6 ms·

> Let's say you have a terminal illness, for example, ALS. Would you lie to everyone, including yourself, and say you're fine, that everything is going to be ok

> Let's say you have a terminal illness, for example, ALS. Would you lie to everyone, including yourself, and say you're fine, that everything is going to be ok? Or would you admit the truth, and try to come to grips with it? In 1963, a graduate student was diagnosed with ALS. Instead of deciding that his life was pointless and meaningless, he completed his doctorate and spent the rest of his life contributing to scientific research and to educating the public. His name was Stephen Hawking and he passed away at age 76, in 2018. > In the large sense, they're really not, because there's a single planet that supports human life, namely Earth, and if we wreck it, making it inhospitable, then every other tradeoff becomes irrelevant. Thankfully, nobody is suggesting making the earth uninhabitable. This kind of all-or-nothing thinking about the issue is counterproductive and useless. > I am dismissive of concern trolling about windmills harming birds and dams harming fish I'm not saying not to build the windmills and dams. I'm saying that the benefits of doing so outweighs the ecological costs. I'm not concern trolling here; I'm giving an example of a cost/benefit tradeoff that you presumably agree with. You're just so worked up that you missed the point.

lapcat 4y ago
> In 1963, a graduate student was diagnosed with ALS. Instead of deciding that his life was pointless and meaningless 1) I didn't say my life is pointless and meaningless. Moreover, I obviously care, otherwise I wouldn't bother to argue about all of this. 2) You're seriously going to pull unusual anecdotal data about a condition that has well known scientific statistics? 3) I think it's fair to say that Hawking's physics talent resulted in greater caretaking effort put into his life than the average case. > Thankfully, nobody is suggesting making the earth uninhabitable. Of course nobody suggests it. They're not going to do it on purpose, they're going to do it by accident, due to carelessness and neglect. > I'm giving an example of a cost/benefit tradeoff that you presumably agree with. Why? If there's supposed to be a moral to the point about tradeoffs, then why not directly talk about what it's supposed to be, rather than mentioning little tangents that are largely irrelevant? You asked about my plan to provide the essentials, such as food and housing, but that's a bit of misdirection, because we do vastly more than just provide the essentials. We have rampant, insatiable consumerism, not to mention planned obsolescence, driven by zombie non-human entities called "corporations" that lack ethics and exist for nothing except unfettered growth. We have the military-industrial complex whose appetite for war and weaponry is never ending. And now people want to massively ramp up the space program again and constantly launch (polluting) rockets into space, even littering our orbit with satellites that block our own view of it that we so admire from a distance. I don't think the problem is the essentials. Rather, I want to know what the plan is for cutting back on the non-essentials. > You're just so worked up Please refrain from personal comments, which are unnecessary and uninformed. You don't know me, and you're certainly not in the room with me, so you don't have the slightest clue about my present mental or emotional state. At this point, I could probably rattle off my spiel in my sleep.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > I didn't say my life is pointless and meaningless. No, you said human civilization is doomed, and then you mentioned an ALS diagnosis as an analogy between an individual life and the fate of human civilization. > If there's supposed to be a moral to the point about tradeoffs, then why not directly talk about what it's supposed to be, rather than mentioning little tangents that are largely irrelevant? The point is that tradeoffs exist. It's not "tangential" to provide examples of tradeoffs when making the point that tradeoffs exist. > At this point, I could probably rattle off my spiel in my sleep. As far as I can tell, you are rattling this off in your sleep, because you aren't constructively responding to my points in any way. It was a charitable assumption on my part that you're just worked up, as opposed to having poor reading comprehension or some sort of apocalyptic monomania. At this point I'm content just dismissing you as a fanatical doomsayer with no interest in what anyone else has to say, because that's how you've conducted yourself thus far.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > No, you said human civilization is doomed, and then you mentioned an ALS diagnosis as an analogy between an individual life and the fate of human civilization. Yes. That doesn't mean human life isn't worth living. After all, the Earth itself is ultimately doomed, billions of years in the future. And it should go without saying that each of us is mortal. You and I are both going to die someday. Everyone acknowledges that, scientifically. What we do with that knowledge is a different matter. If there's a way for humanity to avoid its sorry fate, I believe that the solution is not inherently technological. Technology may be needed, but the solution has to start with our acknowledging the truth, acknowledging reality, and becoming self-aware, self-reflective, especially of our own human flaws. We can't attempt to overcome our flaws if we don't even admit that we have those flaws. The first step is to look inward, to human nature, not look outward to Mars. We'll never be able to govern the space outside of Earth unless we can govern the space between our ears. Rationality, ethics, cooperation, these are the keys to long-term survival of the species. And perhaps biological evolution would bring us to that eventually. But evolution works painfully slowly, so I fear that the combination of technology and self-destructiveness will get us first. If humans even need something like "nuclear deterrence", for example, that's an inherently unstable and extremely dangerous situation. It's no way to live. Which is why I keep asking if we're going to bring that crap to Mars with us. Setting aside basic survivability problems — which are huge problem — whatever social problems we have here on Earth would just be magnified in the extremely hostile Mars environment. There's little or no margin for error (or stupidity) there. > The point is that tradeoffs exist. Ok. And 1+1=2. You really need to elaborate to explain how this basic point illuminates the current discussion in any way. > It was a charitable assumption on my part that you're just worked up No, it wasn't. Try coming up with something other than your two uncharitable interpretations, the second of which isn't even worth repeating.

lapcat 4y ago

> In 1963, a graduate student was diagnosed with ALS. Instead of deciding that his life was pointless and meaningless 1) I didn't say my life is pointless and meaningless. Moreover, I obviously care, otherwise I wouldn't bother to argue about all of this. 2) You're seriously going to pull unusual anecdotal data about a condition that has well known scientific statistics? 3) I think it's fair to say that Hawking's physics talent resulted in greater caretaking effort put into his life than the average case. > Thankfully, nobody is suggesting making the earth uninhabitable. Of course nobody suggests it. They're not going to do it on purpose, they're going to do it by accident, due to carelessness and neglect. > I'm giving an example of a cost/benefit tradeoff that you presumably agree with. Why? If there's supposed to be a moral to the point about tradeoffs, then why not directly talk about what it's supposed to be, rather than mentioning little tangents that are largely irrelevant? You asked about my plan to provide the essentials, such as food and housing, but that's a bit of misdirection, because we do vastly more than just provide the essentials. We have rampant, insatiable consumerism, not to mention planned obsolescence, driven by zombie non-human entities called "corporations" that lack ethics and exist for nothing except unfettered growth. We have the military-industrial complex whose appetite for war and weaponry is never ending. And now people want to massively ramp up the space program again and constantly launch (polluting) rockets into space, even littering our orbit with satellites that block our own view of it that we so admire from a distance. I don't think the problem is the essentials. Rather, I want to know what the plan is for cutting back on the non-essentials. > You're just so worked up Please refrain from personal comments, which are unnecessary and uninformed. You don't know me, and you're certainly not in the room with me, so you don't have the slightest clue about my present mental or emotional state. At this point, I could probably rattle off my spiel in my sleep.

philwelch 4y ago
> I didn't say my life is pointless and meaningless. No, you said human civilization is doomed, and then you mentioned an ALS diagnosis as an analogy between an individual life and the fate of human civilization. > If there's supposed to be a moral to the point about tradeoffs, then why not directly talk about what it's supposed to be, rather than mentioning little tangents that are largely irrelevant? The point is that tradeoffs exist. It's not "tangential" to provide examples of tradeoffs when making the point that tradeoffs exist. > At this point, I could probably rattle off my spiel in my sleep. As far as I can tell, you are rattling this off in your sleep, because you aren't constructively responding to my points in any way. It was a charitable assumption on my part that you're just worked up, as opposed to having poor reading comprehension or some sort of apocalyptic monomania. At this point I'm content just dismissing you as a fanatical doomsayer with no interest in what anyone else has to say, because that's how you've conducted yourself thus far.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > No, you said human civilization is doomed, and then you mentioned an ALS diagnosis as an analogy between an individual life and the fate of human civilization. Yes. That doesn't mean human life isn't worth living. After all, the Earth itself is ultimately doomed, billions of years in the future. And it should go without saying that each of us is mortal. You and I are both going to die someday. Everyone acknowledges that, scientifically. What we do with that knowledge is a different matter. If there's a way for humanity to avoid its sorry fate, I believe that the solution is not inherently technological. Technology may be needed, but the solution has to start with our acknowledging the truth, acknowledging reality, and becoming self-aware, self-reflective, especially of our own human flaws. We can't attempt to overcome our flaws if we don't even admit that we have those flaws. The first step is to look inward, to human nature, not look outward to Mars. We'll never be able to govern the space outside of Earth unless we can govern the space between our ears. Rationality, ethics, cooperation, these are the keys to long-term survival of the species. And perhaps biological evolution would bring us to that eventually. But evolution works painfully slowly, so I fear that the combination of technology and self-destructiveness will get us first. If humans even need something like "nuclear deterrence", for example, that's an inherently unstable and extremely dangerous situation. It's no way to live. Which is why I keep asking if we're going to bring that crap to Mars with us. Setting aside basic survivability problems — which are huge problem — whatever social problems we have here on Earth would just be magnified in the extremely hostile Mars environment. There's little or no margin for error (or stupidity) there. > The point is that tradeoffs exist. Ok. And 1+1=2. You really need to elaborate to explain how this basic point illuminates the current discussion in any way. > It was a charitable assumption on my part that you're just worked up No, it wasn't. Try coming up with something other than your two uncharitable interpretations, the second of which isn't even worth repeating.