4 ms·

It's interesting that you frame the next forty years as something you're mildly optimistic about and beyond that pessemistic (as do I). I wonder if our cognitiv

by panacea 14y ago

It's interesting that you frame the next forty years as something you're mildly optimistic about and beyond that pessemistic (as do I). I wonder if our cognitive dissonance is involved (personally and societally) because we expect to live out a reasonable amount of what's left of our lives ok, but beyond that? We've got some real challenges stacked against us as a species. I personally think they're probably insurmountable, but then I never guessed growing up that I'd be talking to you by tapping on a little glass screen while sitting on my own in my living room.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago
I'm aware of that. The point I'm trying to make isn't really associated with an exact period of 40 years. Looking back on these kinds of discussions, many times people who watched trends and worried about underlying philosophical problems got it right -- but only after decades or perhaps centuries have passed. Usually things come along and all the old folks say it's terrible, all the young folks think it's awesome, and not much is accomplished. Fundamental changes also fit into this pattern, but the problems never show up in any reasonable amount of time for people to remember who gave the warnings. So we forget. I could use a lot of examples, but the arguments against the ratification of the Constitution of the United States come to mind. All of the arguments against the structure were panned as being wild absurd fantasies: that there would be a standing army, that the government would consistently overspend, that the federal government would take more and more control from the states, and so on. They all turned out to be true, but the "winners" of these arguments lost in the short term and weren't around to see how prescient they were. As these trends continue it's the rest of us, many generations later, that have to deal with the problems that were easily foretold at the beginning. So it might not be 40 years. Might be 100. As long as we agree that these predictions are real problems whether they happen next week or in 2200 we can carry the discussion forward.

by panacea 14y ago

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

I'm aware of that. The point I'm trying to make isn't really associated with an exact period of 40 years. Looking back on these kinds of discussions, many times people who watched trends and worried about underlying philosophical problems got it right -- but only after decades or perhaps centuries have passed. Usually things come along and all the old folks say it's terrible, all the young folks think it's awesome, and not much is accomplished. Fundamental changes also fit into this pattern, but the problems never show up in any reasonable amount of time for people to remember who gave the warnings. So we forget. I could use a lot of examples, but the arguments against the ratification of the Constitution of the United States come to mind. All of the arguments against the structure were panned as being wild absurd fantasies: that there would be a standing army, that the government would consistently overspend, that the federal government would take more and more control from the states, and so on. They all turned out to be true, but the "winners" of these arguments lost in the short term and weren't around to see how prescient they were. As these trends continue it's the rest of us, many generations later, that have to deal with the problems that were easily foretold at the beginning. So it might not be 40 years. Might be 100. As long as we agree that these predictions are real problems whether they happen next week or in 2200 we can carry the discussion forward.