4 ms·

I'm going to go a little rant just from the headline: Think about all of humankind — our ancestors in the past, us in the present, and our descendants in the f

I'm going to go a little rant just from the headline: Think about all of humankind — our ancestors in the past, us in the present, and our descendants in the future. Think about how much value we have inherited from our ancestors: Fire, wheel, GPS, electricity, farming, materials like steel, the list really goes on and on. Now, of course, there's no rule that says we _have_ to give to our descendants anything at all, or anything comparable to what we have received from our ancestors, but maybe we should think a bit selflessly when deciding to invest in science.

pavlov 4y ago
Anything we can realistically give them by investing in science will be dwarfed by the toxic legacy of climate change. It’s like your dad leaving you a really nice suit and one billion in debt in your name with no option for bankruptcy.
- agloeregrets 4y ago
  The best choice would have been to curb climate change, yes...but we are materially beyond the point of no return now. We could maybe give one more generation a better life with cuts, but putting a team together to find answers to big questions is much much easier than to make billions of people change their actions. It is far more efficient.
- klodolph 4y ago
  That's an age-old question. "Should we solve other problems besides what we think are the most important problems?" One problem with answering this question is that we don't know what avenues of research will produce important outcomes. Historically, we have been very bad at it. The mathematicians working on group theory in the late 19th century had no idea how important it would be to 20th-century scientists and engineers. Spaceflight, in particular, is an important part of the specific problem of solving climate change. Imagine trying to understand climate change without the use of satellites!
  - agloeregrets 4y ago
    Bingo. Also I would note that it is incredibly not a zero-sum game. A person could dedicate their life to playing Video games, zex, drugs, charity, religion, science, the environment, etc. Spending time and money on science does not remove time and work from climate, in fact it may increase the amount by adding public interest.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  We'll leave them with a whole array of low and no carbon energy sources, and the seeds for technology to draw down carbon. At some level our decedents will be born into a different world where people have adapted, they won't know anything else, but they'll have the tools to make the world they want. The future is full of possibility if we only look up a bit and try to imagine something better.
  - Scarblac 4y ago
    Extinct species won't be back though.
    - soraki_soladead 4y ago
      True but new species will emerge. There have be numerous mass extinction events on Earth.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Some won't but there's no reason to believe we won't be able to revive some species. It's unfortunate, but some loss is unavoidable. All we can do is prioritize, protect what we can, and move forward.
    - snikeris 4y ago
      Ultimately all species will perish due to the heat death of the sun unless we take them with us off this planet.
    - bckr 4y ago
      There's this idea that we should be sad about this. I say, if you're sad about it, I understand. I feel a little sad, too. But I'm also curious about what comes next. What will only get a chance to live thanks to the things that have died? What will humans be able to do in the aftermath? It sounds morbid, but if you just let yourself play with these thoughts they can lead somewhere different and interesting. The future is not full of only despair[] . [] https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw
      - 4y ago
adventured 4y ago
> maybe we should think a bit selflessly when deciding to invest in science It's not selfless. Most people have children and or grandchildren. It's extraordinarily selfish to want to see such personal, long-term investments flourish; investing into the macro future well-being is a great way to see to that. Cultures obviously don't always act rationally toward the distant future, some do though and we know from history (eg Norway's sovereign fund, to name one prominent recent example) that it can pay off spectacularly.
conductr 4y ago
I like this way of thinking but just to be devil’s advocate, we also constantly lose knowledge on a longer (but rather small) time scale. I think our high tech present, is at a bigger risk of losing >90% of what we’ve learned in the past few years. It’s like the global supply chain is great while it lasts. What happens to human knowledge if/when electricity is unavailable, hard drives are unavailable, etc. Some mad max or other post apocalypse situation is probably in the cards at some point, how do we keep the knowledge alive? If we knew how, would we? We seem to like to just ignore existential crises even when near and present. So it’s easy to be pessimistic about humanity in this regard.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  > how do we keep the knowledge alive? ... books? Scientific journals? Have you visited a library lately? Particularly one of the thousands of technical libraries on university campuses? They're still around. In fact it is an enduring frustration for me that I can sometimes only find quality technical information in books, particularly when it is esoteric. Retaining knowledge was a surmountable problem for past generations of scientists and innovators who had far fewer archival tools than we do today. I think we will manage.
  - conductr 4y ago
    That could go away too. It requires resources and specialization. Also, literacy rates, mobility, and access could be limited. It's a gradient, it could be completely lost or revert back to some priest/scribe higher class within the social system.
    - nwiswell 4y ago
      Okay. Let me know when literacy rates stop rising, access to information starts becoming less prevalent, the number of technical degrees granted every year begins to fall, or the number of libraries begins to decrease.
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
> there's no rule that says we _have_ to give to our descendants anything at all The rules of genetic reproduction disagree. You have to give your descendants the information how to grow into a human, or they aren't descendants by definition. Since we've been steadily reducing genetic information in favor of learned information, by extension you have to teach your children how to be functional human beings, in absence of instinct, or they grow up mentally disabled (in the wider context of society). Furthermore, inheritance laws literally say you have to give some of your wealth to your descendants. It's 50% in my country. Sure you can spend it all before you die but that's sidestepping the existence of the rules, which very much exist.

pavlov 4y ago

Anything we can realistically give them by investing in science will be dwarfed by the toxic legacy of climate change. It’s like your dad leaving you a really nice suit and one billion in debt in your name with no option for bankruptcy.

agloeregrets 4y ago
The best choice would have been to curb climate change, yes...but we are materially beyond the point of no return now. We could maybe give one more generation a better life with cuts, but putting a team together to find answers to big questions is much much easier than to make billions of people change their actions. It is far more efficient.
klodolph 4y ago
That's an age-old question. "Should we solve other problems besides what we think are the most important problems?" One problem with answering this question is that we don't know what avenues of research will produce important outcomes. Historically, we have been very bad at it. The mathematicians working on group theory in the late 19th century had no idea how important it would be to 20th-century scientists and engineers. Spaceflight, in particular, is an important part of the specific problem of solving climate change. Imagine trying to understand climate change without the use of satellites!
- agloeregrets 4y ago
  Bingo. Also I would note that it is incredibly not a zero-sum game. A person could dedicate their life to playing Video games, zex, drugs, charity, religion, science, the environment, etc. Spending time and money on science does not remove time and work from climate, in fact it may increase the amount by adding public interest.
ch4s3 4y ago
We'll leave them with a whole array of low and no carbon energy sources, and the seeds for technology to draw down carbon. At some level our decedents will be born into a different world where people have adapted, they won't know anything else, but they'll have the tools to make the world they want. The future is full of possibility if we only look up a bit and try to imagine something better.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  Extinct species won't be back though.
  - soraki_soladead 4y ago
    True but new species will emerge. There have be numerous mass extinction events on Earth.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Some won't but there's no reason to believe we won't be able to revive some species. It's unfortunate, but some loss is unavoidable. All we can do is prioritize, protect what we can, and move forward.
  - snikeris 4y ago
    Ultimately all species will perish due to the heat death of the sun unless we take them with us off this planet.
  - bckr 4y ago
    There's this idea that we should be sad about this. I say, if you're sad about it, I understand. I feel a little sad, too. But I'm also curious about what comes next. What will only get a chance to live thanks to the things that have died? What will humans be able to do in the aftermath? It sounds morbid, but if you just let yourself play with these thoughts they can lead somewhere different and interesting. The future is not full of only despair[] . [] https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw
    - 4y ago

adventured 4y ago

> maybe we should think a bit selflessly when deciding to invest in science It's not selfless. Most people have children and or grandchildren. It's extraordinarily selfish to want to see such personal, long-term investments flourish; investing into the macro future well-being is a great way to see to that. Cultures obviously don't always act rationally toward the distant future, some do though and we know from history (eg Norway's sovereign fund, to name one prominent recent example) that it can pay off spectacularly.

conductr 4y ago

I like this way of thinking but just to be devil’s advocate, we also constantly lose knowledge on a longer (but rather small) time scale. I think our high tech present, is at a bigger risk of losing >90% of what we’ve learned in the past few years. It’s like the global supply chain is great while it lasts. What happens to human knowledge if/when electricity is unavailable, hard drives are unavailable, etc. Some mad max or other post apocalypse situation is probably in the cards at some point, how do we keep the knowledge alive? If we knew how, would we? We seem to like to just ignore existential crises even when near and present. So it’s easy to be pessimistic about humanity in this regard.

nwiswell 4y ago
> how do we keep the knowledge alive? ... books? Scientific journals? Have you visited a library lately? Particularly one of the thousands of technical libraries on university campuses? They're still around. In fact it is an enduring frustration for me that I can sometimes only find quality technical information in books, particularly when it is esoteric. Retaining knowledge was a surmountable problem for past generations of scientists and innovators who had far fewer archival tools than we do today. I think we will manage.
- conductr 4y ago
  That could go away too. It requires resources and specialization. Also, literacy rates, mobility, and access could be limited. It's a gradient, it could be completely lost or revert back to some priest/scribe higher class within the social system.
  - nwiswell 4y ago
    Okay. Let me know when literacy rates stop rising, access to information starts becoming less prevalent, the number of technical degrees granted every year begins to fall, or the number of libraries begins to decrease.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

> there's no rule that says we _have_ to give to our descendants anything at all The rules of genetic reproduction disagree. You have to give your descendants the information how to grow into a human, or they aren't descendants by definition. Since we've been steadily reducing genetic information in favor of learned information, by extension you have to teach your children how to be functional human beings, in absence of instinct, or they grow up mentally disabled (in the wider context of society). Furthermore, inheritance laws literally say you have to give some of your wealth to your descendants. It's 50% in my country. Sure you can spend it all before you die but that's sidestepping the existence of the rules, which very much exist.