3 ms·

>Pessimists deal with the unintended, latent, long-term, and that grasped only with difficulty. It's a sign of extreme optimism to think that unintented, laten

>Pessimists deal with the unintended, latent, long-term, and that grasped only with difficulty. It's a sign of extreme optimism to think that unintented, latent, long term and difficult to grasp implications can be predicted at all when the subject is as complex as "everything human beings value."

dredmorbius 5y ago
I made no claim that unintended / long term / latent / difficult-to-grasp concerns can be accurately predicted. Difficulty of demonstration does not mean "less likely to occcur". However the more common issue is that they're simply entirely ignored or dismissed, often with quips similar to the one you've used here. Typically by those who are unwaveringly optimistic about the intended, manifest, short-term, and easily-grasped aspects of phenomena or interventions.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  We're presently operating at a level of abstraction that makes it impossible to accept or dismiss anything.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Several items are concretised in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998576 I've addressed specific dismissals and their proponents numerous times on my subreddit, search "cornucopians": https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&restrict_sr=on https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&r... One of the most cogent arguments for limits I've found is in William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, most especially the first three chapters. The book is available on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu/page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu/page/n7... As well as many libraries: https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=au%3Aophuls%20william%20ti%3Aecology%20politics%20scarcity https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=au%3Ao... Other examples of dismissed consequences can be found in the works of Naomi Oreskes, notably Merchants of Doubt, on the negative long-term latent and complex consequences of asbestos, lead, CFCs, cigarette smoke, and fossil fuels. There are also the consequences of pesticides (both environmental contamination and increased resistance), antibiotics (resistance), various medications (thalidomide comes to mind), advertising, shipping (invasive species), just off the top of my head. Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome argues compellingly that civilisations co-evolve with their plagues, which raises some interesting implications. I've been suggesting in conversations elsewhere that we're living in an era of consequences.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > However the more common issue is that they're simply entirely ignored or dismissed, often with quips similar to the one you've used here. Members of each group do this to each other, although perhaps not identically.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I've taken pains to try to find the strongest arguments from each side. The limits arguments strike me as considerably stronger. You can find much of that covered in other comments in this thread, notably in this comment (again I emphasize Ophuls' work): https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dredmorbius https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dredmorbius And in the posts surfaced in this search: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&restrict_sr=on https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&r...

dredmorbius 5y ago

I made no claim that unintended / long term / latent / difficult-to-grasp concerns can be accurately predicted. Difficulty of demonstration does not mean "less likely to occcur". However the more common issue is that they're simply entirely ignored or dismissed, often with quips similar to the one you've used here. Typically by those who are unwaveringly optimistic about the intended, manifest, short-term, and easily-grasped aspects of phenomena or interventions.

whatshisface 5y ago
We're presently operating at a level of abstraction that makes it impossible to accept or dismiss anything.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Several items are concretised in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998576 I've addressed specific dismissals and their proponents numerous times on my subreddit, search "cornucopians": https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&restrict_sr=on https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&r... One of the most cogent arguments for limits I've found is in William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, most especially the first three chapters. The book is available on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu/page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu/page/n7... As well as many libraries: https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=au%3Aophuls%20william%20ti%3Aecology%20politics%20scarcity https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=au%3Ao... Other examples of dismissed consequences can be found in the works of Naomi Oreskes, notably Merchants of Doubt, on the negative long-term latent and complex consequences of asbestos, lead, CFCs, cigarette smoke, and fossil fuels. There are also the consequences of pesticides (both environmental contamination and increased resistance), antibiotics (resistance), various medications (thalidomide comes to mind), advertising, shipping (invasive species), just off the top of my head. Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome argues compellingly that civilisations co-evolve with their plagues, which raises some interesting implications. I've been suggesting in conversations elsewhere that we're living in an era of consequences.
mistermann 5y ago
> However the more common issue is that they're simply entirely ignored or dismissed, often with quips similar to the one you've used here. Members of each group do this to each other, although perhaps not identically.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I've taken pains to try to find the strongest arguments from each side. The limits arguments strike me as considerably stronger. You can find much of that covered in other comments in this thread, notably in this comment (again I emphasize Ophuls' work): https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dredmorbius https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dredmorbius And in the posts surfaced in this search: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&restrict_sr=on https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=cornucopians&r...