4 ms·

The nature of the tension between the blessings of the Enlightenment and the general fear of the future Scott expresses here might be rooted in the fact that wh

The nature of the tension between the blessings of the Enlightenment and the general fear of the future Scott expresses here might be rooted in the fact that what modern science and technology has done is increase humanity's raw power. Take for example the case of Fritz Haber [1] -- who with one hand greatly innovated in the use of poison gas for widespread use in war (later used by the Nazis, and against his own people at that), condemning millions to death, and with the other hand greatly innovated chemical fertilizers, arguably saving millions from famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber We're more powerful as a species than ever before. That means we can do wonderful things previously unimaginable, but it also means our destructive powers have been equally magnified. Problems are solvable, but the big red shiny buttons are redder and bigger and shinier than ever, too. And I'm not just talking about the threat of nuclear war.

truculation 9y ago
Tension, yes. The stakes have been raised but there's no going back. We need increasing knowledge, technology and wealth to confront not only the problems of today but problems we don't even know about yet. Any attempt to reverse englightenment values or even just slow down the effects could only degenerate swiftly into violence and make the fears come true. As Karl Popper put it: "The future is open. It is not predetermined and thus cannot be predicted – except by accident. The possibilities that lie in the future are infinite. When I say ‘It is our duty to remain optimists’, this includes not only the openness of the future but also that which all of us contribute to it by everything we do: we are all responsible for what the future holds in store. Thus it is our duty, not to prophesy evil, but, rather, to fight for a better world."
- larsiusprime 9y ago
  The problem is what constitutes "enlightenment values"? -- I'm sure Haber saw himself as an heir to the enlightenment, meticulously unlocking nature's secrets and bending them to the will of man. But many of the men who's will his inventions fulfilled were evil. As you say, we indeed need power to solve problems, but we must be deeply skeptical of anyone who dismisses or minimizes the importance of critiquing power.
  - truculation 9y ago
    >what constitutes "enlightenment values" I think Pinker defines these as science, reason and humanism. Couldn't agree with you more about the importance of criticism. Perhaps the most important feature of the enlightenment was in establishing a tradition of criticism. This is the engine of progress, which, as David Deutsch points out, is kind of the opposite of how most traditions work (they keep things the same).
    - bobthechef 9y ago
      Scholars have commented that Pinker hasn't the slightest idea of what "the Enlightenment" was and ultimately makes it stand for everything and anything that happens to suit him. Thus it would seem that he isn't exactly the best person to consult about the topic. Aaronson is also out of his depth, but I've come to expect that. He's obnoxiously over-opinionated, loves attention (I had the displeasure of seeing his juvenile antics at a conference) and frankly, his opinions are rather puerile and whiny.
      - psyc 9y ago
        Have you considered maybe it's the critics who don't have a clear idea of what the enlightenment entails, or perhaps have a reason to pretend they don't? Are you sure it's Pinker who doesn't know to what he's referring?
- portofcall 9y ago
  Of course there’s going back, and the history of progress is rebuilding, growth, advancement, entrenchment, stagnation and collapse. In the past that involved people with swords and spears or muskets, today it involves CBRN weapons. We can go back, we’d just damned well better not, because the only way back is disaster.
- cat199 9y ago
  > Any attempt to reverse englightenment values or even just slow down the effects could only degenerate swiftly into violence and make the fears come true. this presumes enlightement values are correct, primarily/solely responsible for the current state of affairs, that the current state of affairs is in fact the best of all possibilities of the moment, that no other proposed philosophical/ethical system is superior, and a whole host of other things..
  - truculation 9y ago
    No no. In the dark days people believed various things were true because authorities said so - authorities such as the Church, Plato, Aristotle, whoever. People confused truth with source and also believed that some ideas were certain or self-evident. The Englightenment was a rebellion against these attitudes. In reality we are fallible and we now expect that some of what seem to be our best ideas are in fact wrong, including our current values. If this weren't the case, progress would not be possible, as I think you rightly acknowledge.
_Microft 9y ago
Roughly half of the current world population [1] depends on artifical fertilizers. So it is rather billions of people than millions. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and-without-fertilizer https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and...
jedharris 9y ago
Yes indeed. CRISPR is a big shiny red button. However I don't think there's any better option than pursuing enlightenment values to address this problem. Complaining that we can't always get that right (as Gray does) is not helping to solve the problem. What better options do we have? I'm open to changing my values if there's strong evidence that others are better.
- thraway180306 9y ago
  But complaining is helping. That's the core of scientific method. What doesn't help is patching entrenched worldviews for the sake of it, designing experiments to detect aether while refusing to acknowledge critics and problems they point to.
xkjkls 9y ago
A lot of times I think people don't understand that the statements, "the vast majority of people have had there lives demonstrably improve because of science and technology" and "because of science and technology there are huge risks that all of that progress could reverse" can both be true.

truculation 9y ago

Tension, yes. The stakes have been raised but there's no going back. We need increasing knowledge, technology and wealth to confront not only the problems of today but problems we don't even know about yet. Any attempt to reverse englightenment values or even just slow down the effects could only degenerate swiftly into violence and make the fears come true. As Karl Popper put it: "The future is open. It is not predetermined and thus cannot be predicted – except by accident. The possibilities that lie in the future are infinite. When I say ‘It is our duty to remain optimists’, this includes not only the openness of the future but also that which all of us contribute to it by everything we do: we are all responsible for what the future holds in store. Thus it is our duty, not to prophesy evil, but, rather, to fight for a better world."

larsiusprime 9y ago
The problem is what constitutes "enlightenment values"? -- I'm sure Haber saw himself as an heir to the enlightenment, meticulously unlocking nature's secrets and bending them to the will of man. But many of the men who's will his inventions fulfilled were evil. As you say, we indeed need power to solve problems, but we must be deeply skeptical of anyone who dismisses or minimizes the importance of critiquing power.
- truculation 9y ago
  >what constitutes "enlightenment values" I think Pinker defines these as science, reason and humanism. Couldn't agree with you more about the importance of criticism. Perhaps the most important feature of the enlightenment was in establishing a tradition of criticism. This is the engine of progress, which, as David Deutsch points out, is kind of the opposite of how most traditions work (they keep things the same).
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    Scholars have commented that Pinker hasn't the slightest idea of what "the Enlightenment" was and ultimately makes it stand for everything and anything that happens to suit him. Thus it would seem that he isn't exactly the best person to consult about the topic. Aaronson is also out of his depth, but I've come to expect that. He's obnoxiously over-opinionated, loves attention (I had the displeasure of seeing his juvenile antics at a conference) and frankly, his opinions are rather puerile and whiny.
    - psyc 9y ago
      Have you considered maybe it's the critics who don't have a clear idea of what the enlightenment entails, or perhaps have a reason to pretend they don't? Are you sure it's Pinker who doesn't know to what he's referring?
portofcall 9y ago
Of course there’s going back, and the history of progress is rebuilding, growth, advancement, entrenchment, stagnation and collapse. In the past that involved people with swords and spears or muskets, today it involves CBRN weapons. We can go back, we’d just damned well better not, because the only way back is disaster.
cat199 9y ago
> Any attempt to reverse englightenment values or even just slow down the effects could only degenerate swiftly into violence and make the fears come true. this presumes enlightement values are correct, primarily/solely responsible for the current state of affairs, that the current state of affairs is in fact the best of all possibilities of the moment, that no other proposed philosophical/ethical system is superior, and a whole host of other things..
- truculation 9y ago
  No no. In the dark days people believed various things were true because authorities said so - authorities such as the Church, Plato, Aristotle, whoever. People confused truth with source and also believed that some ideas were certain or self-evident. The Englightenment was a rebellion against these attitudes. In reality we are fallible and we now expect that some of what seem to be our best ideas are in fact wrong, including our current values. If this weren't the case, progress would not be possible, as I think you rightly acknowledge.

_Microft 9y ago

Roughly half of the current world population [1] depends on artifical fertilizers. So it is rather billions of people than millions. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and-without-fertilizer https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and...

jedharris 9y ago

Yes indeed. CRISPR is a big shiny red button. However I don't think there's any better option than pursuing enlightenment values to address this problem. Complaining that we can't always get that right (as Gray does) is not helping to solve the problem. What better options do we have? I'm open to changing my values if there's strong evidence that others are better.

thraway180306 9y ago
But complaining is helping. That's the core of scientific method. What doesn't help is patching entrenched worldviews for the sake of it, designing experiments to detect aether while refusing to acknowledge critics and problems they point to.

xkjkls 9y ago

A lot of times I think people don't understand that the statements, "the vast majority of people have had there lives demonstrably improve because of science and technology" and "because of science and technology there are huge risks that all of that progress could reverse" can both be true.