3 ms·

Anyone seriously trying to tell people they shouldn't work to address climate change should rightfully be decried for causing harm. But the angle of trying to p

Anyone seriously trying to tell people they shouldn't work to address climate change should rightfully be decried for causing harm. But the angle of trying to paint everyone thinking about existential risk with that brush is itself irresponsible and inaccurate. There are lots of people spouting things like "don't bother about climate change", and that harmful group has almost no overlap with anyone thinking seriously about the future of humanity. Taking the vanishingly small intersection and drumming it up for outsized outrage is ridiculous and harmful. Another, far less ridiculous angle would be "here's a tiny group of wealthy people with weirdly contradictory viewpoints". Perhaps that might not have gathered as many clicks, though.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Are they contradictory? These supremacist ideas have a long and toxic history. And the moral foundations are always similar - some people today can be considered wholly disposable. And they are supremacist - based on the unproven belief that humanity has an obvious manifest destiny which will incarnate (or perhaps insiliconate) super-intelligence across multiple galaxies. It's juvenile Tom Swift fantasy. Humanity has multiple immediate challenges now. They need actionable, practical intelligence. If we can't find the relatively limited intelligence to deal with them, where are we going to find the IQ needed to colonise a galactic supercluster? Of course some other species might evolve on Earth. But also - it might not. No matter what grand name this is given, "thinking" about it is just well-funded science fiction.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  Yes, they're fundamentally contradictory. You seem to be implying that ideas and goals about preserving and benefit humanity indefinitely are somehow only benefiting a subset of humanity, or worse, are used to harm some subset of humanity. Anyone looking to twist such ideas or goals to only benefit themselves or a subset of humanity should be called out on that. But right now you're attacking the entire concept over your perception that it only benefits the rich, or perhaps some other subset of people. By all means, attack inequality. But let's work to fix it. The response to "other people have nicer things than me" should not be "people other than me shouldn't get to have nice things", it should be "more people should get to have nice things". That's even more critical when those things are fundamental improvements and safeguards of people's lives. Let's raise the baseline for everyone, rather than focusing excessive energy on cutting down the tall poppies. And science fiction has a way of inspiring and driving science fact.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  > It's juvenile Tom Swift fantasy. This I agree with. Their future dream isn't super plausible, is much too specific, and doesn't even seem desirable. > they are supremacist - based on the unproven belief that humanity has an obvious manifest destiny Normally "supremacist" means "this group of humans is superior to this other group of humans". I don't see a lot of that in this, except in the bit about "resources should be invested in the developed world". (And "manifest destiny" is of course incredibly loaded, but you knew that!) But -- > Humanity has multiple immediate challenges now. They need actionable, practical intelligence. -- yes. I agree with the "actionable, practical" bit. Solving climate change isn't some research problem. It just needs leadership to organize people to do things we already know how to do.
joe_the_user 5y ago
Another, far less ridiculous angle would be "here's a tiny group of wealthy people with weirdly contradictory viewpoints" The article is quite clear that is criticizing an idea (This is a dangerous ideas). For any idea, if you at the people subscribing to it, you'll see they follow the idea in a somewhat contradictory fashion. But should hold back from looking at the idea itself 'cause otherwise one's ability to analyze is complete hobbled.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Are they contradictory? These supremacist ideas have a long and toxic history. And the moral foundations are always similar - some people today can be considered wholly disposable. And they are supremacist - based on the unproven belief that humanity has an obvious manifest destiny which will incarnate (or perhaps insiliconate) super-intelligence across multiple galaxies. It's juvenile Tom Swift fantasy. Humanity has multiple immediate challenges now. They need actionable, practical intelligence. If we can't find the relatively limited intelligence to deal with them, where are we going to find the IQ needed to colonise a galactic supercluster? Of course some other species might evolve on Earth. But also - it might not. No matter what grand name this is given, "thinking" about it is just well-funded science fiction.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
Yes, they're fundamentally contradictory. You seem to be implying that ideas and goals about preserving and benefit humanity indefinitely are somehow only benefiting a subset of humanity, or worse, are used to harm some subset of humanity. Anyone looking to twist such ideas or goals to only benefit themselves or a subset of humanity should be called out on that. But right now you're attacking the entire concept over your perception that it only benefits the rich, or perhaps some other subset of people. By all means, attack inequality. But let's work to fix it. The response to "other people have nicer things than me" should not be "people other than me shouldn't get to have nice things", it should be "more people should get to have nice things". That's even more critical when those things are fundamental improvements and safeguards of people's lives. Let's raise the baseline for everyone, rather than focusing excessive energy on cutting down the tall poppies. And science fiction has a way of inspiring and driving science fact.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
> It's juvenile Tom Swift fantasy. This I agree with. Their future dream isn't super plausible, is much too specific, and doesn't even seem desirable. > they are supremacist - based on the unproven belief that humanity has an obvious manifest destiny Normally "supremacist" means "this group of humans is superior to this other group of humans". I don't see a lot of that in this, except in the bit about "resources should be invested in the developed world". (And "manifest destiny" is of course incredibly loaded, but you knew that!) But -- > Humanity has multiple immediate challenges now. They need actionable, practical intelligence. -- yes. I agree with the "actionable, practical" bit. Solving climate change isn't some research problem. It just needs leadership to organize people to do things we already know how to do.

joe_the_user 5y ago

Another, far less ridiculous angle would be "here's a tiny group of wealthy people with weirdly contradictory viewpoints" The article is quite clear that is criticizing an idea (This is a dangerous ideas). For any idea, if you at the people subscribing to it, you'll see they follow the idea in a somewhat contradictory fashion. But should hold back from looking at the idea itself 'cause otherwise one's ability to analyze is complete hobbled.