5 ms·

> technology is far more likely to cause our extinction before [the Sun goes out] than to save us from it Surely there is some middle ground between this neo-l

> technology is far more likely to cause our extinction before [the Sun goes out] than to save us from it Surely there is some middle ground between this neo-ludditism espoused by the author and the outright fascism of longterminists that can justify any current action if it's somehow even marginally likely to decrease existential risk? For example, we could agree that current lives and suffering are morally superior to possible lives in the future, and that technology can help us solve our quintessential human problems, such as competition for resources, disease and death. We are a technological species since the first rock hit the first bone, and what "humanity is" is first and foremost a question answered by the technology of the era. We have no idea what future humans will want and value because the technology that will define them has not yet been invented. We're just along for the ride.

FormerBandmate 3y ago
> we could agree that current lives and suffering are morally superior to possible lives in the future This isn’t even necessarily true, but the thing is that you can’t predict the future with 100% certainty. The influential longtermists pretty much all thought Sam Bankman-Fried would have his tens of billions forever (which even without his scamming wasn’t a certainty, crypto is absurdly volatile and fortunes appear and disappear overnight), I highly doubt their ability to predict much of anything
- YellOh 3y ago
  This is what usually prevents me from understanding longtermist arguments. I'm not convinced think the average person from even ~100 years ago would be able to do anything about (what I would consider) most of the biggest problems of today, and besides structural changes (governance, suffrage, etc.) I don't know what they could realistically have foreseen as the correct thing to do to solve problems >= 100yrs out. Why would I presume to know the problems of >= 100 yrs from now? It seems like the obvious path is addressing structural issues, supporting effective research, and beating out various fires (all of which are pretty much neartermist concerns). To abuse a thought experiment, I care about the child running through the woods 100 years from now as much as the child today, but I would place way, way higher likelihood of broken glass on the ground hurting the child today.
shkkmo 3y ago
> current lives and suffering are morally superior to possible lives in the future I think this is a dangerous ethos. That can be used to justify horrific acts. The moral reason why we should often prioritize the present (and those close to us) is because we have a better understanding of how to help them, not because they are morally superior. However, when the harm to others far from us (in either space or time) is clear, we should not justify perpetuating that harm because those close to us are "morally superior".
- cornholio 3y ago
  Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear: the moral choice is between saving existing lives and suffering versus preventing future lives and future descendents from existing at all. For example, birth control would be completely unacceptable since you could lose an immense number of future people regardless of any benefit for the living out their limited number of direct descendants.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    I'm not sure I'm following you here. At the very least I think the phrase I quoted is a poor way of making your point. The reason why birth control is not inherently wrong is that we cannot at all predict the long term effects of avoiding any specific birth. Indeed, I think removing reproductive choice creates a situation with negative utilitarian/longtermist outcomes because it prevents fine tuned decision making at the individual level by those with the most accurate understanding of the situation. I do think we have a moral obligation to aim for a sustainable birth rate, neither too high nor too low, precisely because of the moral value of future lives. However, you need to approach this goal by making structural changes that change the optimal decision for individuals, not by removing that choice from them.
  - corinroyal 3y ago
    > birth control would be completely unacceptable since you could lose an immense number of future people Operative word = "could" Or lack of birth control could lead to an unsustainable level of population that causes resource exhaustion and we die that way. Oh, wait, that's already happening. We can't know how our actions effect the far future, but we can be more confident in our ability to improve the near future, and we should do that.
AstralStorm 3y ago
Middle ground not quite, alternative yes. More than one. Multitude of options and diversity plus diversification. See, the middle ground between fascism and primitivism is eco-fascism. Not a place to be. It results in strict rationing, control and many people dying. Neither is solar punk an actual thing to aspire to. Instead you can do anarchism. Decentralized collective action with multiple approaches, as long as they play for the similar good goals of actually surviving and not destroying ourselves in the short or long run. Some technical solutions, some social solutions, a bunch of separate big and small actions. There not even a necessity to actually cut consumption by much, as a lot of waste is due to distribution from centralized manufacturing and stockpiling. The decentralized diversity ensures that at least a bunch of people will find a right sustainable way to live and survive in local conditions. You can have a reasonably primitive eco-village next to a high tech agglomeration, next to a village straight from Aboriginal dream, side with a rastafarian farm, flanked by an industrial cleaned up soviet factory and cyberneticized arcology. As long as the resources are parcelled equitably and people are free to move. Resources include clean air and water. Our biggest problem here is that centralized power, be it corporate or state, will play to maximize control and exploitation of people and resources. Monocultures are vulnerable and dangerous.
- imtringued 3y ago
  >eco-fascism. Not a place to be. It results in strict rationing, control and many people dying I don't know what you are trying to communicate with the term eco-fascism but a look at the Wikipedia page tells me you aren't concerned about state enforced euthanasia because dying is underselling eco fascism. Eco facisim is about intentional murder in extermination camps not accidental death.
corinroyal 3y ago
Do you understand that the Luddites were protesting the use of technology to undermine labor, not technology itself? Calling someone a neo-luddite isn't the insult you think it is. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
- garbagecoder 3y ago
  If you know what he means by it, why correct him?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- cornholio 3y ago
  The secondary meaning of 'luddite' according to Webster is: "any opponent of new technologies or of technological change". I hesitated using this sense anticipating the retort and, sure enough, someone was quick to point out historical trivia. But language is fluid and long held opinions change the meaning of terms, even if they are technically incorrect. See, for example, "indian", "ether" or "humor".
  - imtringued 3y ago
    I don't know why people consider organized state violence against forcibly unemployed people as some form of historical trivia. It's not like they had unemployment benefits like we have today. Most social benefits are designed to keep people complacent and not rebel against the state. People who don't understand this will end up repeating history. Presenting the abandoned people as backwards thinking people who are against technological progress does a huge disservice to them and our present society. If you know the history then the modern word for "Luddite" is "technological unemployment" but people don't use it that way, they mean "dumb person", i.e. it is just an insult.

FormerBandmate 3y ago

> we could agree that current lives and suffering are morally superior to possible lives in the future This isn’t even necessarily true, but the thing is that you can’t predict the future with 100% certainty. The influential longtermists pretty much all thought Sam Bankman-Fried would have his tens of billions forever (which even without his scamming wasn’t a certainty, crypto is absurdly volatile and fortunes appear and disappear overnight), I highly doubt their ability to predict much of anything

YellOh 3y ago
This is what usually prevents me from understanding longtermist arguments. I'm not convinced think the average person from even ~100 years ago would be able to do anything about (what I would consider) most of the biggest problems of today, and besides structural changes (governance, suffrage, etc.) I don't know what they could realistically have foreseen as the correct thing to do to solve problems >= 100yrs out. Why would I presume to know the problems of >= 100 yrs from now? It seems like the obvious path is addressing structural issues, supporting effective research, and beating out various fires (all of which are pretty much neartermist concerns). To abuse a thought experiment, I care about the child running through the woods 100 years from now as much as the child today, but I would place way, way higher likelihood of broken glass on the ground hurting the child today.

shkkmo 3y ago

> current lives and suffering are morally superior to possible lives in the future I think this is a dangerous ethos. That can be used to justify horrific acts. The moral reason why we should often prioritize the present (and those close to us) is because we have a better understanding of how to help them, not because they are morally superior. However, when the harm to others far from us (in either space or time) is clear, we should not justify perpetuating that harm because those close to us are "morally superior".

cornholio 3y ago
Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear: the moral choice is between saving existing lives and suffering versus preventing future lives and future descendents from existing at all. For example, birth control would be completely unacceptable since you could lose an immense number of future people regardless of any benefit for the living out their limited number of direct descendants.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  I'm not sure I'm following you here. At the very least I think the phrase I quoted is a poor way of making your point. The reason why birth control is not inherently wrong is that we cannot at all predict the long term effects of avoiding any specific birth. Indeed, I think removing reproductive choice creates a situation with negative utilitarian/longtermist outcomes because it prevents fine tuned decision making at the individual level by those with the most accurate understanding of the situation. I do think we have a moral obligation to aim for a sustainable birth rate, neither too high nor too low, precisely because of the moral value of future lives. However, you need to approach this goal by making structural changes that change the optimal decision for individuals, not by removing that choice from them.
- corinroyal 3y ago
  > birth control would be completely unacceptable since you could lose an immense number of future people Operative word = "could" Or lack of birth control could lead to an unsustainable level of population that causes resource exhaustion and we die that way. Oh, wait, that's already happening. We can't know how our actions effect the far future, but we can be more confident in our ability to improve the near future, and we should do that.

AstralStorm 3y ago

Middle ground not quite, alternative yes. More than one. Multitude of options and diversity plus diversification. See, the middle ground between fascism and primitivism is eco-fascism. Not a place to be. It results in strict rationing, control and many people dying. Neither is solar punk an actual thing to aspire to. Instead you can do anarchism. Decentralized collective action with multiple approaches, as long as they play for the similar good goals of actually surviving and not destroying ourselves in the short or long run. Some technical solutions, some social solutions, a bunch of separate big and small actions. There not even a necessity to actually cut consumption by much, as a lot of waste is due to distribution from centralized manufacturing and stockpiling. The decentralized diversity ensures that at least a bunch of people will find a right sustainable way to live and survive in local conditions. You can have a reasonably primitive eco-village next to a high tech agglomeration, next to a village straight from Aboriginal dream, side with a rastafarian farm, flanked by an industrial cleaned up soviet factory and cyberneticized arcology. As long as the resources are parcelled equitably and people are free to move. Resources include clean air and water. Our biggest problem here is that centralized power, be it corporate or state, will play to maximize control and exploitation of people and resources. Monocultures are vulnerable and dangerous.

imtringued 3y ago
>eco-fascism. Not a place to be. It results in strict rationing, control and many people dying I don't know what you are trying to communicate with the term eco-fascism but a look at the Wikipedia page tells me you aren't concerned about state enforced euthanasia because dying is underselling eco fascism. Eco facisim is about intentional murder in extermination camps not accidental death.

corinroyal 3y ago

Do you understand that the Luddites were protesting the use of technology to undermine labor, not technology itself? Calling someone a neo-luddite isn't the insult you think it is. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

garbagecoder 3y ago
If you know what he means by it, why correct him?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
cornholio 3y ago
The secondary meaning of 'luddite' according to Webster is: "any opponent of new technologies or of technological change". I hesitated using this sense anticipating the retort and, sure enough, someone was quick to point out historical trivia. But language is fluid and long held opinions change the meaning of terms, even if they are technically incorrect. See, for example, "indian", "ether" or "humor".
- imtringued 3y ago
  I don't know why people consider organized state violence against forcibly unemployed people as some form of historical trivia. It's not like they had unemployment benefits like we have today. Most social benefits are designed to keep people complacent and not rebel against the state. People who don't understand this will end up repeating history. Presenting the abandoned people as backwards thinking people who are against technological progress does a huge disservice to them and our present society. If you know the history then the modern word for "Luddite" is "technological unemployment" but people don't use it that way, they mean "dumb person", i.e. it is just an insult.