If you look at the whole discourse about the future of the environment about the subject during the last 40 years, same is true.If you look back at this thread, you will see places where it departed from wisdom and sanity, and not much can be done about that. — unenlightened
Yes, I read your post in it's entirety. You presented a problem. I'm waiting to see if you are interested enough in this problem to try to address it yourself. You're under no obligation to do so, but should you choose not to, I'm not interested in discussing this further with you. — Jake
The fact is that proclaiming imminent doom and an oncoming eco-catastrophy sells in the media and is totally accepted and basically encouraged as to "get people to notice the problems and active". In 1970 George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University had predicted that “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — ssu
Karl seems to feel that the human guidance system for the global technological machine can be successfully updated by some vague method that he can't seem to articulate beyond repeating "science as truth". Such vagueness seems acceptable to Karl, so he is up for full speed ahead on further construction of the global technological machine. — Jake
But to say that civilization will end in 15 or 30 years? Really? Just a prediction error on timing? That was nearly 50 years ago, actually. (And do note the timetable, you don't get publicity for estimates about 50 to 100 years or more, it has to be something now, immediately.)To make an error of prediction is not a departure from wisdom and sanity. We understand that prediction is prone to error. An error of 50 years in the timing of a catastrophe is important to those of us who will be safely dead in 50 years, but otherwise trivial. — unenlightened
It's not a problem, it's a correction. There is no type of person, discipline, organization, or government that can reliably take a parental role for the human race. You're wrong to claim that there is and your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact is both intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, pathetic. — praxis
Reading through this thread it is clear that what you utterly fail to see is that "the global technological machine" cannot be slowed — Janus
...to repeating a mantra of irrelevant anti-intellectualist dogma. — Janus
But to say that civilization will end in 15 or 30 years? Really? — ssu
you might think the end is near. — ssu
There is no type of person, discipline, organization, or government that can reliably take a parental role for the human race. You're wrong to claim that there is.... — praxis
What's "anti-intellectualist" is clinging stubbornly to a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which was valid in the 19th century and earlier, but which has been made obsolete in our time.
People of your persuasion (most of the culture) aren't being intellectual or forward leaning, you are instead stuck in the past. The group consensus is unable or unwilling to adapt to the reality of the modern era, which illustrates my point of why we need to slow down. — Jake
Who is "clinging" to a "more is better relationship with knowledge"? — Janus
It's not a matter of "clinging"; when it comes to managing the environment, the economy and the body politic, more practicable knowledge obviously is better. — Janus
But the increase of knowledge is not the problem, it is rather the reverse; the increase in technological capability is not paralleled by an increase in the appropriate knowledge required to manage it. — Janus
But the point is that modern civilization is like a racing train; no one knows how to stop it, and everyone is afraid to alight since it never stops, and we fear we would come to grief if we jump off. — Janus
The train is, under one perspective, driven by greed and desire for power of a few, but it is also driven by everyone's aspirations to live more prosperous and comfortable lives, with all the benefits of medical technologies, entertainment and cultural riches that come with it, — Janus
If it be acknowledged that we cannot simply stop the train or even deliberately slow it down, then obviously the best strategy would seem to be to intelligently redirect it as much as the circumstances allow. — Janus
Right, if we had some credible plan for accelerating the abilities of the "governing mechanism" of human maturity, judgment and sanity etc to match the accelerating growth of technological power then this would be a very different conversation. — Jake
What you're not getting is that there is a limit to human ability, — Jake
Yes, true, no one knows how to slow down the racing train, because we adamantly refuse to try to learn this new skill. — Jake
We will successfully direct much or most of technological development, but as the scale of powers grows that's simply no longer enough. Example, one bad day with nuclear weapons and it's game over, no matter how many brilliant benefits are being delivered elsewhere. — Jake
In the past when the scale of powers was modest, we could afford to make mistakes. — Jake
Well, the recipe for that is simple: education, the accepatnce of what science tells us about the natural world and the elimination of dogma and ideology from the curriculum for a start. What else could work? — Janus
It is arguable that "species extinction, nuclear weapons, climate change each a threat to the existence of the human species" come form a combination of clinging to outworn dogmas and ignorance or rejection of what the science tells us. — Janus
Sure, but the point is that the shift to alternative sustainable technologies will inevitably slow down the train. — Janus
This is nothing more than unjustified alarmism. Alarmism is never going to be helpful, if only because most people cannot stomach it. — Janus
The persistence of nuclear weapons is on account of neurotic nationaistic ideologies and cultural paranoias. It is lack of education and the alarmism that results that has caused, and sustains, the problem of nuclear weapons in the first place. — Janus
People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge... — praxis
We no longer live in that era, but instead now live in an era characterized by a knowledge explosion. Assumptions that were valid in one era do not automatically remain valid in a radically different era.
You will rightly point to all the benefits which come with more knowledge, which I don't dispute at all. But that's only part of the story. More knowledge, power and benefits comes with a price tag. More knowledge, power and benefits also accrue to those who wish us harm, and to those who haven't fully thought through the new technologies. — Jake
People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge...
— praxis
True, but knowledge is the source of the powers that we abuse. — Jake
At the least we might test ourselves before proceeding to see if we are ready for more power. Can we get rid of nuclear weapons? — Jake
And they can't figure out how to design any technology that would make nuclear weapons obsolete. — Jake
I'm not demonizing scientists here, who I see as smart people with generally good intentions. The point is instead that even those people who best fit your prescription aren't up to the job. — Jake
Um, it was science that invented species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. And it is science culture that is leading the charge in clinging to the outdated "more is better" dogma. What science tells us is to keep on rushing ahead in a reckless pell mell fashion without any real idea of where that takes us, willfully ignoring the real world fact that it was this very process which has given us species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. No offense, by like Karl and most of our culture, you appear to have bought in to the science religion. — Jake
What I see is that if we obtained free clean energy the economy would take off like a rocket, which would accelerate the depletion of finite resources, species extinction, human population growth, the further expansion of mega-cities, further invasion of the Amazon etc. — Jake
We understand that prediction is prone to error. An error of 50 years in the timing of a catastrophe is important to those of us who will be safely dead in 50 years, but otherwise trivial. — unenlightened
Karl seems to feel that the human guidance system for the global technological machine can be successfully updated by some vague method that he can't seem to articulate beyond repeating "science as truth". Such vagueness seems acceptable to Karl, so he is up for full speed ahead on further construction of the global technological machine.
— Jake
Reading through this thread it is clear that what you utterly fail to see is that "the global technological machine" cannot be slowed (except by dire circumstances beyond human control of course), and so karl stone is right to propose that the only hope for humanity's future lies in technological redirection to more sustainable technologies. — Janus
As I pointed out, it would require an immodest amount of power, to put it mildly, in order to regulate all scientific research and technology across the globe. You'd need some pretty big guns to force your policies on every nation in the world, as well as some kind of advanced surveillance system like a powerful AGI. — praxis
It's entirely central to my plan that political and capitalist economic interests see the advantages in this approach - and adopt it voluntarily. There are vast potential benefits unlocked by recognizing the relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. i.e. knowing what's true and doing what's right - and it's important they do not feel it's a threat to the bottom line - else it just won't happen. — karl stone
I need to point out that capitalist economic interests do not equate to vast benefits. For us peasants, we float on the economic tide, and go up when the economy grows, and down when it contracts. But well managed capital prospers from downturns even more than from booms. When you can't pay the mortgage, someone else gets a cash bargain. So capitalists see advantages in conflict, war, and catastrophe, and not so much in stability, which explains why they should not be left in charge of things. — unenlightened
The continuing existence and/ or proliferation of nuclear weapons is not the result of a lack of ability of scientists to figure out alternative technologies. Scientists can only research what the political economies within which they work enable them to. — Janus
I could not disagree more without swearing! — karl stone
Let me spell it out for you with a purely hypothetical example. I am a property developer called Grump, and you are a humble bricky. When times are good, I pay you well to build houses for me, and then lend you and your mates the money to buy one each. Times are good, so the value of the houses is high - everyone wants to own their own home. I pay your wages, and you pay me the mortgage, and everyone is happy. Then there is a downturn. I stop building houses, so you lose your job, and cannot pay your mortgage, and nor can your mates. You all have to sell up. Unfortunately (for you) no one is buying at the moment, and the value of the houses has gone down. They all go to auction, and I end up buying them at a very low price. Now I have the houses, the profit from selling high and buying low, and you still owe me the difference, plus you have to pay me rent. But don't worry, there are good times coming, and we can do it all again, because now I have even more money and I need to put it to work, and that means employing you again. I understand that this makes you angry, I understand that you don't want to believe it works this way, but wise up dude, it does. — unenlightened
I agree with this, but I do not understand what you think might be done about it. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.