s not serious, and recognise non-seriousness in the post. I can imagine he’s lost it and means every word, and recognise that in the post. I can imagine it’s an idiot test to judge his commenters by their responses, and recognise that in the post. I can read all of these things into the post as easily as each other, which means I don’t know which, if any, is the true meaning. But there is that internal inconsistency about who and what he thinks the PTB are.
Seems like you missed the point. I mentioned the example of Joseph Curwen as an illustration, not as evidence. The basic point is that it does not matter how famous/obscure someone is, if they just stay young forever, people will notice. And the idea is that they prefer to remain unnoticed. So the obvious solution is to kill off the old identities every so often and start over in some other place under some new identity.
So that makes it clear that there is no inconsistency in Cochrane’s scenario. As long as they are immortal, they will have to keep switching identities or their anonymity is compromised.
Maybe it’s just because I’m familiar with his general attitude, but I think it is very clear he is joking. I pointed out in my other comment that he’s talked about this before, and he makes it clear that he thinks that longevity research is underfunded because elites are ignorant of the possibilities. He’s comically assuming the opposite: that elites ignore longevity research for the only rational reason: because they are already immortal. If it has to be explained it isn’t as funny, I suppose.