"To Sail beyond the Sunset" by Robert A. Heinlein

[Lynn McGuire]

"To Sail beyond the Sunset" by Robert A. Heinlein

https://www.amazon.com/Sail-beyond-Sunset-Author-published/dp/B00GX3I1YU/

Book number eight in a very loose series of eight science fiction books.
There are also many short stories and novellas that are a part of the
universe. I reread the well printed and well bound MMPB published by
Ace in 1988 that I bought new in 1990 (I think !). I plan to reread
"The Rolling Stones" and "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" soon. I have
going to pass on rereading "The Number Of The Beast".

This book starts with Maureen Johnson Long, the mother of Lazarus Long,
waking up in hotel with a dead man in bed with her. And the cat who
walks through walls, Pixel. She is subsequently arrested for murder and
finds out that she has been kidnapped and purposefully put into this
situation in a quite nasty time line where the First Prophet was never
deposed in the year 2100 like Lazarus Long's original time line.

If you are offended by sex, and I mean lots of sex, in a book then I
would advise you to stay away from this book and series. Except for the
first book in the series, "Methusalah's Children". All of the books,
except the first book, have group marriages in or mentioned in them
which was first expounded by Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"
book.

The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

The rather loose book series is (there may be more):
1. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
2. The Rolling Stones
3. Methuselah's Children
4. Time Enough For Love
5. The Number Of The Beast
6. The Pursuit Of The Pankera
7. The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
8. To Sail Beyond The Sunset

There is a rather excellent timeline of Heinlein's books at:
https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/579486/

Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.7 of out 5 stars (263 reviews)

Lynn

[-dsr-]

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?


-dsr-

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.

I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.

The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

I like SC also. The ray tubes are cool.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

I liked that one.

[John Savard]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.

That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.

Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.

John Savard

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
John Savard

I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
John Savard

I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".

So its not racism once you call attention to it?

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
John Savard

I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".

So its not racism once you call attention to it?

I don't think that's the argument at all in either of those cases.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by John Savard
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.

It's been decades since I've read it, but I recall the cannibalism
in "Farnham's Freehold" came about because the total collapse of
civilization resulted in mass starvation, people resorted to
cannibalism to survive, and it got incorporated into the culture.
The dominant culture was black because the USA/USSR/Europe/China
nuclear war just about completely destroyed those nations, and
Africa was all that was left.

The out-of-story explanation for having cannibalism in there
was made pretty dang clear: Heinlein saying that on the scale
of evils, cannibalism is less of an evil than slavery.

[Titus G]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by John Savard
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.

It's been decades since I've read it, but I recall the cannibalism
in "Farnham's Freehold" came about because the total collapse of
civilization resulted in mass starvation, people resorted to
cannibalism to survive, and it got incorporated into the culture.
The dominant culture was black because the USA/USSR/Europe/China
nuclear war just about completely destroyed those nations, and
Africa was all that was left.

I had forgotten but that succinctly explains why it is not racist, thank
you.

Post by Mike Van Pelt
The out-of-story explanation for having cannibalism in there
was made pretty dang clear: Heinlein saying that on the scale
of evils, cannibalism is less of an evil than slavery.

I agree. Advertisers targeting food shoppers emphasise the superiority
of young vegetables whether frozen, fresh or tinned naming them
affectionately baby this or baby that. Speaking from experience, this is
certainly correct for long pig. There is also the added enjoyment to a
meal of knowing that your choice of protein may have prevented the
misery of a lifetime of compulsory schooling followed by wage slavery.
I'll get my coat.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

I liked FF. A time travel story that actually works.

So, did Heinlein write the most time travel books of all authors ? Six
? Seven ?

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel.  I disagree.
     https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

I liked FF.  A time travel story that actually works.
So, did Heinlein write the most time travel books of all authors ?  Six
?  Seven ?
Lynn

There are longer series. Terrance Dicks novelized
an extraordinary number of _Doctor Who_ television
episodes. This does include stories about the
third Doctor stranded on twentieth century Earth,
so those may not count. Some of that seems to
be made in the 1970s and set in the 1980s but
that doesn't count as time travelling and I think
a lot of it rests on a reference to the British
Prime Minister as "Ma'am".

[Jerry Brown]

On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:20:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Robert Carnegie
There are longer series. Terrance Dicks novelized
an extraordinary number of _Doctor Who_ television
episodes. This does include stories about the
third Doctor stranded on twentieth century Earth,
so those may not count. Some of that seems to
be made in the 1970s and set in the 1980s

This seemed to be a thing with some UK SF shows of the 70s, as Gerry
Anderson's UFO was also set 10 years after the actual broadcast date.

[vallor]

On Sat, 18 May 2024 07:14:52 +0100, Jerry Brown

Post by Jerry Brown
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:20:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<snip>

There are longer series. Terrance Dicks novelized an extraordinary
number of _Doctor Who_ television episodes. This does include stories
about the third Doctor stranded on twentieth century Earth, so those may
not count. Some of that seems to be made in the 1970s and set in the
1980s

This seemed to be a thing with some UK SF shows of the 70s, as Gerry
Anderson's UFO was also set 10 years after the actual broadcast date.

And of course, the Andersons' follow-up: Space:1999.

Hokey premise, hokey episodes, but great special effects. It was a
family event to watch it every week. Ran 1975-1977, two seasons.

My favorite episode is the one that scared the bejasus out of me as
a kid: "Dragon's Domain".

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 18 May 2024 07:14:52 +0100, Jerry Brown

Post by Jerry Brown
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:20:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<snip>

Post by Robert Carnegie
There are longer series. Terrance Dicks novelized
an extraordinary number of _Doctor Who_ television
episodes. This does include stories about the
third Doctor stranded on twentieth century Earth,
so those may not count. Some of that seems to
be made in the 1970s and set in the 1980s

This seemed to be a thing with some UK SF shows of the 70s, as Gerry
Anderson's UFO was also set 10 years after the actual broadcast date.

Wasn't that called "near-future SF" at one point?

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
-dsr-

There is no such NUMBER OF THE BEAST.

Lynn

[-dsr-]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by -dsr-

Post by Lynn McGuire
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
-dsr-

There is no such NUMBER OF THE BEAST.

But is there a Pursuit of the Pakora?

-dsr-

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"To Sail beyond the Sunset" by Robert A. Heinlein
https://www.amazon.com/Sail-beyond-Sunset-Author-published/dp/B00GX3I1YU/
Book number eight in a very loose series of eight science fiction books.
 There are also many short stories and novellas that are a part of the
universe.  I reread the well printed and well bound MMPB published by
Ace in 1988 that I bought new in 1990 (I think !).  I plan to reread
"The Rolling Stones" and "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" soon.  I have
going to pass on rereading "The Number Of The Beast".
This book starts with Maureen Johnson Long, the mother of Lazarus Long,
waking up in hotel with a dead man in bed with her.  And the cat who
walks through walls, Pixel.  She is subsequently arrested for murder and
finds out that she has been kidnapped and purposefully put into this
situation in a quite nasty time line where the First Prophet was never
deposed in the year 2100 like Lazarus Long's original time line.
If you are offended by sex, and I mean lots of sex, in a book then I
would advise you to stay away from this book and series.  Except for the
first book in the series, "Methusalah's Children".  All of the books,
except the first book, have group marriages in or mentioned in them
which was first expounded by Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"
book.
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
1. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
2. The Rolling Stones
3. Methuselah's Children
4. Time Enough For Love
5. The Number Of The Beast
6. The Pursuit Of The Pankera
7. The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
8. To Sail Beyond The Sunset
   https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/579486/
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel.  I disagree.
   https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
My rating:  5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating:  4.7 of out 5 stars (263 reviews)
Lynn

And I forgot to mention that this was Heinlein's last written book.
But, there were two Heinlein books published after this book, "For Us
The Living" that Spider Robinson finished. And "The Pursuit of the
Pankera" which was finished but needed putting together by several editors.

Lynn

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

Which are generally what determine and drive laws.

[John Savard]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:51:45 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

Which are generally what determine and drive laws.

True, but it is an entirely possible position to take, for example,
that a society ought to _practice_ chastity, as that would be better
for it, without trying to impose it by law, by criminalizing
homosexuality, adultery, and so on.

Similarly, we would be better off if we didn't need laws against
psychoactive substances since there were very few people around who
felt any temptation to abuse them.

So if negative social attitudes towards wrong use of sex and drugs
were *widely enough shared* that would be great.

What would be terrible, on the other hand, is if hardly anyone took
avoiding drugs or responsible sexuality seriously, but they very
cheerfully used the full force of the law to enforce virtuous
conduct... on people in other groups who were vulnerable, but not on
themselves.

So he made a very important distinction in his point.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by John Savard
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:51:45 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

Which are generally what determine and drive laws.

True, but it is an entirely possible position to take, for example,
that a society ought to _practice_ chastity, as that would be better
for it, without trying to impose it by law, by criminalizing
homosexuality, adultery, and so on.

I'm not sure what you'd like to prevent,
if not teenage pregnancy and overpopulation
in general. Or sexually transmitted diseases.
But we don't need /chastity/ to avoid all that.

Post by John Savard
Similarly, we would be better off if we didn't need laws against
psychoactive substances since there were very few people around who
felt any temptation to abuse them.

There are people who use them on other people.

Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.

Post by John Savard
So if negative social attitudes towards wrong use of sex and drugs
were *widely enough shared* that would be great.
What would be terrible, on the other hand, is if hardly anyone took
avoiding drugs or responsible sexuality seriously, but they very
cheerfully used the full force of the law to enforce virtuous
conduct... on people in other groups who were vulnerable, but not on
themselves.
So he made a very important distinction in his point.

Well, we have that.

The Conservative British government means to
proscribe diverse sex education. Again.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by John Savard
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:51:45 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

Which are generally what determine and drive laws.

True, but it is an entirely possible position to take, for example,
that a society ought to _practice_ chastity, as that would be better
for it, without trying to impose it by law, by criminalizing
homosexuality, adultery, and so on.

I'm not sure what you'd like to prevent,
if not teenage pregnancy and overpopulation
in general.  Or sexually transmitted diseases.
But we don't need /chastity/ to avoid all that.

One can do what ever one wants with one's Vat Girl(tm) and it will not
violate chastity. ;)

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:33:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.

People in our city are "vaping" tobacco now - never saw the interest
frankly.

But then my paternal grandfather died of lung cancer when I was 14
(which I'm told is the usual age future smokers either start or think
about starting to smoke) which was kind of a deterrent for me.

[James Nicoll]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:33:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.

People in our city are "vaping" tobacco now - never saw the interest
frankly.
But then my paternal grandfather died of lung cancer when I was 14
(which I'm told is the usual age future smokers either start or think
about starting to smoke) which was kind of a deterrent for me.

Every morning, my parents would wander into the kitchen, cough for a
while, advise me not to smoke, then smoke a pack of Export A cigarettes.
I found it a compelling argument against smoking.

Oddly, neither one died of cancer as far as we know. All of my
mother's siblings did, though.

(That said, having almost died from severe asthma + London smog would
have left me averse to anything that could interfere with breathing)

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:33:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.

People in our city are "vaping" tobacco now - never saw the interest
frankly.
But then my paternal grandfather died of lung cancer when I was 14
(which I'm told is the usual age future smokers either start or think
about starting to smoke) which was kind of a deterrent for me.

Every morning, my parents would wander into the kitchen, cough for a
while, advise me not to smoke, then smoke a pack of Export A cigarettes.
I found it a compelling argument against smoking.
Oddly, neither one died of cancer as far as we know. All of my
mother's siblings did, though.
(That said, having almost died from severe asthma + London smog would
have left me averse to anything that could interfere with breathing)

Oh, there's lots of smoking-related deadly
diseases. :-(

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:33:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.

People in our city are "vaping" tobacco now - never saw the interest
frankly.

Are they vaping tobacco, or nicotine with flavors? Nicotine addiction
has its own problems, but cancer isn't one of them.

Vaping has been pushed as a safer alternative to smoking.

I do neither.

Pt

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:33:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.

People in our city are "vaping" tobacco now - never saw the interest
frankly.

Are they vaping tobacco, or nicotine with flavors? Nicotine addiction
has its own problems, but cancer isn't one of them.
Vaping has been pushed as a safer alternative to smoking.
I do neither.
Pt

There are cigarette-flavoured vapes.

And there's "heated tobacco".
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296358/>

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.

Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.

Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber
=20

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that =

time

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

=20
So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.

No, I meant what I wrote.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Cheers - Jaimie

[Paul S Person]

On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Don't see why.

Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.

Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!

Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.

Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".

Folk religion -- what people actually believe, which may or may not
correspond any organized religion they may adhere to.

Intellectualization -- a truly pointless exercise in futility.

I see a woman telling her young daughter not to run -- because it's
not ladylike. Do you really think that not being ladylike is a
/reason/? I think it's simply something to say to control the child's
behavior -- a social more.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.

Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".

I would say that social mores evolve into something that helps the
society survive. We don't need to intellectualize it, we just do it
because it helps keep us alive and prospering.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.

Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".
Folk religion -- what people actually believe, which may or may not
correspond any organized religion they may adhere to.
Intellectualization -- a truly pointless exercise in futility.
I see a woman telling her young daughter not to run -- because it's
not ladylike. Do you really think that not being ladylike is a
/reason/? I think it's simply something to say to control the child's
behavior -- a social more.

Isn't that what "ladylike" is?

Society works better if people behave with
consideration for each other. Going about
at a run is often inconsiderate.

You probably should run if you're in a race,
of course.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:39:40 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Lynn McGuire
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.

Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".
Folk religion -- what people actually believe, which may or may not
correspond any organized religion they may adhere to.
Intellectualization -- a truly pointless exercise in futility.
I see a woman telling her young daughter not to run -- because it's
not ladylike. Do you really think that not being ladylike is a
/reason/? I think it's simply something to say to control the child's
behavior -- a social more.

Isn't that what "ladylike" is?
Society works better if people behave with
consideration for each other. Going about
at a run is often inconsiderate.

It works better if boys don't run around either.

But that doesn't make them "ladylike".

And its still a social more.

Post by Robert Carnegie
You probably should run if you're in a race,
of course.

Indeed.