Not really happy with the story I wrote today. It needs more time to cook.
Any time I do the last scene in Tell mode, I know there’s a problem. (I rewrote one of those this morning, and it’s much improved.)
Part of the problem with today’s one is that it’s about an issue I’m genuinely conflicted about. I don’t see a single right answer – which is good for writing a story with some depth, but also makes it harder. I think that’s why I did the final scene as an excerpt from a catalog of a retrospective exhibition, summarizing the artist character’s life; because that gave a degree of distance from the stuff I didn’t want to write. Tomorrow, or later in the week, I’ll probably go in and bring it into focus.
Anyway, I’m continuing to turn ideas into stories. And after due processing, those stories go out on submission. I’m 60% of the way through my goal of writing 15 stories this year (not counting today’s one, because I don’t feel it’s finished), and 53% of the way through my goal of 60 submissions. I’ve written as many stories in the first five months of this year as in the whole of last year (more, in fact, because there are a couple I’m not counting as complete.)
What has been conspicuously absent lately is sales. I think I may be shooting too high, because I’m submitting to the established pro markets, the ones where I’m competing with experienced, established writers. Time, perhaps, to lower my sights to the newer pro markets that publish the newer pro writers, where I’m on more of a level playing field.
Thoth Technology Inc. has been granted both US and UK patents for an inflatable tower designed to take astronauts up into the stratosphere, so they can then be propelled into space. A freestanding structure complete with an electrical elevator up to a 20km (12.5 miles) high launch platform. In other words in all ways precisely the design that I described in my novel SUNDIVER. (Anyone remember the Vanilla Needle? One difference. Mine was big enough that balloons could use buoyancy in the high pressure space to lift cargoes most of the way.)
You may or may not know that these existed, but some are certainly very useful. (I wish more authors would use the “definition” feature to make sure they’re using the right word, for example.)
Originally shared by Laura Gibbs
I knew about these features already, but it is very good list! These are the reasons why I really like Google Docs. 🙂
Via Murphy Jacobs. It’s a considerable exaggeration to say, as the article does, that there has “always” been an element of diversity in SF. Even the examples they give only go back to the 60s and 70s. Before that, there wasn’t much apart from C.L. Moore, and even the man who later became her husband started out assuming that she was a man.
Nautilus has an interesting discussion on the thousands (10k) of genetic variations that contribute to or are correlated with human intelligence, and with single variants being responsible for less than 1 point of IQ http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming. Statistical analysis indicates that when an individual possess just 100 more of these positive variants above the population average then they will enjoy an IQ boost of one standard deviation, or an extra 15 points. Swapping out all 10,000 variants in an individual for the optimal positive variants might, in theory, result in that person having an IQ of 1,000 – if you just go by the statistical analysis. It isn’t really clear whether an IQ this high really has much meaning, especially considering human IQ is quoted as just double or triple that of chimpanzees. Regardless, this analysis makes it seem conservative that we can pass the IQ 200 or 300 mark.
The piece discusses support for this in more detail but if it turns out to be true then well within 10 years we will have the technology to fairly easily ensure any particular human baby conceived via IVF will have a 15 point IQ boost. There will be very real consequences for any country that bans such technology.
Counterpoint
PZ Myers disagrees however and attempts to dismiss the proposal in a thoroughly disparaging and ad hominem manner http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/05/superbrains-will-not-come-out-of-a-test-tube/. Resisting the urge to dismiss Myers as a buffoon, at a basic level he simply isn’t convinced that boosting absolute human intelligence is a desirable thing, and would rather indirectly boost intelligence as a whole by improving global nutrition and education. His objections boil down to two things. First, that such a thing would be technically impossible; but this seems utterly unrealistic given the rapid pace of technology development in genetics, CRISPR, and embryo editing.
Second, that such a thing would be theoretically impossible, and quotes evolutionary arguments that (i) if it was possible evolution would have already done it, and (ii) humans are so multidimensional that tweaking one variant for one trait invariably involves compromise for other traits; basically that other things in the organism would suffer.
Rebuttal
Stephen Hsu, the author of the original Nautilus post concisely responds to Myer’s counter-arguments with a rebuttal on his private blog here http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/this-is-for-pz-meyers.html. The rebuttal presents some very straight-forward arguments from basic population genetics that support the proposal, clears up Myer’s confusion between genes and variants, states the completely non-controversial fact that cognitive ability is highly heritable, and presents data supporting the fact that there are many thousands of variants responsible for IQ. Myer’s response to this rebuttal was to dismiss Hsu as a dilettante.
Bonus Coverage
Finally, Scott Alexander from SlateStarCodex weighs in to take apart the multidimensionality claim of Myers http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/04/myers-race-car-versus-the-general-fitness-factor/. Turns out it is hard to find traits that are traded off against increases in intelligence, which would otherwise be easy to find if the multidimensionality claim were true. People with high IQ live longer, are taller, healthier during childhood, commit less crime, are fitter, have lower rates of stroke, diabetes, and heart disease, and are possibly more attractive. As usual Scott provides additional, substantial, and fascinating thoughts and analysis that are well worth reading.
I’m reminded of a Nick Bostrom quote:
Far from being the smartest possible biological species, we are probably better thought of as the stupidest possible biological species capable of starting a technological civilization—a niche we filled because we got there first, not because we are in any sense optimally adapted to it.
If it is almost trivially possible to grant a person an additional 15 points of IQ with little to no risk of downside, is it unethical not to do so?
