Mitch Gann’s

I have been reading a book this week — the old-fashion kind with paper pages — Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near (2005).  Kurzweil is an inventor, futurist and Baby Boomer who believes that he and other Boomers just might be able to live long enough to live forever.

Even though the book was a best-seller in 2005 and proclaimed the 13th most blogged about book of 2005 by the NY Times, I somehow missed it. I had heard of or read eight of the first twelve books on the list, so it isn’t that I am completely out of the loop.  (Oddly, the 14th most blogged about book for that year was Orwell’s 1984.  This suggests to me that there is a lot of paranoia on the Web.)

Anyway, I was surprised that I hadn’t heard about Kurzweil until recently because living forever happens to be one of my ambitions. According to Kurzweil, we just may be able to do it; “we” includes Baby Boomers who take care of themselves enough to last another 30 years or so.  By then, accelerating advances in bio-tech, nano-tech and computer science should guarantee anyone who wants it immortality.  You will, of course, have to get intimate with machines; that is, become a machine yourself. Some may see this as a drawback, especially if you get stuck in a computer running, say, Windows 2038. (I think this will be one time to spend a little more and go with a Mac.) Then there is the question of room-mates. What if you get stuck with neighbors you can’t stand and you can’t get away from them ever for all time? However, from the scientific perspective, being dead also has clear drawbacks for any organism. And it makes it harder to get credit or a good table.

Kurzweil calls this approaching change the “Singularity” because it will be a one-time event in human history — perhaps in the history of the universe. He thinks that the destiny of the universe is to achieve a maximum state of information.  Merging human intelligence (including emotional intelligence) with artificial intelligence is a big step toward fulfilling that destiny.

It sounds a little nuts in summary — a geeky, secular version of The Rapture. And there is a risk that if we don’t handle things just right, trillions of malevolent nanobots will take over and destroy us all.  Those of us who are getting up there in years and facing oblivion in the next couple of decades, give or take, may be willing to accept the risk. But is it right to gamble the future of humanity to achieve personal immortality?  Or for once in our self-centered lives, ought we just to go gentle into that good night?

A couple weeks ago, it was rumored that General Motors might sell one or more of its divisions — possibly including Buick — in order to survive.  Given my family’s history, I found this disheartening.

But the corporation came up with a different plan. It is keeping Buick, but canceling my mother’s health insurance coverage at the end of the year (along with that of all other salaried retirees 65 and older).  GM announced the plan on Tuesday, and Mom received a confirmation letter from the company today.

Tomorrow, a weekend-long celebration of GM’s 100th anniversary starts in Flint.

My friend, colleague and fellow blogger Macy Swain (Night Blind) has noted a recent outbreak of slow-driving in our community, and speculates that the other drivers “are driving slowly to save gas. Nobody ever goes the speed limit on Court Street; people usually dart from lane to lane, shooting ahead if anybody dares to dawdle, honking, gesturing, giving the stink eye. Not today. I think my mates on Court are maximizing every drop” (The Go-Slow Club).

I have slowed down some myself. On a recent trip to Ann Arbor and back, I kept the speedometer between 62 and 65. Or tried to. It wasn’t easy with behemoths flying up behind me and swerving at the last instant to pass. How much gas does an SUV suck down at 80+ mph? A lot more than my mini-van was putt-putting along. By going slower, I get 27 mpg on the X-way, an increase of five miles per gallon. It adds up. The next step is to get rid of the mini-van.

After flirting with the four-dollar a gallon mark yesterday, gas prices in our area slid back a bit. I filled my tank today with $3.969 a gallon gas. I needed 11 gallons, so the price drop saved me 33 cents, which I plan to invest in corn futures.

Saying that “the government has run amok fiscally,” former Congressman and former Republican Bob Barr has announced his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination. (See the LA Times article.)

I don’t know Bob Barr from beans, but I like his way of putting things. Run amok, indeed! Both the Republicans and the Democrats at the Federal level have lost any sense of fiscal responsibility. When we had the “tax more and spend more Democrats” and the “cut taxes and cut spending Republicans,” we could count on some sanity in the budget process. I’m not talking fairness or effectiveness, just sanity. Sure, the two sides seldom agreed on fiscal spending priorities, but they seemed to agree on the basic principle of having enough revenue to cover expenditures. At least most of the time. At least close to enough.

Then somewhere along the lines, both parties got hooked on the idea of borrowing. Well, why not? It’s the American way. We the people set a bad example for the politicos.

Or was it the other way around?

I doubt I’ll vote for Bob Barr, but I like his budgetary rhetoric.

The most popular name to give a baby girl last year was Emily, for the 12th straight year. Jacob was the most popular boys’ name for the 9th straight year. (See the Social Security Administration press release.)

According to SSA data, in the prime Boomer birth year of 1952, the most popular names for girls and boys were Linda and James, respectively. Emily and Jacob did not crack the Top 100. In fact, Emily and Jacob did not make it into the Top 100 until 1973 and 1974 respectively.

Linda, #1 for girls in the early 1950s, now ranks 496th in popularity. James stayed in the Top 5 boys’ names until 1980, and is still a respectable 15th.

Mitchell has never been very popular. I am not surprised. You get a sense of that growing up. Mitchell was 157th most popular boys’ name in 1952, and is 304th today. It did make the Top 100 for boys from 1988 – 1997, for what that’s worth. But at least the name is solidly identified with males, never making the Top 1,000 names for girls. As for Mitch, it hit its peak in 1961 when it came in 397th.