I hope genetics and nanotechnology meet in the middle, since I’d like to be able to reap the rewards of transhuman evolution myself, rather than simply watching some future generation get what I can never have.

I think a lot of people found it through Lifehacker, because of my entry about insomnia and productivity. This is the first time someone has specifically mentioned that he or she is regularly reading it after having found it that way, though. Thanks for reading, and I hope you keep reading.

In short, though, I think agorism is a little too narrow a view. It’s not violating the law that makes a difference: it’s undermining the system in place. There are some ways to do this that are illegal, and others that are not. My preference is to lean more toward legal ways to undermine the system, such as focusing more on barter than US Dollar currency trade. The key is to favor daily dealings that do not contribute to the strengthening of the system in place, but rather weaken it, regardless of legality.

Unfortunately, in order to be a more effective advocate for such an approach, one would need to focus on keeping things as legal as possible. While it’s a fallacious argument, people will still find themselves swayed by the argument that someone engaging in illegal activities is somehow not a credible advocate. As such, because my greatest potential contribution to a lot of stuff is in advocacy (being a writer and an implementer of information distribution systems), that means that I must suffer under the burden of keeping things pretty damned legal, personally.

C’est la vie.

Now that I’ve started writing a little about this subject, I may find myself compelled to write the longer treatment of the subject I’ve been meaning to write. I guess I should thank you for that inspiration.

Serendipitously, today’s the day an article of mine about enjoyable security-related reads was published at TechRepublic, called 5 good security reads. If you enjoy Stephenson, you’ll probably enjoy those recommendations.