3 ms·

If it was as simple as you're painting it then it wouldn't be a problem. The fact that it is a problem should indicate to you that there are factors you might n

If it was as simple as you're painting it then it wouldn't be a problem. The fact that it is a problem should indicate to you that there are factors you might not be considering. For example, the logistics to provide plumbing to developing nations are extremely difficult because of the instability of these regions as well as the lack of cooperation from developed nations to precisely help in these much needed regards. A lot of the help these places get come in the form of philanthropic pursuit or misguided help that end up either not helping or sometimes worsening the situation. Not only that, but there are many interests at play that also get in the way of these places developing. For many powerful actors in these countries the status quo is good enough and any form of development actually threatens their position. And yes, sadly, this applies to plumbing as well! It's very true that we know how to do plumbing, in the technical sense, but in reality we don't know how to do plumbing in these regions because our technical knowledge is not applicable given the socio-political situation. So this does require an interdisciplinary approach, one that involves sociology, psychology, economics, politics, etc.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
Fascinating that political sociology invalidates known plumbing technology.
tomrod 4y ago
You covered exactly what I said, with more words, until making the claim that an interdisciplinary approach is required. "Interdisciplinary approach" means we need to research the problem space. The research is already done. The solutions are ready and exist. Its the implementation that people get squeamish on for fear of offending portions of the coalition in power. Their squeamishness doesn't justify delaying action, which is what your approach advocates by casting solutioneering as requiring additional raw research versus applying what is known. Pipes, shovels, and pumps solve a lot of core problems for a community. Where and how they get laid down doesn't require sociology or political economy research. You might care about the people displaced by the infrastructure, which a compassionate person will, but don't forget that home construction and legal recompense for eminent domain are also known. The major difference between your and my approaches: while the interdisciplinarists are arguing about the impact of infrastructure development on endangered plants and relative value of indigenous pottery buried for several thousand years, the pragmatists are getting people out of the bondage of poverty and enabling them solve their problems themselves because they have risen above subsistence. Note there is value to ensuring the endangered plants are maintained and the indigenous pottery is studied -- as well as the knowledge gained from all fields that might come to an interdisciplinarists table -- but one must recognize the advancement of patron-funded knowledge is a bottleneck when it stands in the way of well-understood solutions.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  > Its the implementation that people get squeamish on for fear of offending portions of the coalition in power. Their squeamishness doesn't justify delaying action, And that action that's totally appropriate but people are just too squeamish for would be ... what, an armed invasion to impose "better" cultural values?
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Sure, in certain cases where the people ubiquitously want pipes, shovels, and pumps, but the power structures in place prevent it and the invader or external trader brings it without wanting to rule. I'll leave that for the dithering interdiscipinarists to dicker about as a hypothetical. However, more steelmaned and aligned to my original statement, as well as more common when facing decisions, being okay with the realistic tradeoffs that an endangered plant might have a reduction in habitat.
mistermann 4y ago
Sir: surely you're not suggesting that we (humanity) may not be interested in metaphysics (the fundamental nature of reality (both physically materialized as well as counterfactual), the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, consciousness, possibility, etc), but that metaphysics may be interested in us? Because if you are, I have some unfortunate news: metaphysics is woo woo. And if you do not believe me, try doing a survey and see what results you get. Or, if you do not trust the opinion of the general public, try also running surveys within scientific and Rationalist communities, or even here on HN, and see if your results are substantially different.
- mistermann 4y ago
  That this is attracting downvotes is not surprising, but it is very interesting. One of the many things I find interesting about metaphysics, and humans (but I repeat myself) is that "most" humans, particularly those who are more educated, tend to be certain that metaphysics is dumb/useless/etc, yet the fact that they are unable to articulate the reason why this is true (and defend the articulation in a sound manner) seems to have little to no effect on their opinion of the quality of their belief (a behavior that would not be a source of pride or tolerated here when it comes to topics like computing). But unfortunately, this idea itself is metaphysical, so it can be easily dismissed by the initial belief. It's like a bootstrap problem of sorts.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    > That this is attracting downvotes is not surprising Your parent comment and subsequent followup are difficult for me to parse. If others had similar difficulty, it could account for the downvotes. I did not downvote your comments.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      It was a little sarcastic, to be fair. Genuinely curious: what's difficult to parse? I think part of the problem is how inconsistently the domain of Metaphysics is perceived by many in general, and then there's also the fact that New Agers have to some degree hijacked it and caused an association between the word and "woo woo" to form in people's minds, so when they hear the word, they believe it IS "woo woo". This is the phenomenon at which my "childish" sarcasm is aimed (what's good for the goose is good for the gander is my excuse).

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

Fascinating that political sociology invalidates known plumbing technology.

tomrod 4y ago

You covered exactly what I said, with more words, until making the claim that an interdisciplinary approach is required. "Interdisciplinary approach" means we need to research the problem space. The research is already done. The solutions are ready and exist. Its the implementation that people get squeamish on for fear of offending portions of the coalition in power. Their squeamishness doesn't justify delaying action, which is what your approach advocates by casting solutioneering as requiring additional raw research versus applying what is known. Pipes, shovels, and pumps solve a lot of core problems for a community. Where and how they get laid down doesn't require sociology or political economy research. You might care about the people displaced by the infrastructure, which a compassionate person will, but don't forget that home construction and legal recompense for eminent domain are also known. The major difference between your and my approaches: while the interdisciplinarists are arguing about the impact of infrastructure development on endangered plants and relative value of indigenous pottery buried for several thousand years, the pragmatists are getting people out of the bondage of poverty and enabling them solve their problems themselves because they have risen above subsistence. Note there is value to ensuring the endangered plants are maintained and the indigenous pottery is studied -- as well as the knowledge gained from all fields that might come to an interdisciplinarists table -- but one must recognize the advancement of patron-funded knowledge is a bottleneck when it stands in the way of well-understood solutions.

tbrownaw 4y ago
> Its the implementation that people get squeamish on for fear of offending portions of the coalition in power. Their squeamishness doesn't justify delaying action, And that action that's totally appropriate but people are just too squeamish for would be ... what, an armed invasion to impose "better" cultural values?
- tomrod 4y ago
  Sure, in certain cases where the people ubiquitously want pipes, shovels, and pumps, but the power structures in place prevent it and the invader or external trader brings it without wanting to rule. I'll leave that for the dithering interdiscipinarists to dicker about as a hypothetical. However, more steelmaned and aligned to my original statement, as well as more common when facing decisions, being okay with the realistic tradeoffs that an endangered plant might have a reduction in habitat.

mistermann 4y ago

Sir: surely you're not suggesting that we (humanity) may not be interested in metaphysics (the fundamental nature of reality (both physically materialized as well as counterfactual), the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, consciousness, possibility, etc), but that metaphysics may be interested in us? Because if you are, I have some unfortunate news: metaphysics is woo woo. And if you do not believe me, try doing a survey and see what results you get. Or, if you do not trust the opinion of the general public, try also running surveys within scientific and Rationalist communities, or even here on HN, and see if your results are substantially different.

mistermann 4y ago
That this is attracting downvotes is not surprising, but it is very interesting. One of the many things I find interesting about metaphysics, and humans (but I repeat myself) is that "most" humans, particularly those who are more educated, tend to be certain that metaphysics is dumb/useless/etc, yet the fact that they are unable to articulate the reason why this is true (and defend the articulation in a sound manner) seems to have little to no effect on their opinion of the quality of their belief (a behavior that would not be a source of pride or tolerated here when it comes to topics like computing). But unfortunately, this idea itself is metaphysical, so it can be easily dismissed by the initial belief. It's like a bootstrap problem of sorts.
- tomrod 4y ago
  > That this is attracting downvotes is not surprising Your parent comment and subsequent followup are difficult for me to parse. If others had similar difficulty, it could account for the downvotes. I did not downvote your comments.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    It was a little sarcastic, to be fair. Genuinely curious: what's difficult to parse? I think part of the problem is how inconsistently the domain of Metaphysics is perceived by many in general, and then there's also the fact that New Agers have to some degree hijacked it and caused an association between the word and "woo woo" to form in people's minds, so when they hear the word, they believe it IS "woo woo". This is the phenomenon at which my "childish" sarcasm is aimed (what's good for the goose is good for the gander is my excuse).