3 ms·

In my opinion, our current talks about the apocalypse are only marginally less naive than similar discussions during ancient times. We understand so much more

In my opinion, our current talks about the apocalypse are only marginally less naive than similar discussions during ancient times. We understand so much more about the universe and yet our ability to predict the future is almost nil.

avmich 6y ago
> are only marginally less naive As I understand naive, it's a relative term - comparing to something which is considered more mature, reasonable etc. which - and that's important - can be presented as an antitheses. If something different, which is "better", can't be presented, then "naive" becomes "best", which definitely changes the meaning to the degree of non-applicability.
justin66 6y ago
We have sound theories for multiple extinction events in the Earth's past, we have the ability to model complex risks involving astronomy, climate, and biology which will occur in the Earth's future... if you're naïve about future risks to an extent that invites comparison with ancient history, perhaps it's because you've chosen not to be well read on these matters.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  I've read quite a lot about these. We are very bad at predicting the implications of an event that has not happened yet. We can predict global warming because it is already occuring and what we're doing is not much more advanced than a glorified linear extrapolation. What is important is the consequences, on ecosystems, on agriculture, on all the interconnected systems. We can only predict reliably that global warming might be a perturbation. But we can't predict the reliable consequences of far simpler events.
sci_prog 6y ago
I would argue that our ability to predict the future is pretty good but our ability to react to/prevent an event from happening is next to nil. Pick any: large solar flare, mega volcanic eruption, climate change, asteroid collision...
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  Predicting an event is not the same as observing it unfolds or putting a probability on it. What do we know about the next mega volcanic eruption or large solar flare?

avmich 6y ago

> are only marginally less naive As I understand naive, it's a relative term - comparing to something which is considered more mature, reasonable etc. which - and that's important - can be presented as an antitheses. If something different, which is "better", can't be presented, then "naive" becomes "best", which definitely changes the meaning to the degree of non-applicability.

justin66 6y ago

We have sound theories for multiple extinction events in the Earth's past, we have the ability to model complex risks involving astronomy, climate, and biology which will occur in the Earth's future... if you're naïve about future risks to an extent that invites comparison with ancient history, perhaps it's because you've chosen not to be well read on these matters.

stephc_int13 6y ago
I've read quite a lot about these. We are very bad at predicting the implications of an event that has not happened yet. We can predict global warming because it is already occuring and what we're doing is not much more advanced than a glorified linear extrapolation. What is important is the consequences, on ecosystems, on agriculture, on all the interconnected systems. We can only predict reliably that global warming might be a perturbation. But we can't predict the reliable consequences of far simpler events.

sci_prog 6y ago

I would argue that our ability to predict the future is pretty good but our ability to react to/prevent an event from happening is next to nil. Pick any: large solar flare, mega volcanic eruption, climate change, asteroid collision...

stephc_int13 6y ago
Predicting an event is not the same as observing it unfolds or putting a probability on it. What do we know about the next mega volcanic eruption or large solar flare?