6 ms·

> but overall there is more good than bad This seems like an extremely dubious assumption, to me, especially given the extremity of the conclusions being place

> but overall there is more good than bad This seems like an extremely dubious assumption, to me, especially given the extremity of the conclusions being placed upon it. Feels like a roulette player saying "well if I always double my previous bet then eventually I'll win back everything" and cracking open the family savings. Like in some extremely idealized version of the world what you're saying might make sense? But if you take even a cursory look at history it becomes abundantly clear (to me, at least) that the truth is more complicated.

nickpp 3y ago
> extremely dubious assumption I personally don't know any technology that overall was a net negative. I agree, we could happen run across one in the future, but so far history is on our side. Also, don't forget that our species's default fate is dire. Statistically speaking our civilisation is highly likely to end where is began: on this planet. Technology is the only change we got to change this dreadful default fate awaiting us.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  > I personally don't know any technology that overall was a net negative. To start, I think it's extremely difficult (if even possible) to assign "scores" to the outcomes of all technologies ever developed in human history. IMPO to be able to accurately/productively say "oh this has been a net positive or negative for humanity" you have to have all of history written down to begin with, which is a tall order. Anything else requires you to impute some data, so already the assessment has error bars. Second, this is a massive survivor bias fallacy. Technologies with net negatives don't get promulgated precisely because we have a culture of safety and caution around technological development. If someone invents the InfantShredder 9000 it winds up sitting on the lab bench, because it would never in a million years get developed for serious release because it is unsafe. > but so far history is on our side. It is not, history is full of both blood and joy. That we haven't wiped out our species yet is an extremely low bar IMO. > Technology is the only change we got to change this dreadful default fate awaiting us. My personal cosmology is that death is natural, normal, and good. "Dreading" it is as silly as dreading rain. Biological systems die and their components are reused by the ecosystem: this is reality. I recognize that not everyone is on board with this, and that it's kind of a religious/spiritual take, so I don't want to belabor a useless point too much, but I do think it's worth bringing up at least once. We should aggressively pursue every quality of life improvement we can find, absolutely I support this. But should we pretend like we can somehow escape the ultimate confines of being a biological organism? I think that's delusional and distracting, personally. Much like my views on the Christian Heaven, this glorious techno-future promised by Sandhill Road strikes me as bait to get rubes in-line, rather than an actual ethical north-star. My preference is to find joy in impermanence, and focus on maximizing the human experience now, rather than play utilitarian games about possible futures; "a bird in the hand" and all that.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    > it's extremely difficult (if even possible) to assign "scores" to the outcomes of all technologies On the contrary, it's quite easy to judge the outcome of technological development for our species: it's about 4 billion years after first microorganisms emerged on our planet and we are having this conversation while thousands of miles apart, in the comfort of our homes, with our bellies full, well clothed, sheltered and without anybody trying to eat us. Nature left us naked in the freezing rain in a eat-or-be-eaten world. Everything else comes from technology. In a word: amazing. > we haven't wiped out our species We also understood the laws of the Universe and used them build rockets and supercomputers. > My personal cosmology is that death is natural, normal, and good. It's every individual's right to embrace a death cult. But as a civilization we can't. We have to evolve and grow beyond the tiny pocket of the Universe where we emerged, before some cosmic cataclysm (or ourselves) wipes us out. We owe it to our ancestors and our children.
    - tech_ken 3y ago
      > we are having this conversation while thousands of miles apart, in the comfort of our homes, with our bellies full, well clothed, sheltered and without anybody trying to eat us. > We also understood the laws of the Universe and used them build rockets and supercomputers. Elsewhere millions starve and freeze. Elsewhen uncountable numbers of humans have suffered and died. You're free to look at your circumstances and say "worth it", but it's not clear to me why your satisfaction should be elevated to the level of universal truth, particularly when the book of humanity is far, far from concluded. I'm glad we have vaccines and the food-growing capabilities that we do, and I am emphatically in support of continuing to develop our capabilities. But making myths about the mystical capabilities of some vaguely defined "Technology" such that we are unable to even stop and ask "should we?" is religion masquerading as rationality. > We have to evolve and grow beyond the tiny pocket of the Universe where we emerged, before some cosmic cataclysm (or ourselves) wipes us out. We have to do nothing, we choose what we do. I choose to focus on reducing immiseration today, e/acc chooses to pursue what exactly? All I can find at the end of all this high-minded language about progress are aspersions on the motivations and purity of people who criticize the wealthy and powerful and who dare to ask that we stop dumping poison into the air and water. If we can't even resolve the (comparatively) simple issues around our climate and environment today I don't have a ton of hope for our future in the stars. But keep praying! Maybe you'll be lucky and get to be one of the Raptured.

nickpp 3y ago

> extremely dubious assumption I personally don't know any technology that overall was a net negative. I agree, we could happen run across one in the future, but so far history is on our side. Also, don't forget that our species's default fate is dire. Statistically speaking our civilisation is highly likely to end where is began: on this planet. Technology is the only change we got to change this dreadful default fate awaiting us.

tech_ken 3y ago
> I personally don't know any technology that overall was a net negative. To start, I think it's extremely difficult (if even possible) to assign "scores" to the outcomes of all technologies ever developed in human history. IMPO to be able to accurately/productively say "oh this has been a net positive or negative for humanity" you have to have all of history written down to begin with, which is a tall order. Anything else requires you to impute some data, so already the assessment has error bars. Second, this is a massive survivor bias fallacy. Technologies with net negatives don't get promulgated precisely because we have a culture of safety and caution around technological development. If someone invents the InfantShredder 9000 it winds up sitting on the lab bench, because it would never in a million years get developed for serious release because it is unsafe. > but so far history is on our side. It is not, history is full of both blood and joy. That we haven't wiped out our species yet is an extremely low bar IMO. > Technology is the only change we got to change this dreadful default fate awaiting us. My personal cosmology is that death is natural, normal, and good. "Dreading" it is as silly as dreading rain. Biological systems die and their components are reused by the ecosystem: this is reality. I recognize that not everyone is on board with this, and that it's kind of a religious/spiritual take, so I don't want to belabor a useless point too much, but I do think it's worth bringing up at least once. We should aggressively pursue every quality of life improvement we can find, absolutely I support this. But should we pretend like we can somehow escape the ultimate confines of being a biological organism? I think that's delusional and distracting, personally. Much like my views on the Christian Heaven, this glorious techno-future promised by Sandhill Road strikes me as bait to get rubes in-line, rather than an actual ethical north-star. My preference is to find joy in impermanence, and focus on maximizing the human experience now, rather than play utilitarian games about possible futures; "a bird in the hand" and all that.
- nickpp 3y ago
  > it's extremely difficult (if even possible) to assign "scores" to the outcomes of all technologies On the contrary, it's quite easy to judge the outcome of technological development for our species: it's about 4 billion years after first microorganisms emerged on our planet and we are having this conversation while thousands of miles apart, in the comfort of our homes, with our bellies full, well clothed, sheltered and without anybody trying to eat us. Nature left us naked in the freezing rain in a eat-or-be-eaten world. Everything else comes from technology. In a word: amazing. > we haven't wiped out our species We also understood the laws of the Universe and used them build rockets and supercomputers. > My personal cosmology is that death is natural, normal, and good. It's every individual's right to embrace a death cult. But as a civilization we can't. We have to evolve and grow beyond the tiny pocket of the Universe where we emerged, before some cosmic cataclysm (or ourselves) wipes us out. We owe it to our ancestors and our children.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    > we are having this conversation while thousands of miles apart, in the comfort of our homes, with our bellies full, well clothed, sheltered and without anybody trying to eat us. > We also understood the laws of the Universe and used them build rockets and supercomputers. Elsewhere millions starve and freeze. Elsewhen uncountable numbers of humans have suffered and died. You're free to look at your circumstances and say "worth it", but it's not clear to me why your satisfaction should be elevated to the level of universal truth, particularly when the book of humanity is far, far from concluded. I'm glad we have vaccines and the food-growing capabilities that we do, and I am emphatically in support of continuing to develop our capabilities. But making myths about the mystical capabilities of some vaguely defined "Technology" such that we are unable to even stop and ask "should we?" is religion masquerading as rationality. > We have to evolve and grow beyond the tiny pocket of the Universe where we emerged, before some cosmic cataclysm (or ourselves) wipes us out. We have to do nothing, we choose what we do. I choose to focus on reducing immiseration today, e/acc chooses to pursue what exactly? All I can find at the end of all this high-minded language about progress are aspersions on the motivations and purity of people who criticize the wealthy and powerful and who dare to ask that we stop dumping poison into the air and water. If we can't even resolve the (comparatively) simple issues around our climate and environment today I don't have a ton of hope for our future in the stars. But keep praying! Maybe you'll be lucky and get to be one of the Raptured.