There's a meme doing the rounds at the moment. It goes something like this:
In the future, scientists will be able to resurrect human beings - but not using DNA. Instead, they will rebuild you from the collective memories of people who know you.
So: Please post a comment describing one thing you know about me. Preferably something interesting, but factual. One day internet archaeologists will use this information to bring me back to life, so make sure what you say is accurate!
That's all very well, assuming that scientists will be able to rebuild us from the memories of others. But if that's the case, why are we worrying about accuracy? Or, more to the point, who gives a monkey's chuff about accuracy when you can pretend to have much better memories of people and so have new, improved versions of them built?
Surely, if the scientists of the future are going to be reading LJ for information about people in order to resurrect them, we should be giving them a view of humanity - and specifically ourselves - which is to our advantage.
With this in mind; instead of asking you to reply here with an accurate memory of me, I'm instead asking you to reply with a memory of me that you'd rather like to have. A memory which, if scientists act upon it when they reconstitute me, will result in a better David that the one you've got. What memory of me would you like to have?
In return, I shall reply to you with a memory of you that I'd like to have which will improve the resurrected you immeasurably.
And if you think I'm turning IP logging off after asking a question like that, you really have got another think coming.
In the future, scientists will be able to resurrect human beings - but not using DNA. Instead, they will rebuild you from the collective memories of people who know you.
So: Please post a comment describing one thing you know about me. Preferably something interesting, but factual. One day internet archaeologists will use this information to bring me back to life, so make sure what you say is accurate!
That's all very well, assuming that scientists will be able to rebuild us from the memories of others. But if that's the case, why are we worrying about accuracy? Or, more to the point, who gives a monkey's chuff about accuracy when you can pretend to have much better memories of people and so have new, improved versions of them built?
Surely, if the scientists of the future are going to be reading LJ for information about people in order to resurrect them, we should be giving them a view of humanity - and specifically ourselves - which is to our advantage.
With this in mind; instead of asking you to reply here with an accurate memory of me, I'm instead asking you to reply with a memory of me that you'd rather like to have. A memory which, if scientists act upon it when they reconstitute me, will result in a better David that the one you've got. What memory of me would you like to have?
In return, I shall reply to you with a memory of you that I'd like to have which will improve the resurrected you immeasurably.
And if you think I'm turning IP logging off after asking a question like that, you really have got another think coming.
now let me see...
Date: 2004-12-08 03:09 am (UTC)Re: now let me see...
Date: 2004-12-08 03:11 am (UTC)Re: now let me see...
Date: 2004-12-08 03:40 am (UTC)Re: now let me see...
Date: 2004-12-08 03:42 am (UTC)Re: now let me see...
Date: 2004-12-08 03:55 am (UTC)but of course the research was funded by the millions that you won from the las vegas casinos with the 100% successful system that you invented. the kiddies at the orphanage (not to mention the numerous other worthy causes you donated to)were glad you had a few grand to spare, especially after cleaning up the organised crime syndicates and channelling their energies into worthwhile environmental projects
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:12 am (UTC)The Church T-Shirt business was particularly lucrative...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:20 am (UTC)I remember when
Nothing personal, you understand.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 03:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:37 am (UTC)(Although I'm hoping to leave soon *bounce*)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:12 am (UTC)I still have the whip as a souvenir.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:40 am (UTC)Of course, it was a shame it all went wrong and we had to end up fleeing for our lives in that canoe down the Watoobi river. Did wonders for my sun tan, mind!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 05:34 am (UTC)though now I think about it the guy with the 13 inch knob who insisted on putting it on the table was probably someone else
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 05:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 05:01 am (UTC)Hoorah!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 05:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 08:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 06:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 06:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 06:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 06:32 am (UTC)You're making this up!
Date: 2004-12-08 06:42 am (UTC)Re: You're making this up!
Date: 2004-12-08 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 08:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 06:28 am (UTC)Oh, hang on, I'm not making this up, and I?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 06:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 11:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 06:29 am (UTC)