5 ms·

> 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 hardsh

> 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.
  - clairity 4y ago
    oh, yes, i'm not saying all is lost (even if that's how it may have seemed), but that it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths, when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain. it's tempting to throw out simplistic solutions like "let's skepticism!" but almost impossible to actually change people en masse like that. which then points to your second course of action, changing processes (via the systems that implement them), and that's something i truly believe in, but still find frustratingly slow. [0]: plus the expert fallacy, which i mentioned before. i was just having this conversation last night about doctors, who know next to nothing in comparison to how complex biology is, but we still as a society feel compelled to venerate (and remunerate) doctors irrationally because they hold people's lives in their hands (understandably). but that outsized veneration (and remuneration) often leads to egos that can't admit ignorance or doubt and that leads to millions of unnecessary deaths and countless people with worse health outcomes. and that's not a condemnation of doctors, but a realistic understanding of where our collective knowledge lies relative to the long arc of evolution, but the societal distortion persists nonetheless.

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.
- clairity 4y ago
  oh, yes, i'm not saying all is lost (even if that's how it may have seemed), but that it's frustratingly slow to get people to discover and coalesce around actual truths, when special interests[0] are highly motivated to undermine truths and the general welfare time and again for personal and outsized gain. it's tempting to throw out simplistic solutions like "let's skepticism!" but almost impossible to actually change people en masse like that. which then points to your second course of action, changing processes (via the systems that implement them), and that's something i truly believe in, but still find frustratingly slow. [0]: plus the expert fallacy, which i mentioned before. i was just having this conversation last night about doctors, who know next to nothing in comparison to how complex biology is, but we still as a society feel compelled to venerate (and remunerate) doctors irrationally because they hold people's lives in their hands (understandably). but that outsized veneration (and remuneration) often leads to egos that can't admit ignorance or doubt and that leads to millions of unnecessary deaths and countless people with worse health outcomes. and that's not a condemnation of doctors, but a realistic understanding of where our collective knowledge lies relative to the long arc of evolution, but the societal distortion persists nonetheless.