3 ms·

> "The degree to which humanity runs on tautological reasoning is the part that I find interesting." yah, this is the amazing part. societies are much more res

> "The degree to which humanity runs on tautological reasoning is the part that I find interesting." yah, this is the amazing part. societies are much more resilient than we might otherwise give them credit for. we can endure a lot of suboptimality and hardship, and even reasoning our way into tenacious consent, because the activation energy for change is so high and the final outcome so uncertain. perhaps this is the best we can do--find stable local optima for limited spans of time. but regardless, being able to uncover poor rationale like tautologies is one effective tool in the toolbox for reshaping political narratives. it's a slog for sure, but you do sometimes see narratives change (covid response being a vivid example). being indenpendently-minded (skeptical) helps a lot too, as you're not personally invested identity-wise in any given narrative, and are willing to change your mind more easily as new information rolls in. we have hugely invested interests working against such reforms, but some of these will come to pass one day for sure, just because enough people will be fed up and demand it, despite the personal cost[*]. [*]: most people are wholly unsuited for conflict (even the constructive kind) because it's so uncomfortable and risky, and in developed countries as we're constructed, the payoff seems so disporportionate (a lot of gain going to others, a little going to you, but you seemingly taking much of the personal risk).

mistermann 4y ago
> yah, this is the amazing part. societies are much more resilient than we might otherwise give them credit for. we can endure a lot of suboptimality and hardship, and even reasoning our way into tenacious consent, because the activation energy for change is so high and the final outcome so uncertain. perhaps this is the best we can do--find stable local optima for limited spans of time. You know, on one hand this is harmful...but then on the other hand I think it is also a bit of a silver lining. As it is, it seems to me that we are on some sort of a collision course with Mother Nature, climate change being the biggest threat but certainly not the only one (nuclear weapons, AI, etc). But if the shit was to ever really hit the fan, a "Get Out of Jail Free (maybe)" is in existence: humanity could [1] upgrade its firmware/software. [1] Or, the option exists - whether we are able to actually take advantage of it is another matter, but even if we're not doing so good, I think a "bootsrapping" type deployment could maybe be pulled off, so we could maybe "work our way up" slowly, despite our inability to go directly to higher versions.
- clairity 4y ago
  my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to survive as a species, even if it's very suboptimal. that may sounds cynical, but it's mostly an optimistic perspective about our resilience. and i know climate change is all the rage these days, but i'm way more concerned about pollution (literally killing millions now and for the past century+), which is what the climate change narrative tries to divert our attention away from (because it wholly fulfills our need to do something about, and our attentive capacity for, "environmentalism"). it's the same playbook used by sugar against fat, but perverted back against itself. the fossil fuel and auto lobbies seems to think they can do something about CO₂ (probably token efforts), but not all the rest of the pollutants they spew, so they're reluctantly on the climate change bandwagon as a risk mitigation and diversion strategy.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. Agree...but there are two change opportunities here: change people, and change the process. > i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. Anything involving humans is prone to these sorts of problems, as it currently is anyways...but people can improve, and have done so! Also, considering propaganda: I agree it is a very, very big problem - but two can play at that game, and at levels far higher than is currently done. > i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to survive as a species, even if it's very suboptimal. that may sounds cynical, but it's mostly an optimistic perspective about our resilience. I worry less about the direct affects than I do the Nth order effects (mass migration, political polarization, war, etc). > which is what the climate change narrative tries to divert our attention away from (because it wholly fulfills our need to do something about, and our attentive capacity for, "environmentalism"). I often wonder about this as well....it's been done before with great success. Sadly, any suggestion of this would likely be met with outrage by people in the movement, regardless of whether that reaction is beneficial to their cause. > it's the same playbook used by sugar against fat, but perverted back against itself. the fossil fuel and auto lobbies seems to think they can do something about CO₂ (probably token efforts), but not all the rest of the pollutants they spew, so they're reluctantly on the climate change bandwagon as a risk mitigation and diversion strategy. What's interesting about this to me (and the thousands of other examples like it, particularly politics): *"everyone" knows that this is how it works, but when that bell rings, Pavlov's dogs start drooling on cue. After considering the comprehensive scenario for several years to the best of my ability, I have formed the belief that there is some sort of a fundamental problem with people, and reality itself. Call me an optimist, but I actually believe something substantial can be done about it.

mistermann 4y ago

> yah, this is the amazing part. societies are much more resilient than we might otherwise give them credit for. we can endure a lot of suboptimality and hardship, and even reasoning our way into tenacious consent, because the activation energy for change is so high and the final outcome so uncertain. perhaps this is the best we can do--find stable local optima for limited spans of time. You know, on one hand this is harmful...but then on the other hand I think it is also a bit of a silver lining. As it is, it seems to me that we are on some sort of a collision course with Mother Nature, climate change being the biggest threat but certainly not the only one (nuclear weapons, AI, etc). But if the shit was to ever really hit the fan, a "Get Out of Jail Free (maybe)" is in existence: humanity could [1] upgrade its firmware/software. [1] Or, the option exists - whether we are able to actually take advantage of it is another matter, but even if we're not doing so good, I think a "bootsrapping" type deployment could maybe be pulled off, so we could maybe "work our way up" slowly, despite our inability to go directly to higher versions.

clairity 4y ago
my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to survive as a species, even if it's very suboptimal. that may sounds cynical, but it's mostly an optimistic perspective about our resilience. and i know climate change is all the rage these days, but i'm way more concerned about pollution (literally killing millions now and for the past century+), which is what the climate change narrative tries to divert our attention away from (because it wholly fulfills our need to do something about, and our attentive capacity for, "environmentalism"). it's the same playbook used by sugar against fat, but perverted back against itself. the fossil fuel and auto lobbies seems to think they can do something about CO₂ (probably token efforts), but not all the rest of the pollutants they spew, so they're reluctantly on the climate change bandwagon as a risk mitigation and diversion strategy.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > my frustration is that we can never even come close to living up to our ideals as a society because our selfishness and greed constantly undermine the process of improvement. Agree...but there are two change opportunities here: change people, and change the process. > i used to subscribe to the term "progressivism" for this process, but even that's been undermined by tribalism and political propaganda. Anything involving humans is prone to these sorts of problems, as it currently is anyways...but people can improve, and have done so! Also, considering propaganda: I agree it is a very, very big problem - but two can play at that game, and at levels far higher than is currently done. > i'm actually not too concerned about end of the world scenarios. we, like cockroaches, will find a way to survive as a species, even if it's very suboptimal. that may sounds cynical, but it's mostly an optimistic perspective about our resilience. I worry less about the direct affects than I do the Nth order effects (mass migration, political polarization, war, etc). > which is what the climate change narrative tries to divert our attention away from (because it wholly fulfills our need to do something about, and our attentive capacity for, "environmentalism"). I often wonder about this as well....it's been done before with great success. Sadly, any suggestion of this would likely be met with outrage by people in the movement, regardless of whether that reaction is beneficial to their cause. > it's the same playbook used by sugar against fat, but perverted back against itself. the fossil fuel and auto lobbies seems to think they can do something about CO₂ (probably token efforts), but not all the rest of the pollutants they spew, so they're reluctantly on the climate change bandwagon as a risk mitigation and diversion strategy. What's interesting about this to me (and the thousands of other examples like it, particularly politics): *"everyone" knows that this is how it works, but when that bell rings, Pavlov's dogs start drooling on cue. After considering the comprehensive scenario for several years to the best of my ability, I have formed the belief that there is some sort of a fundamental problem with people, and reality itself. Call me an optimist, but I actually believe something substantial can be done about it.