3 ms·

>It suffers from worldwide popularized optimism Yes, that is certainly true. It bothers me that I can't explain why Asimov, for example, didn't refrain from si

>It suffers from worldwide popularized optimism Yes, that is certainly true. It bothers me that I can't explain why Asimov, for example, didn't refrain from silly FTL fantasy when he knew better, even then. I pity the science-optimists who claim victory and hope with every advance, but then ignore the constraints who's reality undergird every advance (esp relativity, in this case). >That's psychologically enough for the world The universe, or God if you prefer, has thrown down the gauntlets and left us in a default dead state. This is urgent on a long time scale. Fantasy calling itself "science fiction" does damage to our collective physical intuitions, and our intuitions about the future. (A fact which has not gone unnoticed by those with the means to fund such entertainments). But in truth I don't care about what the world wants, I care about keeping it alive long enough to become multi-system. Then, sure, entertain yourself to death if you want. It's only one world, at that point. The last few years have greatly revised (downward) my estimate of modern human knowledge of science, and reality in general. Until then, yeah, if NASA were to come out strongly in favor of protecting our collective scientific minds by requiring virtually all "science fiction" to be relabeled "fantasy", I'd be for it. Why do we assume that children must be protected from sexual imagery but warping their physical intuition is fine?? >The Universe has plenty to say about both hat sizes and sex. Not at the scale I'm talking about. The nihilistic, self-amusing jokes of the cynic who lies to himself and says he doesn't care, that he is courageously indifferent, show fear. Total, abject fear.

throwaway17_17 4y ago
Not sure if you were looking for response to your proposals, but… I think one of the real problems in implementing this sort of policy, i.e. ensuring that, as a society, individuals (particularly the young) are taught correctly about physical reality is that from a western mindset any measures taken will appear authoritarian. The history of ‘western’ thought, in the tradition of the enlightenment and what followed, is inherently tied to Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. Further, there is a huge pattern of individualism that runs through the core of that same philosophical lineage. It is this basis that allows for the dual positions you allude to in your comment. Traditional ‘western’ thought would enforce the rightness of the society impinging on an individual when it is motivated by Judie-Christian (or at least some interpretation thereof) ideals/morals/precepts. Whereas, impinging on an individual with ‘mere’ facts about the physical world is intolerable because the physical world is clearly an unholy/flawed/unknowable place that only exists to further the goals of a deity in being more deific. All that to say, unfortunately, given the conditioning of culture that has occurred for the last 500 years in the ‘west’ it seems unlikely to me that any societal commitment to correct physical intuition (and the subsequent marking of non-real things as non-realistic/fantasy/imaginary) will never happen. I honk this also answers the question of why protect children from sexual content, but not from unrealistic scifi. To force those labels would be argued to be authoritarian, and it would probably be supported with slippery slope arguments pointing toward the ‘authority’s’ eventual labeling of religious content as well.
- javajosh 4y ago
  >from a western mindset any measures taken will appear authoritarian I have opened my authoritarian kimono then. We do great harm to our children feeding them fantasy and dressing it up as high-technology. It took me, a nerdy and rather credulous kid, a long time to unlearn the bad intuitions of science fiction, particularly around thermodynamics and FTL. It's remarkable how many people still believe that breaking the light barrier is just like breaking the sound barrier, and it will happen any day now. I was just thinking that very few people have even caught up with science as of 1905. All the science done since then has been stunning, but only because of the intuitions built in the previous century. Without those intuitions to violate, modern science becomes all but inscrutable - and made even more so by poorly labeled fantasy. >The history of ‘western’ thought, in the tradition of the enlightenment and what followed, is inherently tied to Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. Yes, humans have several meaningful dogs in this race. "The West" is the dog I was raised in, and the one I honestly like the most, by a country mile. But I think it's entirely possible that "The West" can't pass the GF. "The West" as a dog is rather vapid and lazy and consumer-y who doesn't make much anymore. It's fat and sated so piles of meat aren't enough to get it out of bed. How does such a dog deal with an urgent crisis on a long time scale, especially in the absence of basic scientific consensus among its people? It may turn out that an authoritarian dog, like China or Russia, may pass the GF where The West fails. I do know that unless awareness grows about the Great Filter, and where we actually stand in relation to it, we will certainly fail. Perhaps the next Great Game won't center around Afghanistan, but rather around protecting life on Earth and spreading life beyond Earth. It seems foolish to say it, but perhaps a powerful person or ten will turn away from their own self-interest to focus on this difficult and long-term task.

throwaway17_17 4y ago

Not sure if you were looking for response to your proposals, but… I think one of the real problems in implementing this sort of policy, i.e. ensuring that, as a society, individuals (particularly the young) are taught correctly about physical reality is that from a western mindset any measures taken will appear authoritarian. The history of ‘western’ thought, in the tradition of the enlightenment and what followed, is inherently tied to Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. Further, there is a huge pattern of individualism that runs through the core of that same philosophical lineage. It is this basis that allows for the dual positions you allude to in your comment. Traditional ‘western’ thought would enforce the rightness of the society impinging on an individual when it is motivated by Judie-Christian (or at least some interpretation thereof) ideals/morals/precepts. Whereas, impinging on an individual with ‘mere’ facts about the physical world is intolerable because the physical world is clearly an unholy/flawed/unknowable place that only exists to further the goals of a deity in being more deific. All that to say, unfortunately, given the conditioning of culture that has occurred for the last 500 years in the ‘west’ it seems unlikely to me that any societal commitment to correct physical intuition (and the subsequent marking of non-real things as non-realistic/fantasy/imaginary) will never happen. I honk this also answers the question of why protect children from sexual content, but not from unrealistic scifi. To force those labels would be argued to be authoritarian, and it would probably be supported with slippery slope arguments pointing toward the ‘authority’s’ eventual labeling of religious content as well.

javajosh 4y ago
>from a western mindset any measures taken will appear authoritarian I have opened my authoritarian kimono then. We do great harm to our children feeding them fantasy and dressing it up as high-technology. It took me, a nerdy and rather credulous kid, a long time to unlearn the bad intuitions of science fiction, particularly around thermodynamics and FTL. It's remarkable how many people still believe that breaking the light barrier is just like breaking the sound barrier, and it will happen any day now. I was just thinking that very few people have even caught up with science as of 1905. All the science done since then has been stunning, but only because of the intuitions built in the previous century. Without those intuitions to violate, modern science becomes all but inscrutable - and made even more so by poorly labeled fantasy. >The history of ‘western’ thought, in the tradition of the enlightenment and what followed, is inherently tied to Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. Yes, humans have several meaningful dogs in this race. "The West" is the dog I was raised in, and the one I honestly like the most, by a country mile. But I think it's entirely possible that "The West" can't pass the GF. "The West" as a dog is rather vapid and lazy and consumer-y who doesn't make much anymore. It's fat and sated so piles of meat aren't enough to get it out of bed. How does such a dog deal with an urgent crisis on a long time scale, especially in the absence of basic scientific consensus among its people? It may turn out that an authoritarian dog, like China or Russia, may pass the GF where The West fails. I do know that unless awareness grows about the Great Filter, and where we actually stand in relation to it, we will certainly fail. Perhaps the next Great Game won't center around Afghanistan, but rather around protecting life on Earth and spreading life beyond Earth. It seems foolish to say it, but perhaps a powerful person or ten will turn away from their own self-interest to focus on this difficult and long-term task.