3 ms·

Dealing with very complex and large systems is hard, probably harder than our knowledge will be capable of this century, even if we keep accelerating. That is

Dealing with very complex and large systems is hard, probably harder than our knowledge will be capable of this century, even if we keep accelerating. That is the world system, climate, life, cycles, feedback loops, and many other things that we probably are not aware yet (just check the number of recent discoveries to have a hint) as a very complex and interrelated system. Trying to have an "engineering" there and not just messing with it to see what happens is beyond our capabilities. And our side of messing with it so far has not been preservation or austerity or whatever, just is making profits, and avoid putting a finger on that. Then you have the human system, that is also complex, interrelated and fragile in ways that the many big powers that mess with it doesn't understand. That is not something that you can control in a directed way neither. So you have an accelerating car, a cliff, and a lot of inertia you are not trying to register, and a lot of fragile things inside packed in unsafe ways. No matter the damage that does to start to stop right now, it won't be anything similar to what it will cause to crash, or to try to manoeuvre desperately when you are close enough. With all the consequences on a very complex system that something as dramatic will cause (that, as complex is it, can't be put a safe upper bound) But somewhat you suggest that we keep accelerating that surely that cliff can be jumped over because we will be so fast that we will be flying, or it is not so deep and we will keep going safely on the other side. Is a nice bet for a basically suicidal individual, but not for a civilization with a lot of people that want to have a meaning for their life.

boxed 3y ago
> Trying to have an "engineering" there and not just messing with it to see what happens is beyond our capabilities. That's what we're doing with the CO2 emissions though. So it's not beyond us, we just do it badly.
jodrellblank 3y ago
But do you have a better idea? If you want meaning for people’s lives that rules out mass death and dictator demanded planet-wide austerity and reduction in lifestyle down to subsistence - even if anyone could enforce that, which is something people would go to war to defend themselves against. If you individually choose to consume less and own less that’s not enough to make a difference. Has there ever been a time in history where the world has deliberately returned to an earlier state in a positive and successful way (not war or disease setbacks) to model such a thing on, and in a way more planned than your “messing with it to see what happens”? If we don’t pursue the same as we have now but less damaging and trying to reverse the damage, what else could we do that’s possible and not awful?
- gmuslera 3y ago
  We are wired to try to solve by addition, not by subtraction, for a complex system that we destabilized by adding something, adding even more things is the road to even more destabilization and emergent (usually very destructive) behaviours. That is a useful heuristic on how to deal with things we don't understand fully, it won't go back to the old normal, but have better odds to not worsen a lot things by our new actions. So, to keep pressing the pedal till somewhat, magically, it solves itself is probably the wrong approach. Maybe there is no right approach, maybe there is no solution if you factor not just the planet but the human system that made things this way and keep worsening it. But even as token measure try to move in the right direction is more meaningful than doing it in the wrong one, you are not isolated, more people may follow what you do in either direction. And about the cost/damage of trying the "right" approach in the short term, it probably will be far cheaper than taking the wrong one in a bit longer term. Not caring about the long term is to make sure to have a near enough time limit, essentially a suicidal approach.

boxed 3y ago

> Trying to have an "engineering" there and not just messing with it to see what happens is beyond our capabilities. That's what we're doing with the CO2 emissions though. So it's not beyond us, we just do it badly.

jodrellblank 3y ago

But do you have a better idea? If you want meaning for people’s lives that rules out mass death and dictator demanded planet-wide austerity and reduction in lifestyle down to subsistence - even if anyone could enforce that, which is something people would go to war to defend themselves against. If you individually choose to consume less and own less that’s not enough to make a difference. Has there ever been a time in history where the world has deliberately returned to an earlier state in a positive and successful way (not war or disease setbacks) to model such a thing on, and in a way more planned than your “messing with it to see what happens”? If we don’t pursue the same as we have now but less damaging and trying to reverse the damage, what else could we do that’s possible and not awful?

gmuslera 3y ago
We are wired to try to solve by addition, not by subtraction, for a complex system that we destabilized by adding something, adding even more things is the road to even more destabilization and emergent (usually very destructive) behaviours. That is a useful heuristic on how to deal with things we don't understand fully, it won't go back to the old normal, but have better odds to not worsen a lot things by our new actions. So, to keep pressing the pedal till somewhat, magically, it solves itself is probably the wrong approach. Maybe there is no right approach, maybe there is no solution if you factor not just the planet but the human system that made things this way and keep worsening it. But even as token measure try to move in the right direction is more meaningful than doing it in the wrong one, you are not isolated, more people may follow what you do in either direction. And about the cost/damage of trying the "right" approach in the short term, it probably will be far cheaper than taking the wrong one in a bit longer term. Not caring about the long term is to make sure to have a near enough time limit, essentially a suicidal approach.