X-Message-Number: 12797
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:25:54 -0800
From: Damien Broderick <>
Subject: ad lib does not equal stupid

At 05:00 AM 19/11/99 -0500, David Pizer wrote:

>Ms. Alabama answering a question in the 1994 contest: If you could live
>forever, would you and why?

>Answer:  "I would not live forever, bacause we should not live forever,
>because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever,
>but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever."

[Implied despairing laughter]

Hang on, let's cut these people some slack. Have you ever had to stand in
front of vast numbers of people and speak off the cuff? It can be
nerve-racking. Obviously what Ms Alabama said can be understood with a
small amount of effort:

*I would not choose extended life, because that would be immoral. If
indefinite lifespan was part of the plan of the creator, or  a trait
selectable as an evolutionary adaptation, we would expect to have it
already (bevause God is good, and evolution optimises species). Since we
don't,  it seems like a bad thing from where I stand. So I'd turn it down.*

We might disagree with this case, but it's not self-evidently dumb -
especially in its adaptationist form.

>Then there is this bit of wisdom from TV star, Brooke Shields when she was
>doing an interview to become a spokesperson for a federal anti-smoking
>campaign: "Smoking kills.  If you are killed, you've lost a very important
>part of your life."

Again, the lovely Brooke was saying this, which seems right to me:

*Those who smoke increase their chances of dying younger than they would
otherwise. Dying young like that, by choice, is tantamount to throwing away
a valuable portion of your lifespan. So flush that damnable cigarette, you
self-destructive idiot.*

I'll drink to that. :)

Damien Broderick

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12797