4 ms·

I’m not sure that Kasparov (or anybody) has a right to criticize the rate of progress for the last few decades or centuries. Since the Renaissance, human progre

I’m not sure that Kasparov (or anybody) has a right to criticize the rate of progress for the last few decades or centuries. Since the Renaissance, human progress has grown leaps and bounds at such an astonishing rate, compared with before, that we may have outpaced the ability for the human animal to adapt without negative repercussions. (Some might argue that this already happened all the way back to agriculture.) Even if things have slowed down for the last few years, so what? Humanity may naturally have occasional refractory periods to catch its collective breath. Complaints like this make me think that such people regard light speed as too slow and try to push humanity to “ludicrous speed,” right past “ridiculous speed.”

Detrus 16y ago
We already have huge negative repercussions. Climate change, mass extinction, overpopulation thanks to industrial agriculture. Now it might be more dangerous if tech slowed down, because we need new tech to fix disasters caused by the old. In some industries, like energy, automotive, people have been catching their collective breath for decades and now we're in trouble.
- bad_user 16y ago
  IMHO, that's exactly the thinking that got us into trouble in the first place: that we have the capability to change nature, however we want, and yet we can't even predict earthquakes or give accurate weather forecasts. Heck, we even have problems estimating the ecological footprint of anything. E.g. that proof of concept electrical car that's extra efficient might require some rare metals to produce, and the manufacturing itself could have a bigger impact on nature than its usage. Only in the US there are tens of millions of drivers that will wait in line to buy such a car. And that electricity has to come from somewhere, like a nuclear power plant (which according to many, is less destructive to nature as wind or solar power). This is a social problem that cannot be solved by technology. If you want to change the world, find a way to make people consume less.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Consuming less (I mean at the consumer level, not raw resources) is hardly a way to promote the progress of our civilization. Finding a way to sustainably consume ever more will yield much greater outcomes in technology and happiness.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      When the consumption rate is increasing exponentially, I don't know how you can even imagine that we'll ever be able to sustainably consume more. Unless you're talking about StarTrek where food can materialize at the push of a button, or after a "warp maximum; engage" they can arrive at an inhabitable planet in one minute. In the meantime, this planet doesn't grow any larger and its resources are limited.
      - nitrogen 16y ago
        I'll provide an example of what I'm thinking, as it may be that we disagree less than it appears. I believe that one of our goals as a species should be ubiquitous travel, so that any person can afford to travel anywhere within a reasonable amount of time. The current approach of burning highly refined fossil fuels to power airplanes is obviously unsustainable, but that doesn't mean we stop flying. What we should be doing (and this is a very long-term view) is developing alternative energy storage mechanisms dense enough to power airplanes. One approach that seems reasonable to me is using nuclear power to store energy as biofuel, then switching to solar/wind/hydro power once it is possible to do so. Hypothetically we could design fuels and engines that result in zero harmful waste entering the atmosphere, and direct any byproducts from combustion into the next batch of fuel. I will concede that Star Trek's unlimited energy universe is a bit like playing Sim City with the money cheat, though.

Detrus 16y ago

We already have huge negative repercussions. Climate change, mass extinction, overpopulation thanks to industrial agriculture. Now it might be more dangerous if tech slowed down, because we need new tech to fix disasters caused by the old. In some industries, like energy, automotive, people have been catching their collective breath for decades and now we're in trouble.

bad_user 16y ago
IMHO, that's exactly the thinking that got us into trouble in the first place: that we have the capability to change nature, however we want, and yet we can't even predict earthquakes or give accurate weather forecasts. Heck, we even have problems estimating the ecological footprint of anything. E.g. that proof of concept electrical car that's extra efficient might require some rare metals to produce, and the manufacturing itself could have a bigger impact on nature than its usage. Only in the US there are tens of millions of drivers that will wait in line to buy such a car. And that electricity has to come from somewhere, like a nuclear power plant (which according to many, is less destructive to nature as wind or solar power). This is a social problem that cannot be solved by technology. If you want to change the world, find a way to make people consume less.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Consuming less (I mean at the consumer level, not raw resources) is hardly a way to promote the progress of our civilization. Finding a way to sustainably consume ever more will yield much greater outcomes in technology and happiness.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    When the consumption rate is increasing exponentially, I don't know how you can even imagine that we'll ever be able to sustainably consume more. Unless you're talking about StarTrek where food can materialize at the push of a button, or after a "warp maximum; engage" they can arrive at an inhabitable planet in one minute. In the meantime, this planet doesn't grow any larger and its resources are limited.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      I'll provide an example of what I'm thinking, as it may be that we disagree less than it appears. I believe that one of our goals as a species should be ubiquitous travel, so that any person can afford to travel anywhere within a reasonable amount of time. The current approach of burning highly refined fossil fuels to power airplanes is obviously unsustainable, but that doesn't mean we stop flying. What we should be doing (and this is a very long-term view) is developing alternative energy storage mechanisms dense enough to power airplanes. One approach that seems reasonable to me is using nuclear power to store energy as biofuel, then switching to solar/wind/hydro power once it is possible to do so. Hypothetically we could design fuels and engines that result in zero harmful waste entering the atmosphere, and direct any byproducts from combustion into the next batch of fuel. I will concede that Star Trek's unlimited energy universe is a bit like playing Sim City with the money cheat, though.