4 ms·

It's a fundamentally pessimistic essay, offering no workable solution to the articulated challenges other than a complete rejection of technology.

• buvanshak 9y ago
  >It's a fundamentally pessimistic essay... Why is future optimistic by default? By the way humanity is progressing, do you see any reason for hope? Do you disagree that we are in a technological runaway?
  • Sileni 9y ago
    No, but it's the same argument for something like SpaceX. A quick analysis says being optimistic makes the most sense because it has the best outcomes in all situations. If we're optimistic and correct, we're building the things that will be useful in the future. We know we have to get off the planet to survive as a species, so we have to hope that we can do so. If we're optimistic and wrong, we're distracting ourselves until we die. Pessimistic and correct, we wait for death and die. Pessimistic and incorrect, we watch the future run away from us while we argue over what remains on the planet to be used by the technology we stagnated in. I don't want to know what 2050 looks like if we're still dependent on oil. The worst case only exists if we're pessimistic as a species. The best case only exists if we're optimistic.
    • buvanshak 9y ago
      It did't ask if being pessimistic is useful. I asked if future looks hopeful for you, from where we are standing right now..
      • Sileni 9y ago
        And I'm saying we're fallible. We need mechanisms to avoid fatalism when looking at a downward slope, because history says we don't actually know how things will turn out, no matter how obvious they seem.