3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > If there's a way for humanity to avoid its sorry fate You don't think there is, though. You've admitted as much. So why are you wasting your time? > 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. That's always been one of the benefits of settling a frontier--any hard and dangerous undertaking has a way of forging people and cultures into a healthier and more functional form. > Ok. And 1+1=2. So you agree with my point that "environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits"; you just want to express that agreement in a belligerent tone. > You really need to elaborate to explain how this basic point illuminates the current discussion in any way. It's certainly more nuanced than the statement of yours I was responding to, which was "stop destroying our own environment, duh". It doesn't take very much light to illuminate the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > So why are you wasting your time? Because I've got time to waste? And because I'm not happy about the situation. Honestly, aren't most HN commenters mostly just wasting time here? > any hard and dangerous undertaking has a way of forging people and cultures into a healthier and more functional form This does not seem true to me. > So you agree with my point that "environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits"; you just want to express that agreement in a belligerent tone. No, I'm still waiting for the nuance that you mention. There are some obvious, massive environmental problems in the world, such as global warming, air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, etc. I'm not seeing a serious global effort to stop, undo, or prevent these problems. In that respect, I'm not interested in "tradeoffs", which sound to me like a justification or excuse to continue to destroy our one planet for the sake of short-term profit. But if there's some nuance that I'm missing here, then please explain. The only thing you ever mentioned was windmills hurting birds and dams hurting fish, which as you can probably guess, doesn't impress me or justify doing nothing about the environment.
    - philwelch 4y ago

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.

philwelch 4y ago
> If there's a way for humanity to avoid its sorry fate You don't think there is, though. You've admitted as much. So why are you wasting your time? > 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. That's always been one of the benefits of settling a frontier--any hard and dangerous undertaking has a way of forging people and cultures into a healthier and more functional form. > Ok. And 1+1=2. So you agree with my point that "environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits"; you just want to express that agreement in a belligerent tone. > You really need to elaborate to explain how this basic point illuminates the current discussion in any way. It's certainly more nuanced than the statement of yours I was responding to, which was "stop destroying our own environment, duh". It doesn't take very much light to illuminate the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > So why are you wasting your time? Because I've got time to waste? And because I'm not happy about the situation. Honestly, aren't most HN commenters mostly just wasting time here? > any hard and dangerous undertaking has a way of forging people and cultures into a healthier and more functional form This does not seem true to me. > So you agree with my point that "environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits"; you just want to express that agreement in a belligerent tone. No, I'm still waiting for the nuance that you mention. There are some obvious, massive environmental problems in the world, such as global warming, air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, etc. I'm not seeing a serious global effort to stop, undo, or prevent these problems. In that respect, I'm not interested in "tradeoffs", which sound to me like a justification or excuse to continue to destroy our one planet for the sake of short-term profit. But if there's some nuance that I'm missing here, then please explain. The only thing you ever mentioned was windmills hurting birds and dams hurting fish, which as you can probably guess, doesn't impress me or justify doing nothing about the environment.
  - philwelch 4y ago