10 ms·

I'm constantly worried that despite the increased understanding we have relative to past generations, the increasing scope of our technological interventions me

I'm constantly worried that despite the increased understanding we have relative to past generations, the increasing scope of our technological interventions means that global catastrophes seem more likely to occur relative to the past. [0] Look at the convulsions we need to go through to address climate change politically, and realize that it is only one of maybe a thousand potential grave threats, each of which pits collective well-being against technological/monetary interests. Some may even struggle to be recognized as a threat (antibiotic overuse, microplastics). It's a good time to be doomer. [0] https://sacawa.net/documents/test.pdf https://sacawa.net/documents/test.pdf

abathur 5y ago
I think it would be fitting if microplastics manage to yank our chain before obviously-dangerous things like nukes or antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
- giantg2 5y ago
  There's a good chance they already are, but we just haven't made the connection, because who do we have as a control group? Nobody.
giantg2 5y ago
"which pits collective well-being against technological/monetary interests." Yeah tech/money interests are part of it. I think the bigger part is lifestyle change. Most of the things that we would need to change have no better alternatives that can also support the current lifestyle. People are resistant to changing their personal actions. Some of it is entirely unknown too. We can't switch to electric vehicles overnight, and EVs have environmental costs too. How do we solve that? And what does a world without plastics look like?
- snek_case 5y ago
  > EVs have environmental costs too. How do we solve that? We incrementally get better at it. For one thing, it should be possible to power any mining, manufacturing or recycling process with electricity.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    If we want tackle those, then we also have to look at trade policies. We've shipped most of the primary and secondary industries to developing nations, where these concerns are largely ignored. Some politicians talk a big environmental game, but they won't dare touch on this subject. It's a shell game.
    - drusenko 5y ago
      Let’s not get defeatist and give up. Europe is implementing a carbon border adjustment, and the U.S. is discussing this as well. If implemented correctly this should reduce the financial incentive to offshore emissions and create one for other countries to reduce their own.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "and the U.S. is discussing this as well." I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?
        drusenko 5y ago
        I can’t find the original article I read but here is one recent one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/02/republicans-are-embracing-carbon-border-fees-counter-putin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/02/republica...
        giantg2 5y ago
        Paywall. Interesting. I guess it's recent enough that I hadn't heard about it (based on the sate in the url).
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  > I think the bigger part is lifestyle change No amount of changing my lifestyle stops overfishing, pipeline leaks, or factory emissions.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
> I'm constantly worried That is itself the catastrophe. The enlightenment was supposed to chase away the shadows. But as the radius of the light of science and technology expands so does the circumference of the darkness beyond. We know more than ever how vulnerable we are. We know of many more horrible ways to die. We see ever more beautiful possible futures that may never be reached. It is the age old cost of knowledge since Eden. [1] But take hope, the alternative is ignorance and total darkness. And there are worse things than monsters in the shadows. A greater concern is our own death-drive toward Thanatos - in that we _know_ what we are doing, throw caution to the wind, mock as naysayers and Cassandras anyone who points out the obvious trajectories into tragedy and blindly try to "push through" as if technology were a separate force in itself, rather than an extension of our being. Humane technology (technological humanism) is the only antidote, but that requires putting people before profit, and saying that comes at a cost here. [2] [1] I'm just channeling Mumford here [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30799567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30799567
- SpodGaju 5y ago
  Wonderful to see my own sentiment reflected here. Let me add, that to embrace the darkness, instead of pushing it away, is where we will find answers. I wish more people could see how frenetic knowledge makes them. I found forgetting helps me the most. And I agree with your [2].
- dcsommer 5y ago
  What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not antidotes? It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age a/the major problem (I agree), but is there really only one solution? It seems like there are other possibilities worth discussion.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not antidotes? Sorry I needed to re-read the post to think about your points. There are alternatives but almost all are unpleasant. There is the "pharmaceutical society" of Huxley. Possibly humans can be molded into something resembling worker ants who will accept any degree of technological dominance and dependency without complaint if mentally modified. In some parts of the world where 1 in 3 people take a prescriptions such as Prozac we are probably some of the way there. There is "ambient domination" of the kind of P.K Dick (Ubik), D. Potter's Cold Lazarus, or A. Niccol's GATTACA, where technological dominance has effectively disappeared, leaving a superficially pleasant and peaceful world, but its effects are soaked into a defeated "last man" culture of "post-humans". Or there's endless Soviet style struggle, permanent technological war against invisible or virtual outside enemies, as in G. Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four. N. Klein's idea of "crisis capitalism" outlines one form of the general case - and if you allow the conspiracy theorists their way "plandemics" (yes they say that), and even climate change are a vehicles for such eternal paternalism. Those are just three off the top of my head. I'm not a sci-fi writer or "futurologist" (shudder), but I'm sure there's a dozen models for dystopias in which digital technology plays a major part, drugging, monitoring and propagandising humankind at behest of the few. > It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age a/the major problem (I agree) Not so much, I think every age has had its deep anxieties, I grew up in the cold-war fever of the 80s when we did nuke drills at school and hid in the basement. What is uniquely worrying about now is the wilful ignorance and acceptance. Anxiety is a symptom. What distinguishes anxiety from fear is that fear is about something, whereas anxiety is diffuse. People are choosing not to know about their world (retreat into amusement, comforting fake news etc), and celebrating their ignorance of technology as a form of magic. Despite doing that we still suffer the crippling effects of anomie, alienation, disconnection, and so on, but no longer have somethiing concrete to point to as the source. Under Marxism it was the Bourgeoisie, but today's "One Percet" don't cut it, being almost accidental villains/co-victims of invisible cybernetic currents. > But is there really only one solution? No certainly not. But I am foremost a scientist, and came late in life to social philosophy and psychology, so I favour answers that rely on human rationality and organisation (I realise that on HN there is huge cynicism toward that and lots of talk about how "dumb people are" and "what they really want is", and talk of "sheep following network effects". I think that kinda goes with an immature (pre-2013) entrepreneurial mindset. Given an absence of hope for beneficent corporations or governments for me the only hope is a future in which people retake technology in some way. But exactly what that means is still something I am working out. Whoever solves that will not just improve the world, but get rich too. So far Gates. Zuckerberg et al have failed, because "scale" is something they put before purpose. > there are other possibilities worth discussion. Please check out digital vegan and humane technology as I'd love to talk about those other possibilities.
pibechorro 5y ago
I would argue that doomer is a waste of time. Time to be a prepper and realign our relationship to the planet. We could go on and on about climate doom, etc, but the most productive thing we can do is expect change, not apocalypse, and adjust. Lead by example. Everyone reading this can go full wind and solar. Can stop driving or drastically cut it down (move closer, use public transport, work remote, etc). We can all grow food in our backyards, or living room, we can all participate in local garden coops etc. We can all refuse to take part in wars, buying new cell phones every year, wearing synthetic fibers that lead to microplastics, etc. If we, the ones who know and care dont take action today, by example, who will? Que excuses in 1, 2, 3...
- milansm 5y ago
  This is exactly what I’ll try to change in next 5 years. Have a sustainable baseline: my own food (or at least 50% of it, other 50% locally grown within ~10km) and energy independent (for heating and cooking), and treat everything else as a luxury that can perish any time now. I don’t want to give up my remote work, car and (occasional) luxury vacation, but would love to be able to sustain myself without it. Current life-style (apartment, frequent food orders, total dependency on the power grid) is a ticking time bomb (which might not go off in my lifetime) and feels like all-or-nothing gamble.
  - SpodGaju 5y ago
    - collegeburner 5y ago
      This is ridiculous. You are expecting people to take aassive downgrade in standard of living. I spend years working to make more money than everybody so I can live better, not worse. And you are wrong, my kids will live much better as well, because I will pass on that money.
      - svnt 5y ago
        You need a global frame of reference to solve a global problem. You can get one on your own terms, or wait and be domesticated by legislation.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
My biggest concern is nuclear war. The death it would unleash would make the COVID pandemic seem like an afternoon picnic, and it would all happen in a frighteningly short period of time. 4pm war starts. 5pm most of the people you know are dead. This comes, far as I'm concerned, close to the end of the world, and shouldn't be impossible, yet it isn't by a long shot. My second biggest concern is the rapid loss of natural habitats and the concomitant loss of biodiversity.
- jackling 5y ago
  Haven't looked into what a nuclear war would look like, but would non-Nato, non-nuclear weapon holding counties be affected that fast? Suppose I lived in Niger, would most people I know be dead that fast? Would countries just hit any ally to the opposition immediately? I understand that the entire world will be affected and eventually the effects will be felt.
AQuantized 5y ago
The current ability to produce so much food in the developed world using modern fertilizer and methods, despite their disadvantages, means the most common threat that challenged our ancestors (famine) is barely present in many countries where it was a continual threat since civilization developed. Only global warming and nuclear war pose a similar threat, and only the former is worse now than it has been in the past, even given present circumstance.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
The taller they are the harder they fall. Our global society is so very tall.
RGamma 5y ago
The cacophony of voices lends itself well to doomerism. Wish there were more places one could hide from the self-absorption of our species.

abathur 5y ago

I think it would be fitting if microplastics manage to yank our chain before obviously-dangerous things like nukes or antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

giantg2 5y ago
There's a good chance they already are, but we just haven't made the connection, because who do we have as a control group? Nobody.

giantg2 5y ago

"which pits collective well-being against technological/monetary interests." Yeah tech/money interests are part of it. I think the bigger part is lifestyle change. Most of the things that we would need to change have no better alternatives that can also support the current lifestyle. People are resistant to changing their personal actions. Some of it is entirely unknown too. We can't switch to electric vehicles overnight, and EVs have environmental costs too. How do we solve that? And what does a world without plastics look like?

snek_case 5y ago
> EVs have environmental costs too. How do we solve that? We incrementally get better at it. For one thing, it should be possible to power any mining, manufacturing or recycling process with electricity.
- giantg2 5y ago
  If we want tackle those, then we also have to look at trade policies. We've shipped most of the primary and secondary industries to developing nations, where these concerns are largely ignored. Some politicians talk a big environmental game, but they won't dare touch on this subject. It's a shell game.
  - drusenko 5y ago
    Let’s not get defeatist and give up. Europe is implementing a carbon border adjustment, and the U.S. is discussing this as well. If implemented correctly this should reduce the financial incentive to offshore emissions and create one for other countries to reduce their own.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "and the U.S. is discussing this as well." I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?
      - drusenko 5y ago
        I can’t find the original article I read but here is one recent one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/02/republicans-are-embracing-carbon-border-fees-counter-putin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/02/republica...
        giantg2 5y ago
        Paywall. Interesting. I guess it's recent enough that I hadn't heard about it (based on the sate in the url).
krainboltgreene 5y ago
> I think the bigger part is lifestyle change No amount of changing my lifestyle stops overfishing, pipeline leaks, or factory emissions.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

> I'm constantly worried That is itself the catastrophe. The enlightenment was supposed to chase away the shadows. But as the radius of the light of science and technology expands so does the circumference of the darkness beyond. We know more than ever how vulnerable we are. We know of many more horrible ways to die. We see ever more beautiful possible futures that may never be reached. It is the age old cost of knowledge since Eden. [1] But take hope, the alternative is ignorance and total darkness. And there are worse things than monsters in the shadows. A greater concern is our own death-drive toward Thanatos - in that we _know_ what we are doing, throw caution to the wind, mock as naysayers and Cassandras anyone who points out the obvious trajectories into tragedy and blindly try to "push through" as if technology were a separate force in itself, rather than an extension of our being. Humane technology (technological humanism) is the only antidote, but that requires putting people before profit, and saying that comes at a cost here. [2] [1] I'm just channeling Mumford here [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30799567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30799567

SpodGaju 5y ago
Wonderful to see my own sentiment reflected here. Let me add, that to embrace the darkness, instead of pushing it away, is where we will find answers. I wish more people could see how frenetic knowledge makes them. I found forgetting helps me the most. And I agree with your [2].
dcsommer 5y ago
What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not antidotes? It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age a/the major problem (I agree), but is there really only one solution? It seems like there are other possibilities worth discussion.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not antidotes? Sorry I needed to re-read the post to think about your points. There are alternatives but almost all are unpleasant. There is the "pharmaceutical society" of Huxley. Possibly humans can be molded into something resembling worker ants who will accept any degree of technological dominance and dependency without complaint if mentally modified. In some parts of the world where 1 in 3 people take a prescriptions such as Prozac we are probably some of the way there. There is "ambient domination" of the kind of P.K Dick (Ubik), D. Potter's Cold Lazarus, or A. Niccol's GATTACA, where technological dominance has effectively disappeared, leaving a superficially pleasant and peaceful world, but its effects are soaked into a defeated "last man" culture of "post-humans". Or there's endless Soviet style struggle, permanent technological war against invisible or virtual outside enemies, as in G. Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four. N. Klein's idea of "crisis capitalism" outlines one form of the general case - and if you allow the conspiracy theorists their way "plandemics" (yes they say that), and even climate change are a vehicles for such eternal paternalism. Those are just three off the top of my head. I'm not a sci-fi writer or "futurologist" (shudder), but I'm sure there's a dozen models for dystopias in which digital technology plays a major part, drugging, monitoring and propagandising humankind at behest of the few. > It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age a/the major problem (I agree) Not so much, I think every age has had its deep anxieties, I grew up in the cold-war fever of the 80s when we did nuke drills at school and hid in the basement. What is uniquely worrying about now is the wilful ignorance and acceptance. Anxiety is a symptom. What distinguishes anxiety from fear is that fear is about something, whereas anxiety is diffuse. People are choosing not to know about their world (retreat into amusement, comforting fake news etc), and celebrating their ignorance of technology as a form of magic. Despite doing that we still suffer the crippling effects of anomie, alienation, disconnection, and so on, but no longer have somethiing concrete to point to as the source. Under Marxism it was the Bourgeoisie, but today's "One Percet" don't cut it, being almost accidental villains/co-victims of invisible cybernetic currents. > But is there really only one solution? No certainly not. But I am foremost a scientist, and came late in life to social philosophy and psychology, so I favour answers that rely on human rationality and organisation (I realise that on HN there is huge cynicism toward that and lots of talk about how "dumb people are" and "what they really want is", and talk of "sheep following network effects". I think that kinda goes with an immature (pre-2013) entrepreneurial mindset. Given an absence of hope for beneficent corporations or governments for me the only hope is a future in which people retake technology in some way. But exactly what that means is still something I am working out. Whoever solves that will not just improve the world, but get rich too. So far Gates. Zuckerberg et al have failed, because "scale" is something they put before purpose. > there are other possibilities worth discussion. Please check out digital vegan and humane technology as I'd love to talk about those other possibilities.

pibechorro 5y ago

I would argue that doomer is a waste of time. Time to be a prepper and realign our relationship to the planet. We could go on and on about climate doom, etc, but the most productive thing we can do is expect change, not apocalypse, and adjust. Lead by example. Everyone reading this can go full wind and solar. Can stop driving or drastically cut it down (move closer, use public transport, work remote, etc). We can all grow food in our backyards, or living room, we can all participate in local garden coops etc. We can all refuse to take part in wars, buying new cell phones every year, wearing synthetic fibers that lead to microplastics, etc. If we, the ones who know and care dont take action today, by example, who will? Que excuses in 1, 2, 3...

milansm 5y ago
This is exactly what I’ll try to change in next 5 years. Have a sustainable baseline: my own food (or at least 50% of it, other 50% locally grown within ~10km) and energy independent (for heating and cooking), and treat everything else as a luxury that can perish any time now. I don’t want to give up my remote work, car and (occasional) luxury vacation, but would love to be able to sustain myself without it. Current life-style (apartment, frequent food orders, total dependency on the power grid) is a ticking time bomb (which might not go off in my lifetime) and feels like all-or-nothing gamble.
- SpodGaju 5y ago
  - collegeburner 5y ago
    This is ridiculous. You are expecting people to take aassive downgrade in standard of living. I spend years working to make more money than everybody so I can live better, not worse. And you are wrong, my kids will live much better as well, because I will pass on that money.
    - svnt 5y ago
      You need a global frame of reference to solve a global problem. You can get one on your own terms, or wait and be domesticated by legislation.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

My biggest concern is nuclear war. The death it would unleash would make the COVID pandemic seem like an afternoon picnic, and it would all happen in a frighteningly short period of time. 4pm war starts. 5pm most of the people you know are dead. This comes, far as I'm concerned, close to the end of the world, and shouldn't be impossible, yet it isn't by a long shot. My second biggest concern is the rapid loss of natural habitats and the concomitant loss of biodiversity.

jackling 5y ago
Haven't looked into what a nuclear war would look like, but would non-Nato, non-nuclear weapon holding counties be affected that fast? Suppose I lived in Niger, would most people I know be dead that fast? Would countries just hit any ally to the opposition immediately? I understand that the entire world will be affected and eventually the effects will be felt.

AQuantized 5y ago

The current ability to produce so much food in the developed world using modern fertilizer and methods, despite their disadvantages, means the most common threat that challenged our ancestors (famine) is barely present in many countries where it was a continual threat since civilization developed. Only global warming and nuclear war pose a similar threat, and only the former is worse now than it has been in the past, even given present circumstance.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

The taller they are the harder they fall. Our global society is so very tall.

RGamma 5y ago

The cacophony of voices lends itself well to doomerism. Wish there were more places one could hide from the self-absorption of our species.