4 ms·

Things change naturally. There is no “burden of proof” unless you are making an argument to not allow things to naturally happen, whether that is to purposely

Things change naturally. There is no “burden of proof” unless you are making an argument to not allow things to naturally happen, whether that is to purposely change something or purposely keep it the same.

coldtea 4y ago
>Things change naturally That's a statement so empty as to not even exist. The worst attrocities and bad developments happened "naturally" too. Climate change also occured naturally (since in your use, naturally includes the acts of societies and people). We definitely should not allow things to just "naturally happen". We should steer things towards a better future, and be able to see which "naturally ocurring" developments are good, and which are bad.
javajosh 4y ago
The term "natural" is basically meaningless here, and the rest of your comment implies that humans are incapable of saying "no" to change. The Amish, and Richard Stallman, are both counter-examples. We don't have to do anything, and anything that arises we don't have to accept, promote, or integrate into our lives. We "naturally" made fluorocarbons, and then realized it was a bad idea and stopped. The notion that free and open informational borders is an unalloyed good has risen to the level of dogma for many in SV, and I think that's a naive mistake. Making bomb making material accessible to an unhappy teenage boy is a bad idea; letting professional manipulators "flood the zone with shit" to perform a coup in a democracy is a bad idea, too, and for similar reasons. Letting it happen to satisfy a dogmatic position is a good way to let your civilization die. And a dead civ has no positions.
chimpanzee 4y ago
Alternatively, GP is suggesting these barriers are part of the “natural” change and can have their own positive effects. We can fight them if we wish, naturally, and doing so brings about a necessary balance. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that we are necessarily “doing good” in relation to the other. And we shouldn’t believe that achieving the extreme, the unbalanced, is necessarily “best”. “Freedom-of-information fighters” are always simply fighting for a belief and a desire, not a truth. And in turn bringing balance or potentially imbalance depending on one’s assumptions regarding “Mother Nature’s Grand Evolutionary Scheme” or whatever we want to call it. Just as all fighters have been doing throughout time.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Every human decision is nature and natural.

coldtea 4y ago

>Things change naturally That's a statement so empty as to not even exist. The worst attrocities and bad developments happened "naturally" too. Climate change also occured naturally (since in your use, naturally includes the acts of societies and people). We definitely should not allow things to just "naturally happen". We should steer things towards a better future, and be able to see which "naturally ocurring" developments are good, and which are bad.

javajosh 4y ago

The term "natural" is basically meaningless here, and the rest of your comment implies that humans are incapable of saying "no" to change. The Amish, and Richard Stallman, are both counter-examples. We don't have to do anything, and anything that arises we don't have to accept, promote, or integrate into our lives. We "naturally" made fluorocarbons, and then realized it was a bad idea and stopped. The notion that free and open informational borders is an unalloyed good has risen to the level of dogma for many in SV, and I think that's a naive mistake. Making bomb making material accessible to an unhappy teenage boy is a bad idea; letting professional manipulators "flood the zone with shit" to perform a coup in a democracy is a bad idea, too, and for similar reasons. Letting it happen to satisfy a dogmatic position is a good way to let your civilization die. And a dead civ has no positions.

chimpanzee 4y ago

Alternatively, GP is suggesting these barriers are part of the “natural” change and can have their own positive effects. We can fight them if we wish, naturally, and doing so brings about a necessary balance. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that we are necessarily “doing good” in relation to the other. And we shouldn’t believe that achieving the extreme, the unbalanced, is necessarily “best”. “Freedom-of-information fighters” are always simply fighting for a belief and a desire, not a truth. And in turn bringing balance or potentially imbalance depending on one’s assumptions regarding “Mother Nature’s Grand Evolutionary Scheme” or whatever we want to call it. Just as all fighters have been doing throughout time.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Every human decision is nature and natural.