5 ms·

We've got eugenics, corporatism, sci-fi bait, and worse. I do like the idea of a field of "China studies" through the very specific lens that they've sketched,

We've got eugenics, corporatism, sci-fi bait, and worse. I do like the idea of a field of "China studies" through the very specific lens that they've sketched, which focuses on the experience of Hong Kong throughout the past century, but otherwise, ugh, what a series of shallow tropes. Their "climate studies" list is papering over the fact that those studies were done decades ago and the conclusions were well-understood. Here's one question in each field which is better than any of theirs: Genetics: To what extent does the RNA world (leadzyme, ribozyme, RNA bases) influence our DNA's actions; is there more beyond genome and epigenome? Business Development: Enumerate all models of cooperation. Climatology: Classify the climates of Venus and Mars under anthropogenic climate change; what will terraforming do to their climates? Earth Science: Classify the minerals and rocks of Venus and Mars. Neuroscience: Is demyelination preventable or treatable? Economics: Are markets efficient? Prove that either P<NP (no) or FP=PPAD (yes). Medicine: Can phage therapy prevent an antibiotic-resistant bacterial doom scenario? History: Just let historians critique history books for a few hours live on stage, and broadcast the results. This will more socially impactful than any specific question or research agenda. Law: I do have a soft spot for "What rights might digital minds have under current law?" It's a good question. However, a better one, in terms of social impact today, might be: How can the law establish effective oversight over its executors and legislators? Statistics: Are there tighter bounds on neural net performance than PAC/VC theory? Alternatively, are neural nets essentially polynomial regression? Philosophy: The Hard Problem. Physics: Scale quantum computing to today's classical computational regimes. Astronomy: Finish building planned telescopes; do the planned experiments have results which agree with current theories? Political Science: How can two-party democracies be converted by the will of the people to multi-party democracies; can Duverger's Law be bent? Psychology: The Hard Problem. Philosophy of Science: The Demarcation Problem. Sociology: How do societies collapse; how are technologies lost? Case studies won't cut it; we need models. Mathematics: The Riemann Zeta Hypothesis. If metamathematics is allowed, then whether P<NP, P=NP, etc. Research on these lines of thought does have a big social impact today just by consideration and exploration, and will have big social impacts if they ever actually answer the questions.

pkphilip 6y ago
Wonder why this post is being downvoted
- slx26 6y ago
  Well, saying "Here's one question in each field which is better than any of theirs" will sound presumptuous to a lot of people, but I agree that there was some serious effort in it and many good questions, which should more than compensate if one reads from start to end.
- SilasX 6y ago
  I'll answer: first paragraph was trollish and could have been left off. I'd flag but for the later stuff being more substantive.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    Trollish? Hardly. It's a strongly-worded criticism of the article.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      Yes, and when that harsh working provokes unproductive dialogue, it is known as being "trollish". If you really don't see what's trollish: - inflammatory, dismissive labels without concrete justification: "eugenics, corporatism, sci-fi bait:" - ditto for "what a series of shallow tropes" - presumptuous assertion: "Here's one question in each field which is better than any of theirs" The HN guidelines strongly advise against doing that.
      - Kednicma 6y ago
        This is fair. I started my comment by responding to each section, but I quickly realized that I wouldn't be able to make a constructive contribution. First, the most important thing: Note that one of the responses to my original comment is feeling intense emotional relief at having some uncanny unease put directly into words. This is not the first time I've responded to this sort of article, and not the first time I've seen this sort of reply. I gather that it is difficult for folks to articulate the ambient horror of what this sort of writing is sketching. Eugenics is recognizable from phrenology. They want to know why brain size matters and how to measure intelligence in different parts of the brain. They also want to know whether FAAH-OUT can make people happier and less sensitive to pain, and whether "extreme" human life extension is possible. They want to know how small the human race can get, and what the marginal utility of each additional person is. Indeed they ask whether utilitarianism isn't the ultimate ethical method. Corporatism is most obvious in the framing. Various already-established consensus positions are turned into but-really or what-about questions, so that it seems as if climate change is not something that definitely exists, that we definitely could do something about, and that we definitely are not doing enough about. Corporations are portrayed as the leaders in innovation, while governments and the public are incompetent and slow to change. Why do I say that these positions are tropes? Because I've read enough Dark Enlightenment literature to recognize its fingerprints, mostly. The authors are very slanted towards a meritocratic transhumanist utopia, where their very intelligent observations about the coming utopia will be rewarded with high stations and praise in the coming utopia. Meanwhile all of the implications about classism and injustice are carefully worded away so as not to be blatant and repulsive. I recognize that you might not like my questions. But you also admit that they're substantive, and that's good enough for me. Honestly, they're barely my questions at all; each of them has been open for decades, I think. Maybe quantum computing is the most recent one to have something interesting happen, and that's changed our trajectory from asking "can we?" to "can we, bigger?" and "can we, cheaper?" and "can we, easier?"

pkphilip 6y ago

Wonder why this post is being downvoted

slx26 6y ago
Well, saying "Here's one question in each field which is better than any of theirs" will sound presumptuous to a lot of people, but I agree that there was some serious effort in it and many good questions, which should more than compensate if one reads from start to end.
SilasX 6y ago
I'll answer: first paragraph was trollish and could have been left off. I'd flag but for the later stuff being more substantive.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Trollish? Hardly. It's a strongly-worded criticism of the article.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    Yes, and when that harsh working provokes unproductive dialogue, it is known as being "trollish". If you really don't see what's trollish: - inflammatory, dismissive labels without concrete justification: "eugenics, corporatism, sci-fi bait:" - ditto for "what a series of shallow tropes" - presumptuous assertion: "Here's one question in each field which is better than any of theirs" The HN guidelines strongly advise against doing that.
    - Kednicma 6y ago
      This is fair. I started my comment by responding to each section, but I quickly realized that I wouldn't be able to make a constructive contribution. First, the most important thing: Note that one of the responses to my original comment is feeling intense emotional relief at having some uncanny unease put directly into words. This is not the first time I've responded to this sort of article, and not the first time I've seen this sort of reply. I gather that it is difficult for folks to articulate the ambient horror of what this sort of writing is sketching. Eugenics is recognizable from phrenology. They want to know why brain size matters and how to measure intelligence in different parts of the brain. They also want to know whether FAAH-OUT can make people happier and less sensitive to pain, and whether "extreme" human life extension is possible. They want to know how small the human race can get, and what the marginal utility of each additional person is. Indeed they ask whether utilitarianism isn't the ultimate ethical method. Corporatism is most obvious in the framing. Various already-established consensus positions are turned into but-really or what-about questions, so that it seems as if climate change is not something that definitely exists, that we definitely could do something about, and that we definitely are not doing enough about. Corporations are portrayed as the leaders in innovation, while governments and the public are incompetent and slow to change. Why do I say that these positions are tropes? Because I've read enough Dark Enlightenment literature to recognize its fingerprints, mostly. The authors are very slanted towards a meritocratic transhumanist utopia, where their very intelligent observations about the coming utopia will be rewarded with high stations and praise in the coming utopia. Meanwhile all of the implications about classism and injustice are carefully worded away so as not to be blatant and repulsive. I recognize that you might not like my questions. But you also admit that they're substantive, and that's good enough for me. Honestly, they're barely my questions at all; each of them has been open for decades, I think. Maybe quantum computing is the most recent one to have something interesting happen, and that's changed our trajectory from asking "can we?" to "can we, bigger?" and "can we, cheaper?" and "can we, easier?"