8 ms·

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in t

by c54 4y ago

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our american/european standard of living. The other is naive and stupid and ignores the fact that we humans are capable of wielding planetwide power. The same strain of thinking that lets someone imagine himself as a tiny speck inconsequential to the cosmos, leads to denial that our species can affect the biosphere we live in. There’s a lack of context and of material security and of a culture of cultivating peace and mutual support. I think there’s a middle ground which acknowledges our need for stewardship, for human-in-the-loop systems level thinking about how we can garden our planet into a sustainable system that is not only able to support us but also helps us to thrive and to enjoy in the miracle of existence. We have to take stock of what we’re doing that isn’t working, and push for long term success in renewables, efficient human living, beauty in our proximate environments (not just faraway nature preserves). And we have to reckon with needing to mine huge amounts of materials in order to manufacture things like batteries and solar panels to make all this happen. Ultimately I think we’ll continue to make progress in exactly these goals and it’s important to not lose hope, and to try to positively affect those around you (especially young folks, children are the future).

ericmcer 4y ago
Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? It has deeply immoral roots and has led to some of the most messed up scenarios in our history, but it is also a crazy powerful tool we have been unable to leverage in a non-evil way. (This is kinda tangential but related) I have a weird theory about humanities purpose: Assuming someone/thing created life (if life wasn't created then it truly is random chaos and we have no purpose), but if life was intentionally made then we were created for a reason. Determining what that reason was will tell us what our purpose is. The only clue we have is evolution. If we can reverse engineer the mechanisms of evolution it should give us clues about why we are here. What is evolution driving us to become? If we can figure that out we might be able to deduce what our purpose is. I feel like one of life's huge leaps forward, on par with single->multicellular, is recognizing that these evolutionary mechanisms exist, furthering our understanding of and leveraging them. Anyway that is a long ramble to say it sucks that we as a species cannot really touch any kind of eugenics without genociding eachother.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  > If we can reverse engineer the mechanisms of evolution Evolution is a very simple process, broadly speaking. You can implement your own model of it fairly easily. Survival is basically the only driving force, only those variations that survive to reproduce will be present in the next generation. It's a useful tool but we shouldn't let it guide us since it is quite blind. > What is evolution driving us to become? There is no destination for the evolutionary process. It's creation by subtraction really, everything that doesn't work gets eliminated. Mind you, it's always only applicable to the current circumstances. What works in one time and place will not always work in another. Hence the constant change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  This is one of the wildest things I’ve read on the internet… this year? Why does a lack of creative design mean human experience is meaningless?
  - apsurd 4y ago
    Agree, thank you for being first to say it. That humanity is _converging_ on some "intentional" optimal outcome is dramatically depressing to me in a way that i wasn't prepared to read today. Now i don't know what's left or right, but insofar as my time here is concerned, let chaos blossom! Way more fun
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    Haha thanks Well a lack of a creator means we invent our own purpose I suppose, and garner whatever ethereal meaning from that we can. That just feels hollow to me. The idea that we are just biological machines serving the unfathomable aims of some sky daddy is unsettling but suits me better than our purpose being a bunch of lame platitudes about being kind or whatever.
    - 6510 4y ago
      but then sky daddy is the biological machine inventing his own purpose.
franciscop 4y ago
In my opinion the issue with the balance here is that no matter where you fall on the "climate scale belief" (except probably the most extreme of deniers), people consider anyone that thinks a better future than you is coming will be labelled a denier, while anyone who thinks a worse future than you think is coming is given a soft pass as just having stronger convictions. That unfortunately leaves the vast majority of people being labelled as deniers from people with stronger beliefs, no matter where you fall. I think the vast majority of people today do know that climate change is coming, that we are changing the weather at a global scale, etc. Actual true deniers that say human have no effect in global climate, IMHO, are so few that they are not even worth mentioning besides anecdote (at a similar level to flat-earth believers). The issue then becomes, what level of climate change vs what level of sacrifice are we willing to accept? It seems clear that even with this question there are extremes that are likely unwanted, and there's probably another distribution going from two extremes: do absolutely nothing now and people will die later due to climate change, and the other extreme is sacrificing the prosperity of developed and developing countries now (which means people will continue dying at a rate too high) and have a minimal climate change effect later. Both extremes are too extreme and seem wrong, and somewhere in the middle seems like the obvious, correct solution, but where exactly in the middle is the important question that not many people seem to be talking about and baffles me.
- ehnto 4y ago
  The choice isn't even starting from the middle of the spectrum. We already have the foot on the accelerator, and it's unlikely we'll let up with our current generation of leaders. I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here. It will only be once the next generation of leaders comes into power, maybe even the generation after that, as they will be living the climate reality enough to want to fix it (whichever level of severity it ends up being). At which point we'll be needing to focus on remediation still, before finally, hopefully, creating some kind of sustainable version of our current societies.
  - psychoslave 4y ago
dariosalvi78 4y ago
I don't see de-growth as an extreme option, in fact it is the only outcome possible in the long term, either in a planned manner, or through collapse. In terms of denialists, I am afraid that actually the majority of people are overwhelmed by the huge issues we are facing, and just think we should enjoy life and forget about any responsibility. I don't want to lose hope, but as things are now, I am afraid that we are far more likely to face collapse than to find a solution.
- psychoslave 4y ago
  What do we mean with de-growth here? Human world population? Energy-consumption per human? long-lasting-non-recyclable-waste per human? Mankind GDP? Wealth distribution discrepancy? On collapse, the only serious book I red was Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed".
  - dariosalvi78 4y ago
    I mean mostly GDP (yes economists, I am looking at you), but, alas, all these dimensions are linked. I guess that decoupling is possible to some extent. I don't want to lose the hope that we can live happy lives without destroying the planet (or ourselves), but we need a very bold strategy, and I haven't seen any yet.
    - MrPatan 4y ago
      GDP is not something that happens in an economist's office.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
This is another issue witha clear age divide. Younger generation is overwhelmingly aware of the problem, but our decisiojn makers have an average age of 70 or some such. Older voters hold more power too. Brexit was overwhelmingly voted for by older people. The west is in crisis because the young peiple are getting shafted at every step, from the housing market to the environment. I love my grandparents, but I would never put them in a position of power - they just aren't as sharp and switched on as they used to be Edit: for people downvoting, look at how age of politicians has increased in US. Look at how politics has become more disfunctional. The change is real https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/congress-senate-house-age-problem https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/congre...
- Tade0 4y ago
  Also when they were young there was just roughly half the people on this planet comparing to today and even fewer enjoying a western standard of living. I remember when the Chinese were known for cycling to work en masse. Now they're the largest automobile market in the world. Old people can't imagine what it's like to grow up in such a world.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
strainer 4y ago
Sorry I am commenting in a hurry, but I just have to say... Our way of living - is not a desirable standard. Your mileage may vary, you may be "making it" - but most people aren't. We find reasons to be thankful, but most people are lonely, insecure, unfulfilled and comforting with junk food or media, 'retail therapy' or drugs. Most adults are 'feeling their age', unfit or overweight, medicating. Surrounded by and even consuming materials untested by natural history, that may be contributing to rises in autoimmune and cancer. Some goods are in relative abundance, but also overall as many ills.

by c54 4y ago

ericmcer 4y ago

Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? It has deeply immoral roots and has led to some of the most messed up scenarios in our history, but it is also a crazy powerful tool we have been unable to leverage in a non-evil way. (This is kinda tangential but related) I have a weird theory about humanities purpose: Assuming someone/thing created life (if life wasn't created then it truly is random chaos and we have no purpose), but if life was intentionally made then we were created for a reason. Determining what that reason was will tell us what our purpose is. The only clue we have is evolution. If we can reverse engineer the mechanisms of evolution it should give us clues about why we are here. What is evolution driving us to become? If we can figure that out we might be able to deduce what our purpose is. I feel like one of life's huge leaps forward, on par with single->multicellular, is recognizing that these evolutionary mechanisms exist, furthering our understanding of and leveraging them. Anyway that is a long ramble to say it sucks that we as a species cannot really touch any kind of eugenics without genociding eachother.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
> If we can reverse engineer the mechanisms of evolution Evolution is a very simple process, broadly speaking. You can implement your own model of it fairly easily. Survival is basically the only driving force, only those variations that survive to reproduce will be present in the next generation. It's a useful tool but we shouldn't let it guide us since it is quite blind. > What is evolution driving us to become? There is no destination for the evolutionary process. It's creation by subtraction really, everything that doesn't work gets eliminated. Mind you, it's always only applicable to the current circumstances. What works in one time and place will not always work in another. Hence the constant change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
DiggyJohnson 4y ago
This is one of the wildest things I’ve read on the internet… this year? Why does a lack of creative design mean human experience is meaningless?
- apsurd 4y ago
  Agree, thank you for being first to say it. That humanity is _converging_ on some "intentional" optimal outcome is dramatically depressing to me in a way that i wasn't prepared to read today. Now i don't know what's left or right, but insofar as my time here is concerned, let chaos blossom! Way more fun
- ericmcer 4y ago
  Haha thanks Well a lack of a creator means we invent our own purpose I suppose, and garner whatever ethereal meaning from that we can. That just feels hollow to me. The idea that we are just biological machines serving the unfathomable aims of some sky daddy is unsettling but suits me better than our purpose being a bunch of lame platitudes about being kind or whatever.
  - 6510 4y ago
    but then sky daddy is the biological machine inventing his own purpose.

franciscop 4y ago

In my opinion the issue with the balance here is that no matter where you fall on the "climate scale belief" (except probably the most extreme of deniers), people consider anyone that thinks a better future than you is coming will be labelled a denier, while anyone who thinks a worse future than you think is coming is given a soft pass as just having stronger convictions. That unfortunately leaves the vast majority of people being labelled as deniers from people with stronger beliefs, no matter where you fall. I think the vast majority of people today do know that climate change is coming, that we are changing the weather at a global scale, etc. Actual true deniers that say human have no effect in global climate, IMHO, are so few that they are not even worth mentioning besides anecdote (at a similar level to flat-earth believers). The issue then becomes, what level of climate change vs what level of sacrifice are we willing to accept? It seems clear that even with this question there are extremes that are likely unwanted, and there's probably another distribution going from two extremes: do absolutely nothing now and people will die later due to climate change, and the other extreme is sacrificing the prosperity of developed and developing countries now (which means people will continue dying at a rate too high) and have a minimal climate change effect later. Both extremes are too extreme and seem wrong, and somewhere in the middle seems like the obvious, correct solution, but where exactly in the middle is the important question that not many people seem to be talking about and baffles me.

ehnto 4y ago
The choice isn't even starting from the middle of the spectrum. We already have the foot on the accelerator, and it's unlikely we'll let up with our current generation of leaders. I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here. It will only be once the next generation of leaders comes into power, maybe even the generation after that, as they will be living the climate reality enough to want to fix it (whichever level of severity it ends up being). At which point we'll be needing to focus on remediation still, before finally, hopefully, creating some kind of sustainable version of our current societies.
- psychoslave 4y ago

dariosalvi78 4y ago

I don't see de-growth as an extreme option, in fact it is the only outcome possible in the long term, either in a planned manner, or through collapse. In terms of denialists, I am afraid that actually the majority of people are overwhelmed by the huge issues we are facing, and just think we should enjoy life and forget about any responsibility. I don't want to lose hope, but as things are now, I am afraid that we are far more likely to face collapse than to find a solution.

psychoslave 4y ago
What do we mean with de-growth here? Human world population? Energy-consumption per human? long-lasting-non-recyclable-waste per human? Mankind GDP? Wealth distribution discrepancy? On collapse, the only serious book I red was Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed".
- dariosalvi78 4y ago
  I mean mostly GDP (yes economists, I am looking at you), but, alas, all these dimensions are linked. I guess that decoupling is possible to some extent. I don't want to lose the hope that we can live happy lives without destroying the planet (or ourselves), but we need a very bold strategy, and I haven't seen any yet.
  - MrPatan 4y ago
    GDP is not something that happens in an economist's office.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

This is another issue witha clear age divide. Younger generation is overwhelmingly aware of the problem, but our decisiojn makers have an average age of 70 or some such. Older voters hold more power too. Brexit was overwhelmingly voted for by older people. The west is in crisis because the young peiple are getting shafted at every step, from the housing market to the environment. I love my grandparents, but I would never put them in a position of power - they just aren't as sharp and switched on as they used to be Edit: for people downvoting, look at how age of politicians has increased in US. Look at how politics has become more disfunctional. The change is real https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/congress-senate-house-age-problem https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/congre...

Tade0 4y ago
Also when they were young there was just roughly half the people on this planet comparing to today and even fewer enjoying a western standard of living. I remember when the Chinese were known for cycling to work en masse. Now they're the largest automobile market in the world. Old people can't imagine what it's like to grow up in such a world.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

strainer 4y ago

Sorry I am commenting in a hurry, but I just have to say... Our way of living - is not a desirable standard. Your mileage may vary, you may be "making it" - but most people aren't. We find reasons to be thankful, but most people are lonely, insecure, unfulfilled and comforting with junk food or media, 'retail therapy' or drugs. Most adults are 'feeling their age', unfit or overweight, medicating. Surrounded by and even consuming materials untested by natural history, that may be contributing to rises in autoimmune and cancer. Some goods are in relative abundance, but also overall as many ills.