4 ms·

While a completely valid theory (and thank you for sharing it here), that is super dark. There just seems to be so much we know we don't know, that to theorize

by jprd 4y ago

While a completely valid theory (and thank you for sharing it here), that is super dark. There just seems to be so much we know we don't know, that to theorize we're the pinnacle of what civilization can be is...gauche? Insanely short sighted and Sol-centric? I dunno, I'm obviously not a theoretical physicist or conducting well thought out experiments testing those theories - but it just seems defeatist and lame. We have a visible Universe that has rules and guardrails - that's bonkers and needs to be hacked more.

DAVer98 4y ago
All the best chord progressions are known, all the best formulas for movie scripts are rehashed again and again, it does feel like we are now on borrowed time whenever I hear a bad song or see a bad movie and this is extending to video games now, when most things appear bad these days compared to what came before and they like they should not have been created it means we should not be around doing it. We're done. We did our bit. Its time for our civilization to wind down.
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  I bet there were people saying the same thing about the music hundreds of years ago. Or about theater. Shakespeare, who needs something else? Well, personally I will take a good movie from the past 25 years over Shakespeare any day. A lot of them borrow from Shakespeare or similar of course but I like the rehashes from 15 years ago better than the originals.
cwillu 4y ago
“It was said that in the Age of Legends, there had been horseless carriages that drank the black blood of the earth, long since drained dry. But then, it was said that in the Age of Legends, men had flown to the moon on a pillar of fire. Who took such stories seriously?” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ro6QSQaKdhfpeeGpr/why-safety-is-not-safe https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ro6QSQaKdhfpeeGpr/why-safety...
- brabel 4y ago
  Beautiful text. About the end of the Chinese civilization technological advantage in the 16th century: > War had ravaged the lands, laying waste whole cities. Plague had struck, killing millions, men, women and children buried in mass graves... > (but) the force that put an end to the Chinese arc of progress was deadlier by far than all of these together, yet seemingly intangible as metaphysics. By the 16th century, the fleets had vanished, the proximate cause political; to this day there is no consensus on the underlying factors. Also: > The saving grace has always been the outside: when one nation, one civilization, faltered, another picked up the torch and carried on; but with the march of globalization, there may soon be no more outside. Perhaps the direction the world is going in the last couple of years, with less unity, is not that bad.
  - leaflets2 4y ago
    > less unity Angrier and angrier narcissist dictators with nukes? -- less unity yes. Does it increase safety? Yes beautiful text
    - brabel 4y ago
      It's a double-edged sword... if we want to have multiple competing civilizations, it's unavoidable they will conflict with each other (I'm pretty sure you'll always view the "other" guys as angry and evil no matter what they do, just as "they" see you the same way). That may be a necessary evil though in the really long term.
      - leaflets2 4y ago
        Personally, I both agree and disagree. I think with more intelligent humans, harder for want-to-be dictators to manipulate, we could have different cultures and countries, and everyone friends, just enjoying the differences, as tourists and exchange students, no conflicts. But with the humans of today, then yes I agree that conflict is unavoidable
        4y ago

by jprd 4y ago

DAVer98 4y ago

All the best chord progressions are known, all the best formulas for movie scripts are rehashed again and again, it does feel like we are now on borrowed time whenever I hear a bad song or see a bad movie and this is extending to video games now, when most things appear bad these days compared to what came before and they like they should not have been created it means we should not be around doing it. We're done. We did our bit. Its time for our civilization to wind down.

tharkun__ 4y ago
I bet there were people saying the same thing about the music hundreds of years ago. Or about theater. Shakespeare, who needs something else? Well, personally I will take a good movie from the past 25 years over Shakespeare any day. A lot of them borrow from Shakespeare or similar of course but I like the rehashes from 15 years ago better than the originals.

cwillu 4y ago

“It was said that in the Age of Legends, there had been horseless carriages that drank the black blood of the earth, long since drained dry. But then, it was said that in the Age of Legends, men had flown to the moon on a pillar of fire. Who took such stories seriously?” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ro6QSQaKdhfpeeGpr/why-safety-is-not-safe https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ro6QSQaKdhfpeeGpr/why-safety...

brabel 4y ago
Beautiful text. About the end of the Chinese civilization technological advantage in the 16th century: > War had ravaged the lands, laying waste whole cities. Plague had struck, killing millions, men, women and children buried in mass graves... > (but) the force that put an end to the Chinese arc of progress was deadlier by far than all of these together, yet seemingly intangible as metaphysics. By the 16th century, the fleets had vanished, the proximate cause political; to this day there is no consensus on the underlying factors. Also: > The saving grace has always been the outside: when one nation, one civilization, faltered, another picked up the torch and carried on; but with the march of globalization, there may soon be no more outside. Perhaps the direction the world is going in the last couple of years, with less unity, is not that bad.
- leaflets2 4y ago
  > less unity Angrier and angrier narcissist dictators with nukes? -- less unity yes. Does it increase safety? Yes beautiful text
  - brabel 4y ago
    It's a double-edged sword... if we want to have multiple competing civilizations, it's unavoidable they will conflict with each other (I'm pretty sure you'll always view the "other" guys as angry and evil no matter what they do, just as "they" see you the same way). That may be a necessary evil though in the really long term.
    - leaflets2 4y ago
      Personally, I both agree and disagree. I think with more intelligent humans, harder for want-to-be dictators to manipulate, we could have different cultures and countries, and everyone friends, just enjoying the differences, as tourists and exchange students, no conflicts. But with the humans of today, then yes I agree that conflict is unavoidable
      - 4y ago