Larisa Larionova

Washington, DC, United States

About Larisa

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted over 3 years ago
Cynthia Kenyon: Experiments that hint of longer lives
You should actually say: Until there's FOOD that can change your actual DNA so that you can eat only once and live without eating AND your children will have the same effect, THEN you would take any food. We'll see how long will you live with such principle, and will you have any children at all. Vaccines save lives and allow many to have their own children. The same is with many drugs. The same can be said about vitamins in some circumstances, and so on.
66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted over 3 years ago
Cynthia Kenyon: Experiments that hint of longer lives
First of all, you should try to watch TED talks of Hans Rosling. You'll that population growth slows almost everywhere, including India. There is evidence that Jane may be correct, that if people live longer, they will have less children. To your point about negative consequences of the new technology, all technologies have some, thus we either should stop to innovate altogether, or we should accept that there will be some negative consequences and think how to deal with them.
66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted over 3 years ago
Cynthia Kenyon: Experiments that hint of longer lives
It's about quality AND quantity. If your life is a torture, then you want to stop it as soon as possible. That's why there are people who ask for euthanasia. If your life is full of joy, you would like to live longer, and why not? I enjoy almost every minute of my life, that is why I think it would be really great to enjoy such life as long as possible. Besides, we have family and friends, so it is often so that not only we want to stay longer, to see how our children doing, but our grandchildren want us to be near for longer. Of cause it depends on your particular circumstance, but indeed, the quantity matters as well as quality. We don't necessary choose between great but short life and long and miserable one. We can live longer and better at the same time.
66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted over 3 years ago
Cynthia Kenyon: Experiments that hint of longer lives
If people agreed 200 years ago with yours "We get what we get", then we would live about 40-60 years on average now. But thanks to the desire of some people to live longer, the situation is much better now. If you don't want to live longer, that's not a problem, you can always stop living. You suggest that the same value can be achieved by being mindful and so on. Is it necessary a trade-off between the two, can't we live longer AND be mindful at the same time?
66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted almost 4 years ago
*RENAMED* AutonomousTraffic - For a Cleaner, Greener World!
Oh, I see Jimmy, that you are just dreaming. That's good, but it's not how things work in this world. I'm considering this situation practically, and from practical point of view introduction of a new type of transport is not at all an easy thing. You know, it's just like with usual cars. You can read the history of how cars were introduced in our lives, the process wasn't always easy, and we developed vast amount of regulations since then. What other peoples think, are they against the idea or not may not mean anything to you, but it do mean a lot for policy and decision makers. If there are enough active people against something, it something will never be done, no matter how wonderful it something could be.
66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted almost 4 years ago
*RENAMED* AutonomousTraffic - For a Cleaner, Greener World!
Yes, I've watched his talk, and I've read the comments. And reading those comments I realized how many people are against such cars. That is why I don't see them among usual cars yet. Yes you can just sit inside and pretend you drive it, but then the whole point of autopilot is lost, you can't do anything else, like reading, eating, having a meeting and so on. I also believe that in a traffic with usual cars we will not receive any gain in pace. As usual cars will not communicate and behave in accordance with each other, like driverless car can do, we will still have traffic jams and so on. But it's just my opinion. There is also a problem with insurance, in the case of accident, who should be blamed? If both cars are driverless and belongs to a municipality, then it's one story, but if one car is a privet driverless car and another one is a usual car, then it's completely different situation. In any case, it's question of transportation policies to allow or not such cars on roads. So, we can't avoid working with government or municipalities. You can't just decide to buy such a car and use it, you are not allowed to.
66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted almost 4 years ago
*RENAMED* AutonomousTraffic - For a Cleaner, Greener World!
I'm not sure if it's a work for philanthropists. I don't think that driverless cars can become popular if we just start to use them on the same roads as usual cars. In this situation, people may not trust there lives for such a device, because everything depends on the behavior of other drivers. I can easily imagine a situation when some jealous drivers can create situation to demonstrate "weaknesses" of driverless cars. So it's a work for cities' administrations. Cities like Moscow or Paris have already restricted or plan to restrict the transport entrance to some districts. Such places can become good experimental areas for new transport.
66666
Larisa Larionova
Posted almost 4 years ago
*RENAMED* AutonomousTraffic - For a Cleaner, Greener World!
I have been thinking about this driver-less cars possibility for a couple of years now. I think it's a great idea, but for a while, people, in the U.S. especially, are not ready to leave their right to drive :) I think that driver-less cars can become popular only if they are required at some places. Big cities with down-towns traffic clogs can try to isolate those down-towns and allow only driver-less car there, I mean it should be public transport inside such zones. Then the system can be extreamly effective, because if we have only driver-less cars in it, we can manage traffic flows choosing the best roots. I also think that the cars should be very small, for one or two people only. When the people see how convenient it is, that you can read, make phone calls and so on, and at the same time you have flexibility of your own car without a cost of a personal driver, when they see other benefits of the system like decreased mortality rate, then they'll want such cars everywhere, not only in down-towns. But in any case, there always will be somebody aggressively fighting the idea.