6 ms·

> 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 anybod

> 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
> Elsewhere millions starve and freeze. Elsewhen uncountable numbers of humans have suffered and died. Only millions out of 8 billions? But that is incredible progress! It used to be that not many millenia ago every single human on earth was starving and freezing. And everybody's fate was to suffer and die. Today we have the lowest percent of humanity living in poverty ever. No, not everybody is saved, and technology has not create a paradise, but it is so much better than where we started from, we can't even compare. > is religion, not science And so is doomerism. I guess having fate in anything (even science and progress) can be seen like a religion. But my "religion" has delivered and is promissing to deliver more. What have other "religions" done for us? > we can't even resolve the simple issues around our climate today Actually we had the tech to avoid global warming since the 60's. It's called nuclear energy. It was fear and doomerism that prevented us from using it in the first place and brought us to our current situation. And now the same people who pushed us into this corner are trying their best to prevent us from finding solutions.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  > And so is doomerism. The manichaean straw-manning is not helpful (and is in fact one of my main points of contention here). There are clear positions between "doomerism" and "people who own tech firms should never be questioned". I'm occupying one of them, despite how you'd prefer to characterize what I'm trying to say. Please feel free to act as a religious zealot, but you have to understand that other people choose to approach science and tech policy in a more grounded fashion (ie. actually considering the material particulars around a given problem, instead of immediately kicking it up to some abstract ideology for a gut-check). > It was fear and doomerism that prevented us from using it in the first place and brought us to our current situation. Setting aside what I already have said about converting complex engineering questions into quasi-religious "us vs. the enemy" type statements, I would argue that it is in fact our policy choices around fossil fuel usage, as well as the wealthy oil execs who continue to insist on its harmlessness, that are actually the most "at fault" for bringing us here. Moreover, there are many non-nuclear options on the table. Some of these may (horror of horrors) require us to adjust the style of life we have grown used to in the last 5 or 6 decades. Rather than casting this as some kind of sinful violation of the historical march to progress, I think a more grounded historiography is that sometimes progress is a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing and that we might need to try a few options before finding the winning formula. Nuclear was a missed opportunity, for sure, and I support efforts to re-establish it as a long-term power source, but to chalk up and dismiss the entire movement for sustainability or nuclear alternatives as "doomerism" is just mind-killing, culture war nonsense. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in technology: there's just the tool, it's capabilities, and its costs. Sometimes the cost-benefit analysis is done poorly, sometimes it's not. Sometimes people agree on the costs and benefits, sometimes they do not. In any of these cases nobody is served by adding all this manifest destiny stuff on top of it, it only muddies the waters for people who actually have do the work of achieving technological progress. > Today we have the lowest percent of humanity living in poverty ever I'm excessively familiar with this point, it's the only actual empirical thing I seem to be able to find in all this e/acc discussion. Nevermind that this outcome is a product of the balanced and cautious tech development that has predominated throughout human history, what is the actual, concrete, actionable point here? That allowing VC money to do whatever it wants is going to accelerate this trend of progress? That worries about GHG emissions or concern that monocropping will lead to fragile foodsystems are somehow part of a "death cult"? Yes, humanity has made progress in history. Yes, much of this comes from technological and scientific development (as well as managerial, political, artistic, ethical, et.), but trying to extrapolate this one (very broad) observation into specific and practical recommendations for how to run a nationstate and economy I see lots of gaps that are filled in by speculation and (yes) political biases. Here's what I believe: let's fund the sciences, let's make higher education accessible, let's share the bounty of our technological progress widely, let's make it easy for people to use their time contributing to genuine inquiry, rather than the bottom-line of a stock portfolio. If this is what you have in mind when you say "promote technological progress" then I'm 100% on-board, and we can move on to discussing how best to achieve these. But if you want to take the observation that we are no longer hunter-gatherers, and extrapolate it into the ideology that any novel invention anywhere ever is a "net good" and should under no circumstances be questioned or restrained then I'm not really sure what to say. It seems obvious to me that tools should be dealt with as they are, in the context that they operate it, but if you prefer to instead live in the world of myth and narrative that is your prerogative.

nickpp 3y ago

> Elsewhere millions starve and freeze. Elsewhen uncountable numbers of humans have suffered and died. Only millions out of 8 billions? But that is incredible progress! It used to be that not many millenia ago every single human on earth was starving and freezing. And everybody's fate was to suffer and die. Today we have the lowest percent of humanity living in poverty ever. No, not everybody is saved, and technology has not create a paradise, but it is so much better than where we started from, we can't even compare. > is religion, not science And so is doomerism. I guess having fate in anything (even science and progress) can be seen like a religion. But my "religion" has delivered and is promissing to deliver more. What have other "religions" done for us? > we can't even resolve the simple issues around our climate today Actually we had the tech to avoid global warming since the 60's. It's called nuclear energy. It was fear and doomerism that prevented us from using it in the first place and brought us to our current situation. And now the same people who pushed us into this corner are trying their best to prevent us from finding solutions.

tech_ken 3y ago
> And so is doomerism. The manichaean straw-manning is not helpful (and is in fact one of my main points of contention here). There are clear positions between "doomerism" and "people who own tech firms should never be questioned". I'm occupying one of them, despite how you'd prefer to characterize what I'm trying to say. Please feel free to act as a religious zealot, but you have to understand that other people choose to approach science and tech policy in a more grounded fashion (ie. actually considering the material particulars around a given problem, instead of immediately kicking it up to some abstract ideology for a gut-check). > It was fear and doomerism that prevented us from using it in the first place and brought us to our current situation. Setting aside what I already have said about converting complex engineering questions into quasi-religious "us vs. the enemy" type statements, I would argue that it is in fact our policy choices around fossil fuel usage, as well as the wealthy oil execs who continue to insist on its harmlessness, that are actually the most "at fault" for bringing us here. Moreover, there are many non-nuclear options on the table. Some of these may (horror of horrors) require us to adjust the style of life we have grown used to in the last 5 or 6 decades. Rather than casting this as some kind of sinful violation of the historical march to progress, I think a more grounded historiography is that sometimes progress is a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing and that we might need to try a few options before finding the winning formula. Nuclear was a missed opportunity, for sure, and I support efforts to re-establish it as a long-term power source, but to chalk up and dismiss the entire movement for sustainability or nuclear alternatives as "doomerism" is just mind-killing, culture war nonsense. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in technology: there's just the tool, it's capabilities, and its costs. Sometimes the cost-benefit analysis is done poorly, sometimes it's not. Sometimes people agree on the costs and benefits, sometimes they do not. In any of these cases nobody is served by adding all this manifest destiny stuff on top of it, it only muddies the waters for people who actually have do the work of achieving technological progress. > Today we have the lowest percent of humanity living in poverty ever I'm excessively familiar with this point, it's the only actual empirical thing I seem to be able to find in all this e/acc discussion. Nevermind that this outcome is a product of the balanced and cautious tech development that has predominated throughout human history, what is the actual, concrete, actionable point here? That allowing VC money to do whatever it wants is going to accelerate this trend of progress? That worries about GHG emissions or concern that monocropping will lead to fragile foodsystems are somehow part of a "death cult"? Yes, humanity has made progress in history. Yes, much of this comes from technological and scientific development (as well as managerial, political, artistic, ethical, et.), but trying to extrapolate this one (very broad) observation into specific and practical recommendations for how to run a nationstate and economy I see lots of gaps that are filled in by speculation and (yes) political biases. Here's what I believe: let's fund the sciences, let's make higher education accessible, let's share the bounty of our technological progress widely, let's make it easy for people to use their time contributing to genuine inquiry, rather than the bottom-line of a stock portfolio. If this is what you have in mind when you say "promote technological progress" then I'm 100% on-board, and we can move on to discussing how best to achieve these. But if you want to take the observation that we are no longer hunter-gatherers, and extrapolate it into the ideology that any novel invention anywhere ever is a "net good" and should under no circumstances be questioned or restrained then I'm not really sure what to say. It seems obvious to me that tools should be dealt with as they are, in the context that they operate it, but if you prefer to instead live in the world of myth and narrative that is your prerogative.