5 ms·

> But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the eart

> But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the earth. Absent a large rock or other large-scale disaster, the rate of species disappearing really does need explanation.

alphapapa 11y ago
What about the other four times? Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt... So I guess the "greenest" solution is to load all of our consciousnesses into computers run on electricity generated by solar panels and wind power. Or maybe just solar power, in space. Surely then humans could be absolved of their guilt for ruining everything.
- ealexhudson 11y ago
  In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
      - alphapapa 11y ago
        What is so bad about it? Are you kidding me? Why don't you talk to some people in China about that, people whose children die and are denied the right to have more. Why don't you think about corrupt, evil governments that want to keep the population a manageable size so they can remain in power and continue exploiting people. I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, we value freedom and the right to self-determination. Trying to control other people--to prevent them from doing normal, natural things like having families--is wrong. There is no shortage of food, nor of living space, on this planet. The problems are getting the food and the people to the right places. The solution to those problems is not to sterilize people--medically or legally--against their will. The only reason to do that is to keep certain people in power so they can continue to exploit everyone else. And that is evil. So that is what is so bad about it.
        blumkvist 11y ago
        Nobody is denying you having a family. Or are you saying that having just 2 children is not having a family? Where I come from? I come from a country where gypsies have 6,7,8,9, more children, sucking welfare checks from the government. They occupy their spare time with laying around, marking retired, defenseless people for robberies and extortion, sending their children to developed countries to pickpocket. They view their children as a resource to exploit in one way or another. And before you make an attempt to defend them, saying that they are in an unfortunate position, I have to inform you that they are very much content with their position and do not want to change it at all. They like their lives the way they are. They think of it like culture. It certainly is one, whether it is worthy of preserving is a wholly other discussion. So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
- anon1385 11y ago
  >Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? When you are presented with any situation in your life it's always possible that you have incomplete information and there is the theoretical possibility of some 'uncomprehendable' factor at work. In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position. It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    > In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position. You are completely misrepresenting my position. I did not say that we should do nothing. What I am saying is that we should not do things that will definitely harm people to try to stop something that 1) we do not know will happen, and 2) we do not know we can affect. If you are advocating doing such things, then that is an anti-civilisation position. > It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces. I have not said anything of the sort. You are misrepresenting me to such an extent that it's simply ridiculous. I have not said in any way that our political or economic systems are good or or well-functioning or do not cause harm. Nor have I said in any way that we should not attempt to understand or interact with the world, nor have I said anything about mystical forces. You have accused me of thinking and saying these things in several comments now. It seems a common tactic for one side of these issues to accuse the other of taking "extreme," "anti-science," "mystical" positions. That is simply dishonest. And having demonstrated such blatant dishonesty, I don't know why anyone would believe anything else you say. You're effectively trolling, and I won't feed you anymore.
- aangjie 11y ago
  > Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? True possible, but where does that theory lead us? http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_questions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_... Also, http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ .
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    Sorry, I don't consider LW and Yudkowsky to be citable references. Modern-day snake oil salesman selling insurance against technological boogeymen from the future, or indulgences to forgive sins of the past against the AI god of the future, all under a guise of pseudo-rationality.

alphapapa 11y ago

What about the other four times? Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt... So I guess the "greenest" solution is to load all of our consciousnesses into computers run on electricity generated by solar panels and wind power. Or maybe just solar power, in space. Surely then humans could be absolved of their guilt for ruining everything.

ealexhudson 11y ago
In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      What is so bad about it? Are you kidding me? Why don't you talk to some people in China about that, people whose children die and are denied the right to have more. Why don't you think about corrupt, evil governments that want to keep the population a manageable size so they can remain in power and continue exploiting people. I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, we value freedom and the right to self-determination. Trying to control other people--to prevent them from doing normal, natural things like having families--is wrong. There is no shortage of food, nor of living space, on this planet. The problems are getting the food and the people to the right places. The solution to those problems is not to sterilize people--medically or legally--against their will. The only reason to do that is to keep certain people in power so they can continue to exploit everyone else. And that is evil. So that is what is so bad about it.
      - blumkvist 11y ago
        Nobody is denying you having a family. Or are you saying that having just 2 children is not having a family? Where I come from? I come from a country where gypsies have 6,7,8,9, more children, sucking welfare checks from the government. They occupy their spare time with laying around, marking retired, defenseless people for robberies and extortion, sending their children to developed countries to pickpocket. They view their children as a resource to exploit in one way or another. And before you make an attempt to defend them, saying that they are in an unfortunate position, I have to inform you that they are very much content with their position and do not want to change it at all. They like their lives the way they are. They think of it like culture. It certainly is one, whether it is worthy of preserving is a wholly other discussion. So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
anon1385 11y ago
>Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? When you are presented with any situation in your life it's always possible that you have incomplete information and there is the theoretical possibility of some 'uncomprehendable' factor at work. In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position. It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  > In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position. You are completely misrepresenting my position. I did not say that we should do nothing. What I am saying is that we should not do things that will definitely harm people to try to stop something that 1) we do not know will happen, and 2) we do not know we can affect. If you are advocating doing such things, then that is an anti-civilisation position. > It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces. I have not said anything of the sort. You are misrepresenting me to such an extent that it's simply ridiculous. I have not said in any way that our political or economic systems are good or or well-functioning or do not cause harm. Nor have I said in any way that we should not attempt to understand or interact with the world, nor have I said anything about mystical forces. You have accused me of thinking and saying these things in several comments now. It seems a common tactic for one side of these issues to accuse the other of taking "extreme," "anti-science," "mystical" positions. That is simply dishonest. And having demonstrated such blatant dishonesty, I don't know why anyone would believe anything else you say. You're effectively trolling, and I won't feed you anymore.
aangjie 11y ago
> Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? True possible, but where does that theory lead us? http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_questions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_... Also, http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ .
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Sorry, I don't consider LW and Yudkowsky to be citable references. Modern-day snake oil salesman selling insurance against technological boogeymen from the future, or indulgences to forgive sins of the past against the AI god of the future, all under a guise of pseudo-rationality.