4 ms·

> And these irresponsible folks and individuals are painting an apocalyptic view of the future that is completely at odds with the best science. This, of cours

> And these irresponsible folks and individuals are painting an apocalyptic view of the future that is completely at odds with the best science. This, of course, raises the question: what, precisely _is_ the view of the future painted by the best science? I see the same news articles as everyone else, but, when applicable, I've been hunting down the papers they're based on and at least reading the abstracts. I've noticed some articles exaggerating or getting details wrong (such is the state of science journalism since forever), but nothing that gives me very much confidence that there will be a future for civilization in 60-100 years. Am I getting the right idea, or am I reading the wrong papers?

Nasrudith 7y ago
A time span of 60-100 years make for bad extrapolations period - let alone in complex matters with feedback responsive systems. Not to mention most papers are supposed to be narrow in focus as opposed to the big picture. Even if a theory in itself is right it may not pan out entirely. It is a fact that CMOS uses twice the transistors per logic gate. It is proper to say that it would fit less processing power in an area than other doping options. However when power dissipation is the defacto limit then even higher power hardware will use CMOS.
WorldMaker 7y ago
Arguably the best science isn't making predictions about the future simply because even our best social sciences (anthropology, sociology) typically refrain from that sort of predictive modelling simply because humans in aggregate and in long enough term scales are wildly unpredictable. (The magic of Asimov's psychohistory remains that we don't seem likely of actually developing something like it in the real world.) Apocalyptic views are both the best and worst prediction right now simply because they are the easiest prediction in how human civilizations react to great external threat/change. (The other draw to Asimov's Foundation novels being that they include several relative apocalypses, of course, which were unavoidable even when predictively modelling them, with the bonus optimism that maybe smart people could help make such situations at least somewhat better and more bearable through preparation.) Ultimately it seems like the only predictive thing science can tell us about how apocalyptic things will get has a lot less to do with the raw facts of climate models and a lot more with the heavy open questions about how civilization and society intends to react, and that has so many strange and open questions about people and future leadership.

Nasrudith 7y ago

A time span of 60-100 years make for bad extrapolations period - let alone in complex matters with feedback responsive systems. Not to mention most papers are supposed to be narrow in focus as opposed to the big picture. Even if a theory in itself is right it may not pan out entirely. It is a fact that CMOS uses twice the transistors per logic gate. It is proper to say that it would fit less processing power in an area than other doping options. However when power dissipation is the defacto limit then even higher power hardware will use CMOS.

WorldMaker 7y ago

Arguably the best science isn't making predictions about the future simply because even our best social sciences (anthropology, sociology) typically refrain from that sort of predictive modelling simply because humans in aggregate and in long enough term scales are wildly unpredictable. (The magic of Asimov's psychohistory remains that we don't seem likely of actually developing something like it in the real world.) Apocalyptic views are both the best and worst prediction right now simply because they are the easiest prediction in how human civilizations react to great external threat/change. (The other draw to Asimov's Foundation novels being that they include several relative apocalypses, of course, which were unavoidable even when predictively modelling them, with the bonus optimism that maybe smart people could help make such situations at least somewhat better and more bearable through preparation.) Ultimately it seems like the only predictive thing science can tell us about how apocalyptic things will get has a lot less to do with the raw facts of climate models and a lot more with the heavy open questions about how civilization and society intends to react, and that has so many strange and open questions about people and future leadership.