3 ms·

"Can we produce the required adjustments with the necessary speed? The most hopeful answer is that the human species has been subjected to similar tests before

"Can we produce the required adjustments with the necessary speed? The most hopeful answer is that the human species has been subjected to similar tests before and seems to have a congenital ability to come through, after varying amounts of trouble. To ask in advance for a complete recipe would be unreasonable. We can specify only the human qualities required: patience, flexibility, intelligence." If you want to read a better exploration of the larger issues and possible answers to this question I recommend: http://gator.uhd.edu/~williams/downloads/skinner82.pdf http://gator.uhd.edu/~williams/downloads/skinner82.pdf "Most thoughtful people agree that the world is in serious trouble. A nuclear war could mean a nuclear winter that would destroy all living things; fossil fuels will not last forever, and many other critical resources are nearing exhaustion; the earth grows steadily less habitable; and all this is exacerbated by a burgeoning population that resists control. The timetable may not be clear, but the threat is real. That many people have begun to find a recital of these dangers tiresome is perhaps an even greater threat. Why is more not being done? Within a single generation, we have made extraordinary progress in the exploration of space, genetic engineering, electronic technology, and many other fields, but little has been done to solve what are certainly more serious problems. We know what could be done: We could destroy all nuclear weapons, limit family size, and adopt a much less polluting and less wasteful style of life. The mere listing of these steps is enough to show how far we are from taking them."

toolz 5y ago
Progress has solved every problem the human race has ever had. I see no reason to believe regression is the way to ensure a better future. I trust precedent far more than models by academics who know very well just how unreliable predictive modeling can be.
- miltondts 5y ago
  Did you read the paper I linked to? That is precisely the entire point of "Why are we not acting to save the world?". We need to apply more science and technology in the right places.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. We aren’t nearing depletion of fossil fuels (unfortunately!) but have much larger reserves than when that was written. Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world and indeed under population and an aging population is rapidly becoming a much larger threat in much of the West and Far East. Overpopulation wasn’t solved by intelligently overcoming evolutionary sexual urges but by invention and distribution of contraceptives combined with personal entertainment technology (“electricity is the most powerful contraception”), etc. I find documents like that still highly influential but in many ways orthogonal to how we need to solve our current problems. Some lessons still apply but other points proved painfully wrong and sometimes backwards or at least irrelevant. People need to update their thinking from 70s era ideas like those of Limits to Growth. Degrowther mindset in many ways is a rebirth of those 70s era ideas, and I think Degrowth as a movement is largely counterproductive for addressing climate change (although the sense of urgency is important!).
    - miltondts 5y ago
      > I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. Last I checked, the threat of nuclear war is not over. Sure it doesn't seem as likely today, but the bombs still exist and if our current prosperity was to halt, it seems their use would become more and more probable. By capitalism do you mean globalization? I agree governments have lost much of their power due to how powerful current corporations are, which was enabled by technology that allowed globalization. So there is less incentive for war nowadays. However when things get though.. cue all the impending changes that climate change will bring... I'm not so sure the threat won't reemerge. > Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world. It seems overpopulation is as much of a problem today, as it was back then. It is not mentioned directly, but every time you hear about global warming, water scarcity, over-fishing, the great pacific garbage patch, etc. All of these things are problems of scale. Or do you believe that with 100 thousand humans we would have these problems? I agree with the oil, but also notice your omission of pollution. As for the larger point of resource depletion, I'm not so sure we are any better than we were in 1980. Overall I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The purpose of the paper is to highlight how our behaviors are selected for a past when they were beneficial, but currently we are changing our environment at an increasingly faster rate due to technology (and this is the point of the von Neumann paper also). Our methods for dealing with the problems that arise are not good enough.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  > Progress has solved every problem the human race has ever had. Taken literally, then the human race does not currently have any problems, otherwise there would be at least one of the problems we have ever had which is not solved. But what I think you are actually arguing sounds tautological to me: for every problem that has been solved, it has been solved by "progress". I don't know if you mean technological advancement or social change or something else, but it appears as if progress is defined in terms of solving a problem. All that is left is for you to show that every problem has an achievable solution to warrant the optimism in "progress". Otherwise, it just seems like your optimism is based in the premise that the human race has solved problems in the past; persistent, long-standing, and current human problems notwithstanding.
throwaway316943 5y ago
That solution already contains one glaring fallacy. I wonder how badly the other points would turn out if implemented. There’s something to be said about human intuition or even just revulsion when faced with such boldly insensitive proposals, it’s more often than not correct.
cammil 5y ago
It seems the subjects here are grand and nebulous so there are no easy answers. At this level I think the most we can say for sure is that there are causes and consequences, and that certainly at some point everything will end.

toolz 5y ago

Progress has solved every problem the human race has ever had. I see no reason to believe regression is the way to ensure a better future. I trust precedent far more than models by academics who know very well just how unreliable predictive modeling can be.

miltondts 5y ago
Did you read the paper I linked to? That is precisely the entire point of "Why are we not acting to save the world?". We need to apply more science and technology in the right places.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. We aren’t nearing depletion of fossil fuels (unfortunately!) but have much larger reserves than when that was written. Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world and indeed under population and an aging population is rapidly becoming a much larger threat in much of the West and Far East. Overpopulation wasn’t solved by intelligently overcoming evolutionary sexual urges but by invention and distribution of contraceptives combined with personal entertainment technology (“electricity is the most powerful contraception”), etc. I find documents like that still highly influential but in many ways orthogonal to how we need to solve our current problems. Some lessons still apply but other points proved painfully wrong and sometimes backwards or at least irrelevant. People need to update their thinking from 70s era ideas like those of Limits to Growth. Degrowther mindset in many ways is a rebirth of those 70s era ideas, and I think Degrowth as a movement is largely counterproductive for addressing climate change (although the sense of urgency is important!).
  - miltondts 5y ago
    > I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. Last I checked, the threat of nuclear war is not over. Sure it doesn't seem as likely today, but the bombs still exist and if our current prosperity was to halt, it seems their use would become more and more probable. By capitalism do you mean globalization? I agree governments have lost much of their power due to how powerful current corporations are, which was enabled by technology that allowed globalization. So there is less incentive for war nowadays. However when things get though.. cue all the impending changes that climate change will bring... I'm not so sure the threat won't reemerge. > Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world. It seems overpopulation is as much of a problem today, as it was back then. It is not mentioned directly, but every time you hear about global warming, water scarcity, over-fishing, the great pacific garbage patch, etc. All of these things are problems of scale. Or do you believe that with 100 thousand humans we would have these problems? I agree with the oil, but also notice your omission of pollution. As for the larger point of resource depletion, I'm not so sure we are any better than we were in 1980. Overall I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The purpose of the paper is to highlight how our behaviors are selected for a past when they were beneficial, but currently we are changing our environment at an increasingly faster rate due to technology (and this is the point of the von Neumann paper also). Our methods for dealing with the problems that arise are not good enough.
nescioquid 5y ago
> Progress has solved every problem the human race has ever had. Taken literally, then the human race does not currently have any problems, otherwise there would be at least one of the problems we have ever had which is not solved. But what I think you are actually arguing sounds tautological to me: for every problem that has been solved, it has been solved by "progress". I don't know if you mean technological advancement or social change or something else, but it appears as if progress is defined in terms of solving a problem. All that is left is for you to show that every problem has an achievable solution to warrant the optimism in "progress". Otherwise, it just seems like your optimism is based in the premise that the human race has solved problems in the past; persistent, long-standing, and current human problems notwithstanding.

throwaway316943 5y ago

That solution already contains one glaring fallacy. I wonder how badly the other points would turn out if implemented. There’s something to be said about human intuition or even just revulsion when faced with such boldly insensitive proposals, it’s more often than not correct.

cammil 5y ago

It seems the subjects here are grand and nebulous so there are no easy answers. At this level I think the most we can say for sure is that there are causes and consequences, and that certainly at some point everything will end.