But there are so many wrong things with this article, it's difficult to know where to start.
Angry at the "way-things-are"? Does that even make sense?
It feels like he's saying "everyone is dying, and what is the government doing?!"
"When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: 'We shall have to work faster.' "
I mean, can one really say that seriously, outside of a poor SF story? So this is a rational, skeptical person, and not a cult member? Although I'm not religious, I think his religious relatives seem to have a much wiser attitude to life.
It makes sense to (at least) the extent that you have grounds for thinking that the-way-things-are can be changed, which Eliezer does. In any case, he's describing how he feels, and it's not obviously wrong to feel "angry enough to do X" just because X is impossible.
What exactly is your objection? That EY et al think death can be more or less completely abolished, and that's obviously wrong, so they're probably being irrational? (If so: why is it obviously wrong?)
"Angry at the way things are" is like saying things are not as they should be because someone fucked up. But who is responsible for how the world is? The creator?
Having this kind of anger is like believing in God.
But there are so many wrong things with this article, it's difficult to know where to start.
Angry at the "way-things-are"? Does that even make sense? It feels like he's saying "everyone is dying, and what is the government doing?!"
"When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: 'We shall have to work faster.' "
I mean, can one really say that seriously, outside of a poor SF story? So this is a rational, skeptical person, and not a cult member? Although I'm not religious, I think his religious relatives seem to have a much wiser attitude to life.