4 ms·

i dig this. the author laments the hubris and arrogance present in all societies, as if these exaggerations were bugs, and not features. the arrogance of the

i dig this. the author laments the hubris and arrogance present in all societies, as if these exaggerations were bugs, and not features. the arrogance of the leaders and the peddling of hope are there because we are all afraid, and nobody wants to admit it. he talks about the chasm of human reality and how you get burned if you get closed to it, and i agree - it makes sense. i came out burned. i was mad at the world for a while and wanted to tear the whole thing down, but i went back for a closer look because i figured there must have been something i'm missing. there is beauty at the bottom of it, and we can get through it. there is still new land to be explored - we just can't get there by walking or sailing. the ENTIRE GALAXY awaits us if we can just get off this damned rock. let's peddle all the hope we need and beat our chests all day long; let's spread the gospel to heathen civilizations on other planets if that's what it takes for us to move out of this place and into another one. maybe we're just delaying the inevitable and the end of the galactic civilization will be that much more spectacular when it comes, but it's not as if we can go back in time to change all the "best guesses" our world was built on and the gentle lies that sustain it. we are now heathens living on easter island. we know our civilization is built on a lie. we can either stop telling that lie and kill each other out of anger over mistakes our ancestors made doing the best they could, or we could all keep telling the lie, keep playing our assigned parts with a wink and a nod, and put fewer resources into enforcing what everybody knows is a sham story, and devote all our efforts into finding the new land we think might be out there over the great waters. the only way through is forward. the only way out is up.

kposehn 13y ago
> the only way through is forward. the only way out is up. And that is going in the quote archive. Nice :)
- jweir 13y ago
  That's great if you haven't made any mistakes. In the maze of reality you may make a wrong turn. If so, admit you are wrong, and take a new or old course.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
This reminds me of the question of are we some of the last humans to exist (species ends on earth) or some of the first (great golden galactic future) Either way we won't ever find out - so how we behave is really a matter of faith - not in God but in our descendants ability to keep going up. I'm voting for optimisim :-)
minimize_me 13y ago
"We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always t..." /watch?v=zGmfiKowrYU
harshreality 13y ago
The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. Encouraging the onward march mindlessly is not helpful. There has to be some self-reflection and reevaluation of current strategies on how to get to the next technological age, if we are to get there without: nuclear holocaust; human-made plague; trashing our planet so badly we can no longer eat or drink; using up the resources needed for computers and therefore causing computer infrastructure to stagnate and decay just when we need it to run an AI; using up all our hydrocarbon energy reserves and running out of energy that we need to keep up the onward march... There are many pitfalls that might cause this march into the future to end abruptly and miserably, even if the goal of a new technological era is physically and strategically possible given our current resource constraints. We would do well to avoid falling into a pit along the way, and a social dialogue about possible pitfalls is a necessary part of that.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. But this itself has a long-term cost in terms of both consumption and complexity. Put another way, you can't solve the environmental problems, really, if you demand that consumption continues to rise exponentially over time. What I think we are actually being sold with the green energy agenda is a way to continue to grow consumption because this is important to macroeconomists. The problem though is that this leads to permamently debt-ridden, destitute workers robbed of social context in order to make the wealthy even more rich. The environmental damage could be contained by taxes to reduce consumption but that has very significant implications for our way of life. Reducing consumption though is the only way out.
- invalidOrTaken 13y ago
  One barrier is that there are collective action problems all over the friggin' place. If it's profitable to pollute, and Company A does while Company B does not, Company A will prevail. Okay, well, this is what we have governments for. Polluting is outlawed, and both companies are prevented from defecting. But there's more than one country in the world. And clean industry is expensive. So if country A pollutes, and country B doesn't... My point is that it's not enough to just "decide" to tone it down, because societies that don't (although they carry the seeds of their own destruction) will dominate ones that do.

kposehn 13y ago

> the only way through is forward. the only way out is up. And that is going in the quote archive. Nice :)

jweir 13y ago
That's great if you haven't made any mistakes. In the maze of reality you may make a wrong turn. If so, admit you are wrong, and take a new or old course.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

This reminds me of the question of are we some of the last humans to exist (species ends on earth) or some of the first (great golden galactic future) Either way we won't ever find out - so how we behave is really a matter of faith - not in God but in our descendants ability to keep going up. I'm voting for optimisim :-)

minimize_me 13y ago

"We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always t..." /watch?v=zGmfiKowrYU

harshreality 13y ago

The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. Encouraging the onward march mindlessly is not helpful. There has to be some self-reflection and reevaluation of current strategies on how to get to the next technological age, if we are to get there without: nuclear holocaust; human-made plague; trashing our planet so badly we can no longer eat or drink; using up the resources needed for computers and therefore causing computer infrastructure to stagnate and decay just when we need it to run an AI; using up all our hydrocarbon energy reserves and running out of energy that we need to keep up the onward march... There are many pitfalls that might cause this march into the future to end abruptly and miserably, even if the goal of a new technological era is physically and strategically possible given our current resource constraints. We would do well to avoid falling into a pit along the way, and a social dialogue about possible pitfalls is a necessary part of that.

einhverfr 13y ago
> The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. But this itself has a long-term cost in terms of both consumption and complexity. Put another way, you can't solve the environmental problems, really, if you demand that consumption continues to rise exponentially over time. What I think we are actually being sold with the green energy agenda is a way to continue to grow consumption because this is important to macroeconomists. The problem though is that this leads to permamently debt-ridden, destitute workers robbed of social context in order to make the wealthy even more rich. The environmental damage could be contained by taxes to reduce consumption but that has very significant implications for our way of life. Reducing consumption though is the only way out.
invalidOrTaken 13y ago
One barrier is that there are collective action problems all over the friggin' place. If it's profitable to pollute, and Company A does while Company B does not, Company A will prevail. Okay, well, this is what we have governments for. Polluting is outlawed, and both companies are prevented from defecting. But there's more than one country in the world. And clean industry is expensive. So if country A pollutes, and country B doesn't... My point is that it's not enough to just "decide" to tone it down, because societies that don't (although they carry the seeds of their own destruction) will dominate ones that do.