3 ms·

> how to predict the 3-dimensional structure of a protein from the sequence of amino acids making up that protein Keep in mind that proteins and deducing the s

> how to predict the 3-dimensional structure of a protein from the sequence of amino acids making up that protein Keep in mind that proteins and deducing the structure of them (which in turn would help deduce their function) may not be a good thing. Proteins can also be poisons, prions, etc. But beyond that, we should not have such easy to access knowledge. It's just too much power for our current greedy, short-term thinking.

JackFr 3y ago
Chipping flints into sharpened edges may not be a good thing. Sharpened flints can also be stone axes, spear heads, etc. But beyond that, we should not have such easy to access cutting technology. It’s just too much power for our current greedy, short-term thinking.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Glib analogy, but there's got to be a limit to everything. Beyond resorting to superficial analogies, we should give serious thought into what level of technology is simply too much. Moreover, I actually agree with you in some ways, even though you meant to be sarcastic. Modern cutting technology, which certainly should include deep-well oil drilling, IS too much. In fact, all technology has a limit beyond which we should not go. We just have to apply deep thinking to figure out what it is, or at least do our best to try. You
  - _factor 3y ago
    You’re more likely to get cut with a dull knife. It can cause it to slip. Technology is fine. It’s this artificial cookie-cutter society we’re forcing on everyone. We have a mental health and education problem. The tech isn’t the issue, it’s the people who feel the need to use it for negative purposes. Limiting tech is just a bandaid.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      People will always use technology for negative purposes as long as it can help them get ahead in the short term and they aren't held accountable for the long-term consequences. Technology is not fine. Not all of it is bad, but to say all of it is fine makes no sense. Yes, we have a mental and health education problem, but it's reasonable to have rules for all societies. Limiting technology that makes getting ahead too easy makes sense because even in the most utopian and good societies, if gaining something is TOO EASY, then it WILL be taken. It's much too simplistic to frame technology as fine. If all technology is fine, perhaps every corner store should sell automatic weapons? Can you imagine a society, ANY society, in which this makes sense?
      - signatoremo 3y ago
        Technology is never a problem. Automatic weapons can also be used in defense. Someone with a knife wouldn’t be able to confront a mass killer with a rifle. You are talking about mental problem. Do you know what have contributed to mental problem ever since the existence of human being? Isolation and loneliness, which technologies such as telephone, email and yes, social network can help with. Name any technology that should be banned, and I can give you a reason why it should be not.
    - jabradoodle 3y ago
      Nowhere did OP suggest limiting tech, they suggested we are not ready to handle the powers we are gaining responsibily. Your point seems in agreement with this to a degree. More importantly, you claim it to be a mental health/education issue; yet you can't show me a period of human history without wars and power struggles.
  - JackFr 3y ago
    I was being sarcastic, I don’t think I was necessarily being glib. I suppose the deeper point I was trying to make was that “this time is different/special” is shallow thinking, as is believing that the real issue is with our “current greedy short term thinking”. The real issue is the human condition, which remains largely as it has throughout our history. We need to choose a way to live knowing we will die, and then live that way.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      This time is different....highest CO2 level in 800,000 years, highest human population ever. Seems like a bit of uniqueness there.
  - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
    Cars can be used to ram people. But most people simply dont want to do that. What is different about cars and new tech is that new tech comes with the ability to track and monitor all users. So historically we didnt mind if one in ten million people wanted to ram people with their truck on purpose. But now the power to monitor everyone all the time to prevent these "one in ten million" crimes exists. Its up to you to decide if the trade off is worth it.
  - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
    I want to become a von neumann probe, fill the universe with my offspring and go to war. Until tech can do that it hasnt gone far enough.
johngossman 3y ago
How do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about medical advances that reduced infant mortality from more than 20% in the 19th century to less than 1%? How about the elimination of smallpox or how fertilizer and other agricultural technologies have eliminated most famines. Now how about possible cures for cancer or alzheimer’s? You need a much more nuanced answer than “we should not have such easy access to knowledge.”
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  > How do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about medical advances that reduced infant mortality from more than 20% in the 19th century to less than 1%? How about the elimination of smallpox or how fertilizer and other agricultural technologies have eliminated most famines. Now how about possible cures for cancer or alzheimer’s? Like everything else, it's only good up to a point! - I believe in basic medical care, but medical technology that permits immortality is bad. - Likewise, is reducing mortality always good? Now we have extreme overpopulation. In short, reducing OUR mortality has also INCREASED the mortality of non-human animals, which I believe have just as much right to live as us. - Fertilizer and agriculture? Most industrial fertilizer poisons the land and agriculture has eliminated millions of acres of wild forest and destroyed a lot of ecosystem. Agriculture is also responsible for the huge population growth that is causing global warming. - Cure for cancer? Maybe good, maybe bad IF that cure results in significantly extended lifetimes due to how it works. I do have MANY more nuanced answers. That is why I believe in looking at each of your points AND others individually. My answer was specifically directed at AI, which I believe to be universally bad. Most of the technologies you listed have significant negative consequences, and it's not clear to me that those are outweighed by the positives, especially if our modern society results in the destruction of the phytoplankton of the ocean producing half our oxygen. I suspect in the long term, it would be better to have more mortality, smaller populations, and less technology than our current world. It's not a popular view because people are emotional about such things, but it's hard to imagine how a world with 8+billion and mass eco-destruction to be better IN THE LONG TERM.
  - BrainBacon 3y ago
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertions on mortality. Global population growth is slowing and is set to peak in the 2060s and will decline afterwards. We're more at risk of not having enough hands to take care of an aging population. An educated populace has fewer children and many countries are already feeling the strain of being below the replacement rate.

JackFr 3y ago

Chipping flints into sharpened edges may not be a good thing. Sharpened flints can also be stone axes, spear heads, etc. But beyond that, we should not have such easy to access cutting technology. It’s just too much power for our current greedy, short-term thinking.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Glib analogy, but there's got to be a limit to everything. Beyond resorting to superficial analogies, we should give serious thought into what level of technology is simply too much. Moreover, I actually agree with you in some ways, even though you meant to be sarcastic. Modern cutting technology, which certainly should include deep-well oil drilling, IS too much. In fact, all technology has a limit beyond which we should not go. We just have to apply deep thinking to figure out what it is, or at least do our best to try. You
- _factor 3y ago
  You’re more likely to get cut with a dull knife. It can cause it to slip. Technology is fine. It’s this artificial cookie-cutter society we’re forcing on everyone. We have a mental health and education problem. The tech isn’t the issue, it’s the people who feel the need to use it for negative purposes. Limiting tech is just a bandaid.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    People will always use technology for negative purposes as long as it can help them get ahead in the short term and they aren't held accountable for the long-term consequences. Technology is not fine. Not all of it is bad, but to say all of it is fine makes no sense. Yes, we have a mental and health education problem, but it's reasonable to have rules for all societies. Limiting technology that makes getting ahead too easy makes sense because even in the most utopian and good societies, if gaining something is TOO EASY, then it WILL be taken. It's much too simplistic to frame technology as fine. If all technology is fine, perhaps every corner store should sell automatic weapons? Can you imagine a society, ANY society, in which this makes sense?
    - signatoremo 3y ago
      Technology is never a problem. Automatic weapons can also be used in defense. Someone with a knife wouldn’t be able to confront a mass killer with a rifle. You are talking about mental problem. Do you know what have contributed to mental problem ever since the existence of human being? Isolation and loneliness, which technologies such as telephone, email and yes, social network can help with. Name any technology that should be banned, and I can give you a reason why it should be not.
  - jabradoodle 3y ago
    Nowhere did OP suggest limiting tech, they suggested we are not ready to handle the powers we are gaining responsibily. Your point seems in agreement with this to a degree. More importantly, you claim it to be a mental health/education issue; yet you can't show me a period of human history without wars and power struggles.
- JackFr 3y ago
  I was being sarcastic, I don’t think I was necessarily being glib. I suppose the deeper point I was trying to make was that “this time is different/special” is shallow thinking, as is believing that the real issue is with our “current greedy short term thinking”. The real issue is the human condition, which remains largely as it has throughout our history. We need to choose a way to live knowing we will die, and then live that way.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    This time is different....highest CO2 level in 800,000 years, highest human population ever. Seems like a bit of uniqueness there.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
  Cars can be used to ram people. But most people simply dont want to do that. What is different about cars and new tech is that new tech comes with the ability to track and monitor all users. So historically we didnt mind if one in ten million people wanted to ram people with their truck on purpose. But now the power to monitor everyone all the time to prevent these "one in ten million" crimes exists. Its up to you to decide if the trade off is worth it.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
  I want to become a von neumann probe, fill the universe with my offspring and go to war. Until tech can do that it hasnt gone far enough.

johngossman 3y ago

How do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about medical advances that reduced infant mortality from more than 20% in the 19th century to less than 1%? How about the elimination of smallpox or how fertilizer and other agricultural technologies have eliminated most famines. Now how about possible cures for cancer or alzheimer’s? You need a much more nuanced answer than “we should not have such easy access to knowledge.”

vouaobrasil 3y ago
> How do you feel about antibiotics? How do you feel about medical advances that reduced infant mortality from more than 20% in the 19th century to less than 1%? How about the elimination of smallpox or how fertilizer and other agricultural technologies have eliminated most famines. Now how about possible cures for cancer or alzheimer’s? Like everything else, it's only good up to a point! - I believe in basic medical care, but medical technology that permits immortality is bad. - Likewise, is reducing mortality always good? Now we have extreme overpopulation. In short, reducing OUR mortality has also INCREASED the mortality of non-human animals, which I believe have just as much right to live as us. - Fertilizer and agriculture? Most industrial fertilizer poisons the land and agriculture has eliminated millions of acres of wild forest and destroyed a lot of ecosystem. Agriculture is also responsible for the huge population growth that is causing global warming. - Cure for cancer? Maybe good, maybe bad IF that cure results in significantly extended lifetimes due to how it works. I do have MANY more nuanced answers. That is why I believe in looking at each of your points AND others individually. My answer was specifically directed at AI, which I believe to be universally bad. Most of the technologies you listed have significant negative consequences, and it's not clear to me that those are outweighed by the positives, especially if our modern society results in the destruction of the phytoplankton of the ocean producing half our oxygen. I suspect in the long term, it would be better to have more mortality, smaller populations, and less technology than our current world. It's not a popular view because people are emotional about such things, but it's hard to imagine how a world with 8+billion and mass eco-destruction to be better IN THE LONG TERM.
- BrainBacon 3y ago
  I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertions on mortality. Global population growth is slowing and is set to peak in the 2060s and will decline afterwards. We're more at risk of not having enough hands to take care of an aging population. An educated populace has fewer children and many countries are already feeling the strain of being below the replacement rate.