Some people who become adept at deep meditation do this, more or less. They enter into a state of ecstacy (there's a real reason for it - brain activity changes) to such an extent that they want to remain "in there" indefinitely (of course they don't - sooner of later you need to eat, drink or go to the bathroom), and say that they feel "one with the universe". No need for computers. A perception of oneness with the universe makes physical exploration pointless, or seem so. There is no longer any "you" as an individual in your perception. But the usual objections remain.

I just found out Iris DeMent was her father's 14th child, the 8th child of his second wife. I don't know if they had any more after Iris.

Ben, then your understanding of the word 'design' is different from mine.

No, I think you've misunderstood evolution. 
 
David, I don't have a comment, but just want to say how much I am enjoying and appreciating this. I'm looking forward to reading the remainder of the series.

Tough son of a bitch. Hanged himself by the genitals.

Human irrationality towards risk is well documented in the literature - you need to factor in voluntary vs involuntary (voluntary risk is up to 3 orders of magnitude more tolerable than involuntary risk), unknown, dread (shark attack is a good 'dread' one). The plane vs car one is one of the classics - people feel (irrationally) that they are in control driving a car, so it plots as voluntary risk, whereas sitting passively captive on a plane being flown by someone else is involuntary risk. Plus people spend a lot more time in cars, so it plots as familiar and therefore gets a discount, even though the much greater amount of time spent exposed to the hazard makes the probability that it will be realised that much greater. Occupational risk plots as voluntary - people choose to go to work in order to obtain the benefit. 
 
Multiple fatality events are always regarded as worse, more shocking, than a larger series of single fatalities. I see this as a kind of 'survival of the species/tribe/whatever' reaction - the more people killed in a single event, and the more the people are closer to home/like us, the (much) worse it is regarded. 
 
John's reference to 'primal fears' is a good one - this translates as the 'dread' and 'unknown' factors in the risk literature which amplify risk aversion. We fear wild animal attack, even though domestic dogs kill more people than sharks or bears. 
 
The other irrational factor with humans is that they want a certain level of risk - if a dangerous road that has hairpin bends etc is straightened out, people drive faster to raise the risk level up to where it was before the road was fixed. Risk is interesting/exciting, as long as it is voluntary and felt to be controllable - thrill seeking. 
 
The third thing that comes into play, which I think gets to your point, is lack of awareness of risk, the 'unknown' factor or lack of familiarity - when a hitherto unsuspected source of risk becomes known through reporting and gets hyped for its novelty and dread value, it causes a much greater aversion reaction than a source of risk that is familiar, even if the quantified risk is very much lower. Media coverage will frequently correspond to the strength of the unknown or dread aversion reaction - the media are selling a product, after all, not engaging in public education on how people can minimise the risk they are exposed to. 
 
A certain element of rationality comes in, in terms of the trade off of risk vs benefit - people will take a risk running across a busy road if they perceive a benefit to themselves in getting across the road more quickly. People will accept a certain level of occupational risk if they perceive that the financial reward makes tolerating the risk worthwhile. 
 
Interestingly, the biggest risk takers, and those most willing to expose others to risk, everything else being equal, are white males - they plot h
More....

But did they know anyone who looked like his mommy Isis? 
 
If we're talkin' fertility goddesses, I'll go with that one.

Yes. 
 
But just learning to read and write Chinese is a massive effort of memorisation to begin with. 
 
The way my Mandarin teacher put it, if you learn 6 new characters every day, while not forgetting any of those you have already learned, in 3 years you will have learned enough characters to read a newspaper. 
 
How long did it take you to learn the alphabet, if you can remember back that far - an hour at the most?

Bio, I'm told that being promoted in the boy scouts is not positively correlated with an increase in reproductive success. 
 
I wouldn't know, my parents couldn't afford the uniform and the pocket knife with the thing for getting stones out of horses' hooves, but it didn't prevent me from reproducing. I just avoided eye contact during the act.

AFAIK, Siamese are the only cat breed that you can train to wear a collar and go for a walk on a leash. They really are outliers.

And Oliver would have said "Can I have some mare, please Sir?"

Has anyone ever documented a study on the respective behaviour of males and females at shop sales? 
 
Never mind a quart of ice cream, try getting between a woman and a cashmere sweater at 50% off.

"kills bacteria at least" - and viruses picked up on the hands.

Me? Not very, apparently.  
 
That ain't white, Raz. This is white: 
 
http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/article/13299241/2008/09/06/12286867.jpg 
 
Bleh. 
 
And this is world no. 1: 
 
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-09/42211921.jpg 
 
Yay!

"Preservatives are available everywhere" - Ain't that the truth? Whatever happened to fresh preservative free produce?

Agnostic - you are on the money, and I have never doubted this. There was a 'window' between when effective treatments for STDs like syphilis became available, and effective and easily procurable birth control became available, especially birth control pills which put birth control in the hands of women rather than men, and when AIDS emerged, or the knowledge of it emerged, during which sex with a lot of different partners seemed like just harmless fun. That coincided pretty much with the emergence of the beat generation, the hippie movement and popularisation of recreational drug taking. So it emerged in the 1950s, really started to build up steam in the 1960s, probably peaked at the height of the hippie era in the late 1960s, kept momentum in the 1970s, and started to lose momentum in the 1980s as the reality of AIDS and the risks from having a lot of partners became readily apparent again. 
 
Before the 1950s, incurable STDs and unwanted pregnancy were real deterrents. After the 1970s, AIDS emerged as a real deterrent. In between, there was no deterrent. There seemed only upside and no downside.

Was, John, was. That article is 15 years out of date. Hong Kong has switched to drinking red wine in a big way.

Anyone who thinks there is a cognitive surplus has never hit a really good topspin forehand.

They got that right.

Razza: "Ancient greek prostitutes padded their asses." 
 
I've patted some ancient Greek prostitutes' asses - does that count? 
 
Oh OK, they weren't ancient and they weren't prostitutes - 1 out of 3 ain't bad, is it?  
 
Assman - thanks for posting that Schwarzenegger clip - brilliant stuff. And I don't mean him, obviously. 
 
Don't know if anyone spotted this - the objective seems to be to find someone who is moderately depressed about having a great ass: 
 
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23407843-2,00.html