vacuity

34 ms·

481.
by vacuity 2y ago
> My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics. After which you take it as given that humans come first even metaethically? You can't from-first-principles your way around it; even your metaethi
482.
by vacuity 2y ago
So are you saying that when random billionaire #38 puts in $5 million to space ventures, they're willing to also give $5 million to the environment? Although just throwing money at the environmental issues is a lot less effective than
483.
by vacuity 2y ago
To 3, I'll vaguely say "like how we are wrecking the Earth". To 1 and 2, I think you have a far more optimistic view of the technical and social aspects of this issue than I do. Dangerously so. Enough people look at Musk and
484.
by vacuity 2y ago
> But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space. That "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd. One of the bigger, more cohesive biases on Hac
485.
by vacuity 2y ago
> in no way hampers or restricts Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources
486.
by vacuity 2y ago
> Conquest means conquering. I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could
487.
by vacuity 2y ago
My belief is that many people will think "Oh good! A safe harbor where we can fix our mistakes!" My problems with this: 1) Is everyone going to Mars in a reasonable time frame, or are people going to be left behind? Permanently? 2
488.
by vacuity 2y ago
Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest
489.
by vacuity 2y ago
That makes a lot of sense. I acknowledge there is an asymmetry that favors Moon development. I think "while cute to debate philosophically" is itself an amusing stance, given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethicall
490.
by vacuity 2y ago
I invoked MLK Jr. in pointing to problems on Earth, including pollution, as an example of how we are not serving "humanity" in MLK Jr.'s spirit. I think your technology advancement argument is far-fetched, even though I ackno
491.
by vacuity 2y ago
I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.
492.
by vacuity 2y ago
Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed
493.
by vacuity 2y ago
> Air pollution accounted for 8.1 million deaths globally in 2021 [0] > In 2019, air pollution caused about 6.7 million deaths. Of these, almost 85% are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including ischemic heart disease
494.
by vacuity 2y ago
I think the author agrees on valuing agency, seeing as they call for agreement rather than forcing it on everyone. Unless you suppose that a populace and legislature can agree, but, say, a newborn in that territory has not given agreement.
495.
by vacuity 2y ago
Is it an act of hatred to say that humans shouldn't expend huge amounts of effort and energy to try to populate Mars so that humans can escape the very human act of polluting the Earth? When this human pollution kills millions a year a
496.
by vacuity 2y ago
We haven't remotely tried alternatives, and the main arguments for retaining factory farming seem to be "I'm entitled to eat meat because I like it and pay for it" and perhaps "there are too many moving parts to jus
497.
by vacuity 2y ago
It fits in with the notion of not doing harm unless necessary, since it's usually easy to determine when someone is or could be harmed/suffering.
498.
by vacuity 2y ago
Absolutely they would. It's soooo easy to lose sleep, and unfortunately getting it back isn't really a thing, not unless you want to use up more time. I guess we need to keep reducing the need for sleep until it's short enoug
499.
by vacuity 2y ago
The practice of the scientific method is the path to empirical truth. This doesn't necessarily mean that a nominal scientific finding is true. It is likely true that, on a given topic, an acredited scientist in that field has fairly co
500.
by vacuity 2y ago
Then you need to have editors specify which features they support and create common standards to make sure that two editors that support the same feature can actually understand each others' encodings of it. It's unfortunately too
501.
by vacuity 2y ago
Sleep deprivation affects many different things, some of which are salvageable with stimulants like caffeine, and certain functions are fairly unaffected. Exams that can be solved mostly with rote memorization are less impacted by sleep dep
502.
by vacuity 2y ago
So I get the sense that we can be considered part of nature, and however much or little influence we exert is a part of the overall system. It can balance to an extent with our presence and will do so without it.
503.
by vacuity 2y ago
I think the delivery might be sensational but I agree with the sentiment. Especially since you acknowledge that it isn't purely harmful. Normally I don't watch short form video but occasionally I do and I do feel it's a somew
504.
by vacuity 2y ago
It's basically constant that many people will fearmonger and some will embrace new technology. I think this is basically independent of the actual merits and drawbacks of the given technology. Regardless of these strange asymptotes, I
505.
by vacuity 2y ago
Perhaps the author doesn't make the case well, but the implication is that reading print primes the mind in a way that presents better emotional and intellectual consumption of the content.
506.
by vacuity 2y ago
I think the Internet medium is sufficiently different from past advancements that such analogies don't work. It's not necessarily that the Internet brings fundamentally different capabilities, perhaps we can reason about how its n
507.
by vacuity 2y ago
> Or, when tech is in the hands of everyone and they excessively question those in authority…? At least today, that doesn't actually happen. The sense of authority has just shifted from "nebulous leader figures" to (implic
508.
by vacuity 2y ago
I think the author would say that certain forms of content, like blogs, can be useful. I don't think they're completely eschewing digital reading, but instead pushing for far more print reading than is common now. The two aren&#x2
509.
by vacuity 2y ago
I envision that meme of having large bookshelves filled with books, something I could show off to friends as a proof that there is still plenty to be found in books, that I've found valuable in books. That on some days I might take the
510.
by vacuity 2y ago
It has the tone you describe, but I think letting that lead you to avoid both sides as problematic is premature. Melodramatic rant doesn't mean wrong, and if the author is even just half right, there are things we as a community should

More ›